Talk:Transcendental Meditation

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 (Pre Feb 2005):
• Archive 2 (Nov 28-30 2005) Disclosing Mantra:
• Archive 3 (Nov 30 2005 -Feb 10 2006)
• Archive 4 (Feb-10th May 28, 2006)
• Archive 5 (May-28th June 25, 2006)

the generic problem with anti-TM activists

Over the course of the last month it has became clear that this article suffers from disruption by several committed anti-TMers. The conclusion has been arrived at by investigating the sources used when inundanting the article with unsubstandiated rumours and other nonsense.

• If a clinical study proving the adverse effects of TM exist - now is the time to present it (no more journalistic BS taken from dedicated anti-TM sites).

• If allegations of fraud about etc are made, back this up with court documents.

As the matter now stands what some editors i.a. claim, that a highly placed laywer in the TM Movement actually contacted the authorities and reported what amounted to criminal activity - where is the police investigation? Where is the trial? Where is the verdict?

In the absence of these, any normal person with some experience of such matters will only conclude that the allegations wasn't even worth the alleged paper this alleged attorney allegedly wrote it on.

I think wikipedia admins need to start taking the phenomenon of underhanded organized subversive activity on this site seriously.

Peterklutz 21:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

"It has become clear..." to whom?

"The conclusion has been arrived at by investigating the sources ..."

Who did this investigation and who did this concluding?

Peterklutz, you really need to begin behaving more rationally. You're talking as if you've been appointed King of Wikipedia. You should know enough of Wiki policies by now to know that an article certainly CAN mention allegations of fraud without "court documents." All that is necessary is to cite reputable published sources that the allegation was made. What's more, I cited a court-filed affadavit which contained those charges. A fact you conveniently ignored.

You need to watch your own conduct. You are pissing off more and more Wiki administrators with your disruptive conduct and increasingly bizarre charges of conspiracies of "organized underhanded subversives." Askolnick 05:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

---

I believe it is time to consider an RFC or other formal action to put a stop to Peterklutz' persistant vandalism of this article. If you agree, please speak up. Askolnick 03:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

---

AFter some investigation, I think you're correct about the lawyer reference. I don't think "alleged" is the proper term to use, but since he left service (I think) at MUM before it was accredited about 1980, and before any peer-reviewed research was published under its auspices, his testimony isn't exactly relevant for anything published in the past 25 years or thereabouts. Any peer-reviewed research published before then wasn't directly from MUM/MIU, as far as I can tell. Perhaps he's referring to the Collected Papers Volume I research, with I certainly will agree includes a lot of, at best, "preliminary" in-house research that isn't worth much.Sparaig 01:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Your are wrong Sparaig. As MUM's legal counsel and director of the university's grants programs, DeNaro was able to speak with authority about the TM movement's fraudulent efforts to portray itself as pursuing science rather than promoting Maharishi's religious agenda. The movement continues today its deceptive use of pseudoscience to hide its religious agenda.Askolnick 05:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is the text of Denaro's affidavit as I found in a newsgroup archive. A typo I noticed a few years ago still leaps out. Others have speculated that he meant to say he left MIU in July 13, 1976. not 1975 since that would make him a Time Lord:

5. On November 21, 1975 I began work as Director of Grants Administration at MIU, and had over-all responsibility for all of the grants and funding programs including World Plan Executive Council- United States (WPEC-US).

I was also legal counsel and reported directly to either Ed Tarabilda, Vice President of Legal Affairs and/or Steve Druker, Executive Vice President. In addition, I had a full time teaching schedule in economics and business law. Prior to coming to MIU I was initiated into the practice of TM.

My wife worked at MIU as an administrator and researcher, and we resided in Frat #108. I continued to work as a professor of law and economics until my last day on campus, July 13, 1975.

Denaro obvious feels that the people at MIU/MUM were pretty awful and that MMY himself is even worse:

23. In his more subtle and very sophisticated way Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and his charlatanism is [sic] a far more destructive and dangerous cult leader than Jim Jones who induced more than 900 people to commit suicide in Guyana.

Regardless of the validity of his claims, the fact that he was there for [say] 18 months in the mid-70's, 5 years before MIU/MUM received accreditation, means that he doesn't have much to say about the research that was published from 1980 on, after the school was accredited. There was very little, if any, peer-reviewed research coming at of MIU/MUM during that time, at least according to pubmed.

Wallace RK, the founding president of MIU, published 3 papers in 1970 and 1971, and nothing more appears in pubmed until 1981. Dillbeck, MC published a paper in 1977, and nothing more until 1981. Orme-Johnson DW published a paper in 1973, and nothing more until 1981.

These were the three principle MIU researchers for many years, I believe, and none of them appears to have published a peer-reviewed paper during the period that Denaro was at MIU/MUM. Orme-Johnson may have done the research for his 1977 paper while Denaro was there, however. It seems very likely that Denaro was complaining (and rightfully so, IMHO) about the sloppiness of much of the early in-house research that often made it into TM brochures from that period. but that stuff was likely often done on a shoestring budget.

Also, David Orme-Johnsonhttp: asserts this:

Replies to Allegations that Maharishi University of Management Suppresses Negative Research: Dennis Roark and Anthony Denaro. Two former faculties of Maharishi International University, Dennis Roark and Anthony Denaro, have made allegations that the university has suppressed negative research results. Neither Dennis nor Tony were involved in the research at MIU, so they are not in a position to be "expert witnesses". I have had various key roles in the research at the university as Director of the International Center for Scientific Research, Chairman of the Psychology Department and Director of its doctoral program, Co-Director of the doctoral program in the Neurophysiology of Consciousness, and Dean of Research. I hardly knew Tony Denaro at all, and several other faculty that I have talked to don't even remember his ever being there. That I didn't know him is significant in this context, because he, being a lawyer, was never involved in the research, so he is hardly in a position to comment on the research process. Even if he had heard second or third hand accounts, I have not heard of any specific instances cited by him to back up his claims, which are untrue.

The comments by Dennis Roark came from a letter cited on an anti-TM website, in which he states that the research at MIU is "fraudulent in many ways”. The only specific instance that he cites is his doubts about EEG research on Yogic Flying. I was senior author on the study and co- author on a subsequent replication of the study, so I am very familiar with the methodology used.

The issue Dennis raised is whether the EEG can be measured during gross body movement because of the artifacts produced by movement. There are many EEG studies of runners, astronauts, etc., where the subject is moving. One approach to dealing with artifacts that many scientists use is to remove them with digital filtering. Another, more conservative approach, which we used, was to eliminate from the date is set epochs with artifacts in them. Figure 4 in the original 1977 paper show a trace of raw EEG data typical of the Yogic Flying session that is without artifact, and the coherence spectral array shows increased EEG coherence at that time. Thus, the coherence effect was not due to artifacts.

Sparaig 08:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, as head of MUM's grants programs, DeNaro IS and expert witness on how the university and the TM movement used (as it continues to do) gross deception to sell their guru's religious teachings as science. We certainly don't expect the people he's accused of fraud to agree with him. Duh! Of course they deny it. But that doesn't make the accusations go away -- especially since similar misconduct has been amply documented -- by me and many other reporters and investigators. Wikipedia is not the place to conduct a "trial." It is sufficient to cite the allegation and the fact that it is disputed by the TM movement.

Nice try at obfuscation. What has Orme-Johnson's attempt to discredit Dennis Roark to do with anything in this article? Roark is not relevant since there's nothing about him in the article! Any more straw man arguments you want to erect to knock down? Askolnick 15:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I just cut and paste the whole comment by Orme-Johnson. Sorry to let it go over the limit of what was relevant. Sparaig 16:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

who is responsible for deciding when to archive a talk page?

Just wondering. Sparaig 21:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Any editor can archive or refactor an article's talk page, it depends on the size of the page, how current the discussion is, readability of the page - things like that. Check these articles out: How to archive a talk page and Refactoring talk pages. Dreadlocke 23:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Where is complete text of denaro?

The only complete text of denaro's affidavit I could find was quoted in a newsgroup. All the other links to the text appear to be broken, unless someone can dredge up a findlaw search for it, whcih I'm not very good at. Sparaig 20:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Law text..? The guy may have a point re the sorry state with mid-level TM pencil pushers, but he sure shot himselfin the foot with that James Jones 900-killed analogy. The article reminded me of my own experiences with TM management, experiences I would find universal to all organisations driven by,or entertaining, some sort of idea or ideology - including political parties.

For the benefit of critical-minded eaders I would like to ask himor her to consider these possible interpretations of DeNaros'affidavit: (1) the guy is hysteric; (2) MUI in the 1970s indeed was a really harrowing place; (3) this whole hyperbole deal: be it experiences of TM or the fervour with which TM is attacked, is victim to some sort of Texan or American syndrome - why does it have to be so BIG?

I am sure the situation in the TM Movement in other parts of the world is quite different :-)

Peterklutz 21:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Panchakarma

BTW, Andrew, Panchakara (5 actions) includes enemas and other "actions" held to be therapeutic in the Ayurvedic tradition. Sparaig 21:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is. But that doesn't mean Panchakarma = "Maharishi Ayurveda." Panchakarma is an ancient prescientific practice. "Maharishi Ayurveda" is a recently introduced, trademarked line of health products and services being sold by the TM movement. TMers are always playing three-card Monte with words. And I'm one of the cops out to break up the crooked games.

It was wrong to define "Panchakarma" as "Maharishi Ayurveda." That's why I changed it and explained the most invasive and questionable part of the treatment. But I will make it better by adding the words "which includes" to the parenthetical explanation. Askolnick 03:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Enemas were often the most effective way of introducing medication and nuitrition prior to IV's and injections, you know. There may be little or no scientific evidence that the specific treatments used in Panchakarma are of value, but to characterize herbalized enemas as "most questionable" is more-than-a-stretch. Sparaig 07:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

More strawman arguments and obfuscation from Lawson English. TMers are not selling enemas to provide nutrition or medication. They're selling their enemas with the false claim that they remove mystical toxins from the body (which Maharishi calls "Ama"). To call these enemas the most questionable part of Panchakarma is no "stretch." If Lawson wants to argue this, let him cite some studies in Medline that show these enemas are safe and effective. Askolnick 13:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, whatever. My point is simply that if the herbs used have any therepeutic value (not claiming they do), then using enemas to deliver them is the [very] old school way of doing it. Even modern medicine uses enemas and suppositories as a medical delivery system in some situations. BTW, for what it is worth, there IS a published, peer-reviewed study on the utility of using panchakarma, or at least parts of it, to remove toxins from the body: [1]. Sparaig 16:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Skolnick and other anti-TM activists

The reasons for restoring your current reverts to the evident smear-campaign version of this article are not ideology - but editorial. All the allegations you make are found, albeit in a more encyclopedic fashion (in a neutral narrative form) - as opposed to inundating the article hyperbolic citations made by people in what appears to be a strong state of affect.

In fact, in the restored/current version I linked directly to attorney DeNaro's affidavit - instead of the anonymous dedicated anti-TM site behind-the-TM-facade.org. Which could be construed as even more devestating to TM (if that is you objective).

You say behind-the-TM-facade is not anonymnous.

If you have any information about it, feel free to share it here. Until this happens, I can only continue to observe that a whois lookup confirm (1) it is anonymous; that (2) it is somehow connected to a sex toy vendor (unstress4less), and (3) perhaps - given the registered contact name of the anonymous site owner - set up and operated by competitors to the TM Movement - TM defectors hoping that people learn their TM ripoff technique.

About you, Andrew: I've checked what I understand to be your personal site and it appears to me you are an organized member of a group calling itself BRIGHT. When it comes to editing the TM article, being an ideological atheist makes you no different from representatives of competing religious sects.

Here's my question to you and everyone one of your kind: Why don't you create a/o maintain an article about your thing - in your case BRIGHT? Why do you go outside your own turf and attack others? What is this negative thing that burns inside you and propels you to go out and defame, tear down, and destroy?

Why can't you and your kind simply live and let live?

Peterklutz 08:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

What you actually mean is why can't I lie and let lie. Sorry, Peterklutz, I prefer the truth and I dis those who use falsehoods -- such as your claim that I am an organized member of BRIGHT. I have a link to the group on my web site under "Paranormal" sites (in fact, the link is old and doesn't even work!). Other than that, there's nothing. And a Google search will show nothing connecting me with the group -- for good reason: I'm not involved with it.

You're really climbing into the gutter in your campaign to vandalize the TM article and attack anyone whose speech you disagree with. Askolnick 13:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The BRIGHT link worked just fine when I visited it. Peterklutz 17:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

confessions of ignorance (copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sethie)

Ran a check to list the top editors[2]

Toward the top of the list I found i.a. Sethie, here's what SFacets and he - one of the article's other TM-critical editors have to say with reference to his own knowledge regarding a subject CFacets persistenly defames:

SFacets: I agree that there is alot of pro-TM biased editing, however it is important to let them contribute to the article for it to grow (after all followers are logically the ones who would know the most about the organisation). Of course the edits made should be monitored..

Sethie: I concur 100%. Since Peterklutz, 186. has been around, I believe the articles have improved, a lot... I am definatley opposed to totally censuring anyone, unless every edit is absurd...

Peterklutz 08:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

My point here - please take note of this wikipedia admins - is that the top "contributors" to the TM and MMY articles by their own admIssion don't know what the subject-matters they are editing.

My guess is that unless wikipedia adapts its policy to the facts on the ground in Cyberspace; it will in time stagnate (as admins choosen by popular vote) are more concerned about their own popularity as hostile editors pull wikipedia down into the gutter - as the admin elite entrenches itself and proves to become an immovable layer of article-subject ignorance

Bon chance!

Peterklutz 12:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Peterklutz, this is more of YOUR confession of ignorance. As a long time authority on TM "science" and a major contributer to the TM Wiki article, I've never "admitted" that I "don't know what the subject-matters [I am] editing." That is a baseless claim from someone who is conducting a persistent campaign of disruption and disinformationi. You've been warned repeatedly to cease this misconduct, but you've chosen to ignore everyone's warnings. Our patience is about to run out. Askolnick 13:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

attempt to find a resolution to Askolnick's edit war

If you are serious about getting this resolved, Andrew, I have two suggestions: (1) desist from portraying yourself as some sort of wikipedia official, threatening your fellow editors with an array of reprisalswith from the wikipedia arsenal (2) stick to the facts (one of which is that that your name is not mentioned in the section re subject-matter ignorance)

If, or when, you do this,you may want to consider these rationales for my latest edits:

• the TM-Sidhi Program is a discrete subject-matter not to be confused with the Maharishi Effect (the effect can be produced in more than one way), hence a more encyclopedic and reader-friendly way to present information about these two subjects as (1) explaning what the TM-Sidhi program is; and (2) in the Maharishi Effect secion explain that - and any existing controversies
• When writing for an encyclopedia it is better to summarize subjects rather than inundate articles with lengthy harangues of defaming hyperbole. It's just bad style. Being a journalist, which I understand is your claim, you are held to a higher standard in this regard than other editors. My conclusion, based on this and your bias, is that you keep coming back on purpose to maintain the Transcendental Meditation article in it's presently degraded, crippled state.
• Your deciscion to remove the bullet point summaries with links from the Maharishi EFfect section screams of prejudice. You may not like the findings proposed by ISTPP - but with what right do you deprive readers of their freedom to form their own informed opinion...?

The extent to which the TM Movement appears to have gone to test their hypotehsisis is quite news worthy. The world has no shortages of loonies, but this bunch have actually put serious resources into testing a superbly outlandish theory. Where is your sense for scope journalism? People just might want to know this - if for no orther value than sheer infotainment.

What people don't want is to drown in hyperbole defecated all over the article by fundamentalists of various shades.

Andrew if you're going to call yourself a journalist in the future, put your money where your mouth is and contact ISTPP; get their study; peruse it for weaknesses; if and when you spot these; build a case and confront Hagelin and demand explanations. If, after doing all of this, you still have a case - take a deep breath, relax and congratulate yourself. You are no longer to hostage to your fears that TM scientists actually might know something you don't.

To any wikipedia admin who happens to read this: if you're too young or inexperienced to understand what'sgoing on here - there just might be seniors in your organization in a position to help.

Peterklutz 16:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

vandalism by moi?

Andrew, you justified your reverting of my edit of the lawsuit text because I was being a vandal. Here is your original text, followed by my revision:

MUM has been sued by the parents of the killed student on the basis that TM might be dangerous for mentally disturbed people and for not taking actions to protect the victim after he had been violently attacked earlier in the day by the mentally ill student[3].

Here is my revision which you then reverted, calling it vandalism:

MUM has been sued by the parents of the killed student on the basis that TM might be dangerous for mentally disturbed people and for not taking actions to protect other students after the first violent attack earlier in the day by the mentally ill student[4].

Here is what your own link says. Why is it vandalism to modify your contribution to be more in-line with what your link says?:

The lawsuits say university employees ignored the first attack, resuming classes and blaming the attack on Sem’s improper meditation.

Sem was placed in the custody of Joel Wynsong, the university’s dean of men, and taken to Wynsong’s apartment on campus, where he stole a paring knife, court documents said.

He then fled the apartment and went to the dining hall where he stabbed Butler, records show.

The lawsuits allege the university was negligent for failing to recognize the threat Sem posed to students, reporting the initial attack to authorities and keeping Sem away from other students after he attacked Killian. [emphasis mine]

Sparaig 17:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Lawson, I apologize for my misunderstanding. My memory of the murder at MUM was faulty. I made that correction because I wrongly thought that Sem attacked the SAME student twice the same day, rather than attacking two separate students. Sorry. When the article is unlocked, you or I should change it back to your version. Askolnick 00:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

However, I accused you of vandalism when you deleted a large amount of material I had added to the article simply because you don't want it in the article. In your own words, you "put" your "own 2 cents in" by censoring out that all that information[5]. What you did was nothing less than censorship. You thought the information is harmful to the religious group you belong to so you put yout "2 cents" in by taking all of it out. You are NOT ALLOWED to put your "own 2 cents" into any Wiki article. No one is. Only material that is relevant, that has a neutral point of view, and that is supported by a reputable source may be included in Wiki articles. Your "own 2 cents" should be kept in your own pockets from now on. Askolnick 04:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

	So the Universty DID do something after the first attack? Peterklutz 17:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Not nearly enough, IMHO. Sparaig 22:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree. If a person is Hell bent to commit an act, they are very hard to stop. From what you say the only step that might have prevented the killing would have been for MUM staff to physically attack Sem and incapacitate him before it happened. Doing this would have meant MUM staff breaking the law, since Sem at the time was cooperative and apparently accepted being taken into custody and followed the Dean to his room/office. I would be very surprised if MUM is not vindicated on this point.

Finally, how many Rambo-types do you know that are jumping the foam in Fairfield? :-)

Peterklutz 22:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The police were never called... Sparaig 23:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Responding to Andrew above. If you check the lnk you provided, the deletion was done by Peter, not moi. As far as I recall, I haven't deleted or reverted or whatever any substantial portion of this article. At best (or worst), I've added a bit to give an alternate point of view to provide balance, at least IMHO. If you feel this is wrong, fine, but please castigate me for things I have done, not things someone else has done. Sparaig 05:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You are right again and I apologize. Looking now, I see that it was Peterkurtz who deleted it not you. Sorry Lawson, you are not guilty of vandalism or anything resembling it. I struck out my comment above and appologize for my mistake.Askolnick 11:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I've re-read some of the discussions above in which Andrew Skolnick is involved

..and of the two remaining alternatives of who this persona is, (1) an ideological dead-ender; or (2) a paid (government?) debunker, I think the odds are stacked in favor of the latter.

Why?

Because of this man's automaton-like response-pattern to Sparaig.

In all likelyhood not the only such experience of an unpleasant and prevalent phenomenon (young and impressionable?) wikipedia admins are exposed to.

Peterklutz

Page protection

Considering the ongoing damaging revert war, I plan on keeping the article fully protected until a consensus version is agreed on this talkpage, or else a consensus that protection has become unnecessary and constructive editing can begin. To see how the word consensus is used on Wikipedia, please click on the link. Bishonen | talk 23:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC).

Thank you Bishonen. Askolnick 00:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Given that Andrew is convinced that I'm reverting pages (when I have not), presenting a totally biased view of TM (as though he's not), that he considers rewording something to more accurately reflect his cited reference to be "vandalism," and that Andrew was paranoid enough about me to ask people if they were me simply because they disagreed with him in other wikipedia disputes, even though it has been years since our last internet exchange, IIRC, I think the term "when hell freezes over" applies to the assumption that "concensus" will be reached amongst all parties. I HAVE been trying to reach concensus about this article from the moment I started contributing, BTW. I challenge anyone to show me instances where I have not. While I may be being paranoid myself (or at least, arrogant about how important I am to him), it seems to me that Andrew's extreme level of participation in this article started after I first made a contribution. Sparaig 00:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia would grind to a halt if "consensus" meant 100% agreement. That's why I asked you to click on the link; the word isn't used in exactly the same way on wiki as in the, uh, real world.

BTW, everybody please note that I can insert things that are generally agreed, if I'm around. I won't do that with any kind of debatable consensus, though. But noting Askolnick's apology above, about a pretty minor detail — "Sorry. When the article is unlocked, you or I should change it back to your version." — I've made the change. (Protest here if you disagree with it.) Bishonen | talk 01:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC).