Talk:TM-Sidhi program/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Sources in EEG research section

I don't understand this ref:

"Morse et al., 1977; Tebecis, 1975, A controlled study of the EEG during Transcendental Meditation: Comparison with hypnosis; Warrenburg, Pagano, Woods, & Hlastala, A comparison of somatic relaxation and EEG activity in classic progressive relaxation and Transcendental Meditation, 1980"

It appears to be two different sources, but the info is incomplete. Shouldn't we be using up-to-date sources? The 2006 review by Cahn and Polich is quite comprehensive. Also, the Cambridge Handbook uses very old references -- only one after 1980 and ignores later, better designed research, which Cahn and Polich covers in detail. See "Meditation States and Traits: EEG, ERP, and Neuroimaging Studies," Psychological Bulletin, a publication by the American Psychological Association, 2006, Vol. 132, No. 2, 180–211. Also, the 2003 review that we cite in the TM article that appeared in the Humanistic Psychologist has extensive discussion of more recent EEG research. Also, I don't see that the Cambridge Handbook mentions the TM-Sidhi program. TimidGuy (talk) 11:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I've only taken a quick look at this but it appears that someone deleted all the EEG research specific to the TM-Sidhi program and replaced it with research on the EEG of TM. Another recent review is from 2010: Antonino Raffone • Narayanan Srinivasan, The exploration of meditation in the neuroscience of attention and consciousness, Cogn Process (2010) 11:1–7. TimidGuy (talk) 11:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi TimidGuy. Even if research is older and is not superseded by more recent findings, the older research still stands. If I recall correctly, that citation is from the Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness and the opinion of leading neuroscientists in the field of meditation research as to what still "jives" with current independent science. They are also 'independent" of the TM movement. Unfortunately there was probably a lot primary research written by salaried, sponsored or TM Org-connected persons cited as sources.

I think it's important for us all to remember, just because someone repeats something many times, does not make it true. This would apply to TM Org produced EEG research I'm afraid, although some of it is quite interesting to read.--Kala Bethere (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

One of the fundamental and pertinent issues is whether the research cited refers to the TM Sidhi program. If it doesn't it doesn't it doesn't belong in an article on TM Sidhi and must be removed and or moved. (olive (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC))

Kala, could you please explain why you removed primary sources and then added primary sources. And do the Nunez and Lachaux articles specifically mention TM research? Or is that original research? Are Nunez and Lachaux research reviews? Also, the article says it's quoting the Cambridge volume but then gives Nunez as a source. Something's wrong there. Please fix the incomplete refs, remove primary sources, remove original research, and fix the Cambridge section. TimidGuy (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at Nunez and Lachaux, and neither mentions TM research. I believe this is original research. TimidGuy (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

What "primary sources" are you referring to TimidGuy? It's unclear from your above comment.

I'd be fine with changing the source to "The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness" with a simple page number, rather than the papers referred to in that volume.

Also, let's not forget that Transcendental Meditation is a fundamental part of the TM-Sidhi program: you can't have one without the other!--Kala Bethere (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, it would be good to be consistent, in this case referencing the secondary source but not the primary sources. I'll go ahead and make the change. I don't see that it says that coherence is an obsolete measurement. TimidGuy (talk) 11:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Have added some detail from the Cambridge book, which is excellent. Too bad it didn't look at more of the research. Next we need to address the fact that the current wording seems to conflate coherence and power. TimidGuy (talk) 11:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

TimidGuy, agreeing on editing the specific general Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness reference to a more general one was not an agreement to rewrite the entire section and utterly change it's meaning! It was not a carte blanche agreement for you to gut and change the section. I am putting it back to the agreed upon changes and will edit some appropriate changes without changing the original meaning and remove the TM movement advertisement-like changes you have made.

Since we agree EEG changes mentioned applies to both TM and TM-sidhi, I'll add the original section, with agreed changes to the TM entry.

Please remember, this section was to report independent science on TM/TM-SP EEG and not TM movement PR! The WP is not a place to proselytize or advertise.--Kala Bethere (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Kala, you've restored factual errors and misrepresentations. It's hard to believe that you've even read those 5 pages. I've reverted. Please don't restore your version. The errors include, but are not limited to, these:

• Research has been done by many who are not TM associates, including Pagano and Fenwick
• Coherence is still a significant indicator, per recent research reviews, and Cambridge doesn't say otherwise; rather it makes clear that LDS is a measure of coherence
• Alpha power is not the same thing as coherence; your version conflates them; in my version I correctly juxtaposed the discussion of alpha power and put coherence in a second paragraph
• It's incorrect to say that alpha power decreased without making it clear that it was relative to relaxation controls
• Scientists do not consider coherence an obsolete measure, nor does the Cambridge book say that

Further, you've removed material that was sourced to Cambridge. Everything in my revision was from the source. It gives the fact reported by Cambridge that compared to a baseline, TM is associated with an increase in alpha power. This isn't disputed in Cambridge or anywhere. And my version uses the Cambridge source to explain that this is an indicator of relaxation. Please don't remove sourced material. Note that the source isn't disputing the research findings on coherence. It's disputing claims made regarding what it signifies. TimidGuy (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This section is not referring to BASELINE EEG but to EEG compared to appropriate controls. It doesn't matter what the baseline is, if closed eyes controls performing a similar mental exercise produce even more "alpha", TM comparatively does not increase at all!--Kala Bethere (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I've now added refs that cite the specific pages for the material that I've added. These two paragraphs on EEG create a context for mention of TM-Sidhii-specifc research. I've found a secondary source that refers ti the alpha coherence seen in Yogic Flying and will add that next: The Brain's Alpha Rhythms and the Mind, by John Shaw (Elsevier: 2003). TimidGuy (talk) 11:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Timidguy, the section is supposed to be on INDEPENDENT views by prominent scientists, independently reporting on TM and TM-SP EEG affects. I'll revert back to the proper context intended and change the section title to reflect this. Please stop tendentiously editing this section. Thanks in advance.--Kala Bethere (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Can Timid and Kala please clarify, in simple terms, what they are arguing about. I seem to have lost the plot. --BwB (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi BwB. The original section was a section which showed the discrepancy between independent leading world neuroscientists and what the TM movement PR people state, and thus briefly referred to those facts which run c. 1983-present. Briefly, when good controls are used, alpha does not significantly increase in TMers. With good counter-controls, alpha stays about the same or actually decreases. Furthermore, this is not a unique affect as often portrayed in TM literature, it's actually common in at least 8 relaxation response type meditations. There is no independent evidence to suggest TM or the TM-SP results in "higher" or more integrated states of consciousness. It's just relaxation, that's all.

TimidGuy was told we should correct a reference from the Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness meditation section, a textbook by leading neuroscientists on meditation and consciousness. Instead he took it as a way to rewrite and change the meaning of the section along more TM movement lines, despite his COI and actual lack of consensus!--Kala Bethere (talk) 12:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that Kala has completely misrepresented the source, and has made up stuff. And has deleted material that's directly from the source. And has deleted primary sources saying they're noncompliant and then replaced them with primary sources. Kala, let's begin by examining the statement that coherence is an obsolete measurement. Could you please tell me where in the source is says that? Meanwhile, I'll add some more material from the source. And Kala, who are you to dictate what goes in a section? Per WP:NPOV, both views should be represented. TimidGuy (talk) 10:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Kala, please read the source and try to understand the difference between alpha coherence and alpha power. The first two sentences just don't make sense. TimidGuy (talk) 11:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Kala, I see that the problem is that you're getting all of your information from this page[1], rather than reading the source. It's no wonder that you've so badly misrepresented it. TimidGuy (talk) 11:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

TimidGuy, still no consensus on these changes, sorry. Please read up on your subject before trying to interject advertisement-like changes and proselytize. EEG power is related to coherence. If it decreases, so does the power between the remote sites. I recommend reading "Measuring Phase Synchrony in Brain Signals" by Jean-Philippe Lachaux, Eugenio Rodriguez, Jacques Martinerie, and Francisco J. Varela to help you understand why leading researchers in meditation have moved away from raw coherence/signal covariance as a helpful measurement on it's own. I also do not recommend using blogs for sources. And as the Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness points out, EEG is a very blunt tool. Not so helpful unless used correctly. Fortunately reputable neuroscientitsts have already identified the problem and have made changes to correct for the shortcomings. Unfortunately TM movement employee researchers like Travis, et al, still have not.--Kala Bethere (talk) 11:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't make any advertising changes other than to include the portion of the quote that was omitted by ellipsis. What Wikipedia policy would justify excluding it? This is a secondary source. Per WP:NPOV you can't include just the portion of the quote you favor and not the portion the states that the alpha coherence and power found in TM indicates a relaxed, inactive mental state. I have a different 1999 paper by Lachaux, which says that classical coherence and long-distance synchrony provide convergent though not identical results. And he suggests still keeping instantaneous coherence as a first approximation. Why do you assume that post-1999 TM researchers haven't adopted the latest methods of analysis? Why do you assume that everyone has adopted the analysis and terminology proposed by Lachaux? My impression is that things have moved far beyond that 1999 paper and that cross frequency coherence—the synchrony between alpha, beta and gamma—is the current state of the art. But my knowledge is pretty limited.

In any case, we just go with what the secondary sources say. If there are secondary sources that present the EEG research, then we simply report what they say. And this is what Cambridge says in summary:

To summarize, alpha global increases and alpha coherence mostly over frontal electrodes are associated with TM practice when meditating compared to baseline. This global alpha increase is similar to that produced by other relaxation techniques. The passive absorption during the recitation of the mantra, as practiced in this technique, produces a brain pattern that suggests a decrease of processing of sensory or motor information and of mental activity in general.

I can't find where the Cambridge handbook says that EEG is a blunt tool. Could you please tell me the page? It's true that it's a blunt tool, simply because neurons are tiny and electrodes are large. But that's true no matter what technique of analysis is used. And there's still a problem with the first two sentences. We should separate the discussion of coherence and power, as Cambridge does. And note that all of these sources that you found on the anti-TM website -- Morse, Tebecis, Lachaux, etc.,-- are from Cambridge. There's no need to cite primary sources. And we shouldn't. I had put in page numbers for all this material, but you removed the citations and replaced them with citations to primary sources. TimidGuy (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, I don't know much about this, but in looking at Google Scholar, I do think that Lachaux's work on phase synchrony has been quite influential. Here's a TM study from 2005 that uses phase synchrony.[2] TimidGuy (talk) 11:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi TimidGuy. The words that the Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness uses are "extremely blurred and crude estimates of the synchronous processes of the ∼10¹¹ neurons in a human brain".

The full quote being:

"The majority of these EEG studies focused on the change in the brain’s oscillatory rhythms, particularly in the slow frequencies (alpha and theta rhythms). It is important to keep in mind that such measures reflect extremely blurred and crude estimates of the synchronous processes of the ∼10¹¹ neurons in a human brain."--Kala Bethere (talk) 12:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually Timidguy, I don't feel it's appropriate for a representative, employee or affiliate of the organization behind the WP entries in question to be connected to those entries, let alone tendentiously editing them, without consensus.--Kala Bethere (talk) 12:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm staying out of this because I can't tell an Alpha Wave from a Gamma Wave. But I encourage editors to find consensus on the talk page rather than reverting each other on the article page.   Will Beback  talk  12:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was fine the way it was, other than refining the one reference (which was agreed upon). That was just used as an excuse for TimidGuy to rewrite it along TM movement dogma lines, not science, and to strip it of facts he didn't like. It's hard for me to accept edits which do not actually reflect the current science, esp. when they are coming from someone with (I believe) an acknowledged COI! I agreed to refining the one reference, beyond that I find TimidGuy's characterizations and summaries self-serving and not indicative of the current science. If an editor is not willing to work in good faith and without bias, I honestly do not believe they should be editing. In this case we should leave a fine section alone.--Kala Bethere (talk) 12:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Kala, you're the one stripping it of facts you don't like -- facts taken directly from the Cambridge Handbook of consciousness. These paragraphs are still inaccurate. I'm going to add more material from the Cambridge handbook. Please stop deleting material sourced to this book, which you originally added and which is a proper secondary source. And note that I agreed that EEG is a blunt tool. Again, that's the case regardless of whether classical coherence measures or phase synchrony is used. TimidGuy (talk) 10:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Before making further changes to the article, could editors please find agreement here? What's the proposed revision?   Will Beback  talk  10:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read the discussion to get a sense for the errors and misrepresentations. And I'll be happy to e-mail you the five pages from the Cambridge Handbook that are excellent and explain this clearly. The section still conflates alpha power and coherence. It completely leaves out the central point made in every EEG study of TM, including all of the studies by independent researchers: that TM increases alpha compared to a baseline. All of the secondary sources state this as a fact. And the Cambridge Handbook says it. Yet Kala left it out. So I'm gong to put it back in. TimidGuy (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course you conveniently left out that when appropriate controls are used, there is no increase in alpha, it even decreases. The fact that alpha is related to normal relaxed or mentally inactive (and a host of other attributes you fail to mention) states, is now mentioned twice. You've conveniently cherry-picked the alpha traits that support your agenda, that's all. Very misleading TimidGuy.--Kala Bethere (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't leave out the point about alpha decrease. It was already there two sentences later. (And the summary in Cambridge, which I was using, doesn't mention the decrease -- only that TM is about the same as relaxation.) The problem is that you don't understand what it's saying. Even when control groups are used alpha increases. Please look at any study. Please. In every case alpha increases. However, what the studies using control groups found is that TM increases alpha about the same as other relaxation techniques, or in one instance, increases less than the relaxation group. That's what's meant by "decrease." In no case does practice of TM ever decrease alpha. In most cases the result between TM and control groups is similar. Only one study showed the increase in alpha power in TM being less. That's why the Cambridge summary doesn't mention the decrease. It just says " This global alpha increase is similar to that produced by other relaxation techniques." You have utterly skewed things by only mentioning the decrease and not the fact that most of the time it's about the same. Really hope you try to understand this. TimidGuy (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Version Kala deleted

Here's my revised version that Kala deleted. It exclusively cited secondary sources, rather than Kala's use of primary sources. It fixed the errors that Kala made. And I thought it made things more clear.

Transcendental Meditation has been found to produce specific types of brain waves as measured by electroencephalography (EEG). Studies have found that, compared to a baseline, during meditation there is an increase in alpha amplitude followed by a slowing of the alpha frequency and the spread of this to the frontal cortex. Early studies using control groups found a lack of increase or even a decrease compared to relaxation or hypnosis controls. Bursts of theta waves have also been found. These changes in brain waves suggest a decrease in mental activity and a state of relaxation.

A number of studies have also shown increases in alpha and theta coherence — that is, large-scale integration of frequencies in different parts of the brain. According to the Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness, TM promotional material has said that this coherence represents a more orderly state of the brain and one that is unique to TM. The Cambridge Handbook says that these claims may be overstated or premature. "Because alpha rhythms are ubiquitous and functionally non-specific, the claim that alpha oscillations and alpha coherence are desirable or are linked to an original and higher state of consciousness seem quite premature" and "...alpha frequencies frequently produce spontaneously moderate to large coherence (0.3-0.8 over large inter-electrode distance.) The alpha coherence values reported in TM studies, as a trait in the baseline or during meditation, belong to this same range. Thus a global increase of alpha power and alpha coherence might not reflect a more “ordered” or “integrated” experience, as frequently claimed in TM literature, but rather a relaxed, inactive mental state." It has been suggested that long-distance phase synchrony may provide a more direct measure of phase relationships than coherence because it can separate the effects of amplitude and phase in the interrelations between EEG signals.

Very misleading, biased and agenda-driven statements TimidGuy. Not suitable for WP due to the very clear bias. If I didn't know better, i would wonder if this was written by MUM.edu's PR department! It reads like a TM/TMSP advertisement. --Kala Bethere (talk) 12:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW, my sources are secondary. Stop making up untruths to try to cover your agenda TimidGuy.--Kala Bethere (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It's all directly from the Cambridge Handbook. Please point out something specific that's misleading or biased. And why are you now saying that individual studies are secondary sources? All along you've been arguing that they're primary sources and should be deleted. Only the Cambridge handbook is secondary. TimidGuy (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Tags

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page.

• Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since March 2008.
• Its factual accuracy is disputed. Tagged since March 2008.
• It may have been edited by a person who has a conflict of interest with the subject matter. Tagged since July 2009.
• It may contain improper references to self-published sources. Tagged since July 2009.

Which of these tags still reflect current issues? Are there any specific problems that we can address to clear these up?   Will Beback  talk  04:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Point 3 will be resolved after ArbCom, I think. We can certainly tackle Point 2 by re3moveing or replacing material that used self-published sources that violate Wiki policy on ref. --BwB (talk) 07:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Until the ArbCom posts its decision we won't know what they'll say. Regardless, the point of a COI tag is to flag material that needs fixing. Whatever needs fixing we can fix without the tag being there. Likewise the self-published sources tag. The article of April 2010 is different from the one of July 2009. I'm going to go ahead and remove all of them. Anyone who wants to re-add specific tags and explain specific problems then that's fine too. But these are just stale.   Will Beback  talk  08:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Great, Will. Glad you have removed these stale tags. There's nothing worse than a "stale tag"! --BwB (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

There are worse things, but the point of tags like those is to generate or indicate discussions, not to remain until full consensus is achieved on all points. Overall, the article has made great progress since those tags were placed. Let's focus on the remaining issues and make this article as good as we can.   Will Beback  talk  10:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Claim that TM decreases alpha

Kala has added the following a couple times: "As early as 1977, independent researchers found that when appropriate controls were used, alpha power actually decreased." And this is sourced to Morse 1977; Tebecis, 1975, and Warrenburg 1980. I've looked at these sources. None says that TM decreases alpha. Morse and Tebecis say that TM increases alpha about the same as a control group practicing another form of relaxation, and Warrenburg doesn't mention alpha anywhere in the study. Please don't put this back in the article. Also, the wording is misleading for a general reader. The wording now in the article accurately reflects the Cambridge source and is less misleading for the general reader. TimidGuy (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

We must all do our best to accurately reflect the source material in the article. --BwB (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Confused about source for Cambridge quote

The section on EEG gives two quotes that the text says is from the Cambridge handbook, but then the ref gives this as the source: EEG coherency. I: Statistics, reference electrode, volume conduction, Laplacians, cortical imaging, and interpretation at multiple scales. Electroencephalography & Clinical Neurophysiology. Not sure what's going on here. Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Since no one has commented, I'll just delete the citation and instead use Cambridge as the source, as the text says. TimidGuy (talk) 10:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sending me the pics of the article. However I still haven't been able to digest them. Do what you think best, but I'm afraid I can't review it at the moment.   Will Beback  talk  10:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

1982 biofeedback study

It's not clear why this 1982 study on biofeedback was added or what it has to do with Transcendental Meditation.[3] And it's not clear why an editor who has repeatedly deleted individual studies because they're primary sources at the same time continues to add individual studies. TimidGuy (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it seems strange to have something on BF here when the reference does not discuss TM or TM-Sidhis, the topic of this article. --BwB (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

TimidGuy the point is that since biofeedback can easily train one to generate alpha coherence, therefore TM is not unique in this EEG trait.--Kala Bethere (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

No source for "At one time . . . "

Originally Kala had written that coherence as a measure was obsolete, but the source didn't say that. She eventually revised the wording of that sentence, but the first sentence in the section still connoted that, saying, "At one time coherence was considered a significant measure." If we're going to say that, we'd need a source. And per WP:NOR the source should say it in the context of TM research. But in my reading of the secondary literature and in my index searches, I've concluded that coherence is still used. And in any case, the terminology isn't yet standardized. Phase synchrony can be said to be a measure of coherence, for example. So I've deleted that sentence. TimidGuy (talk) 10:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

EEG section

I go away for a week and I see Timidguy has rewritten the EEG section (again) to removed facts which don't support TM Org POV. He removed those representing scientific consensus by leading world neuroscientists. The advantage of such a re-write is clear: you can't push a TM movement pseudoscience POV unless you replace the prevailing scientific view with the pseudoscientific one - or at least remove the annoying facts that get in the way. This is easily achieved by simply removing textbook and independent quotes slowly over time. This has the affect of hiding the absurdity of the TM movement's POV by not only making it look sensible, removing the current actual independent science prevents TM movement POV from looking so outlandish and fringe. So it's expected, if there are pro-TM movement proponents on a particular article, they'll most certainly try to remove any countervailing science that conflicts with their claims.

The difference between TM movement pseudoscience and prevailing scientific opinion on EEG follows a couple of independently observed faux pas:

Raw EEG coherence measurements are no longer being used by leading neuroscience meditation researchers like those at the University of Wisconsin (Richard Davidson, Antoine Lutz, et al), instead they are using equations which link both the effects of amplitude and wave synchrony. These are (arguably) the scientists doing the most research on advanced meditators, writing articles in top-tier journals and even writing current textbooks of neuroscience. TM paper authors are still using the older, fuzzier measurements of raw coherence, which it turns out is misleading as it does allow for both the effects of amplitude and phase (synchrony between waves). The current trend is for applying equations which separate out the useful information from this raw data.

Alpha waves are no big deal it turns out, as a leading pioneer in EEG interpretation, Barbara Brown, points out "Concluding any about alpha is perilous." Despite this fact, even most recent TM-based opinion (e.g. Orme-Johnson's recent paper on lucid dreaming) tries to draw great significance to this common "relaxation response" alpha pattern (as per the Timidguy deleted quotes). Neuroscientific consensus, as reflected in the neuroscience textbook, the Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness, states that these alpha coherence measurements touted in Pro-TM literature are common in humans and therefore nothing special, nor do they represent higher or more integrated states of consciousness as stated frequently in TM movement and TM associate literature.

In and of itself EEG in general is a very fuzzy measurement: "The majority of these EEG studies focused on the change in the brain’s oscillatory rhythms, particularly in the slow frequencies (alpha and theta rhythms). It is important to keep in mind that such measures reflect extremely blurred and crude estimates of the synchronous processes of the ∼10¹¹ neurons in a human brain." Timidguy deleted this salient fact, as the TM movement literature likes to attribute great significance to EEG, attempting to tie a common relaxation response EEG trait to something important and unique, that only their meditation brand can provide.

It turns out these claims of the "uniqueness" of TM were nipped in the bud early by independent neuroscientists. In the 1983 textbook Consciousness and Self-Regulation contained a detailed refutation ("Meditation: In Search of a Unique Effect") of any such claims (refuting EEG coherence claims, hypometabolic effects, deceptive use of controls or the reversing effects of no controls, pointing out sleep stages commonly found in TM, etc.) and these findings are still quoted today (2007, Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness) as accepted and reliable science. In order to maintain such illusions of the 'uniqueness of TM', Timidguy removed a quote from the Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness which stated clearly:

"This global alpha increase is similar to that produced by other relaxation techniques."

In other words, there's nothing unique about it at all.

In fact, it's long been known that simple biofeedback can easily be used to train someone to produce relaxation and it's common, accompanying alpha coherence. Timidguy made sure he deleted that reference too.

So I'll restore all these points, since they represent prevailing science on meditation research from independent, highly reliable sources.--Kala Bethere (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you guys please seek mediation on this EEG dispute? It involves two articles and I don't see either side seeking offering any compromises, so it's just a slow-motion edit war.   Will Beback  talk  23:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict: While I won't get involved in the rest of this discussion, I have removed the last sentence on the "Independent Research on EEG" since it doesn't reference the ME, and is a simple case of OR. Per WP:OR an editor must be able to cite "reliable published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article". If I'm missing something either Kala or TG please let me know. What's left is discussion of the content and sources that do refer to ME. And I would agree that mediation might be a good idea to deal with that situation. (olive (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC))

Littleoliveoil, the section is not on the "ME" so you should not have deleted the sentence, unless there is some other reason you are doing so. This section is on independent EEG views of TM.--Kala Bethere (talk) 12:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Kala, please respond in the individual threads where I've explained each of my edits. We go by what the sources say. For example, you wrote, " As early as 1977 independent researchers found that when appropriate controls were used, alpha power actually decreased.[42] " That's an absolute falsehood. Why do you keep putting it on? Morris and Tebecis found that TM was about the same as the control groups. Warrenburg doesn't mention alpha in his study. I didn't delete the things you said I deleted, so you're not only putting falsehoods in the article but are putting them here.

Will, how would mediation help? This isn't a content dispute. Kala simply puts in stuff she makes up and refuses to address the issues specifically and resorts to a long narrative that is itself filled with falsehoods and straw man arguments. How can I compromise? If Kala puts something in that's a falsehood, how does one compromise on that? Make it just a little bit of a lie? TimidGuy (talk) 10:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

TimdGuy, it's well known and attributed in a number of very reliable sources that when appropriate controls are used, alpha decreases in TM. This has actually been known a long time. You'd have to have either a biased POV, not be knowledgeable of independent EEG research on TM or for some other reason wish to avoid this scientific consensus. If you read the Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness, surely you saw the mention there, no? It says quite clearly: "Other relaxation techniques have led to the same EEG profile [as TM], and studies that employed counter-balanced control relaxation conditions [i.e. appropriate controls] consistently found a lack of alpha power increases or even decreases when comparing relaxation or hypnosis to TM meditation (Morse et al., 1977; Tebecis, 1975; Warrenburg, Pagano, Woods, & Hlastala, 1980)."

So it would appear to me the person inserting faslehoods is you Timidguy, assisted by a few other "yeah, what he said" editors.--Kala Bethere (talk) 12:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

TG, what's your plan then? Just keep reverting Kala? This certainly looks like a content dispute, and one which would benefit from mediation.   Will Beback  talk  18:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I feel like it's a matter of behavior. Kala keeps putting in primary sources after having deleted many studies because they're primary sources. And in my very first comment I pointed out that her refs were incomplete, using res such as "Tebecis 1975." She puts in material that falsely represents sources. She avoids discussing any particular issues I raise and instead writes long rants. Twice now I've spent hours finding and reading sources and editing and correcting her work, and raising specific issues on the Talk page along the way. Which she ignores, but instead just massively reverts, including deleting material sourced to Cambridge. My plan was to have someone else look at the sources and help verify that Kala is misrepresenting them. And I thought you were going to help. Is there anyone here who would be willing to receive these sources by e-mail so that you too can see whether Kala is accurately representing them? Of course I'm open to mediation. Kala, are you? TimidGuy (talk) 11:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

TimidGuy we're supposed to be representing the prevailing scientific consensus on a topic, not fringe POV's. It's fairly easy to show that the TM movement deceptively uses EEG research simply because leading world neuroscientitsts have pointed it out, time and time again!

What primary sources are you claiming I'm putting in these entries? Please keep in mind I'm the person who added the Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness sources in the first place! If you haven't had the opportunity to attend one of the Mind and Life or Harvard meditation research conferences to see what the leading world scientists are saying on meditation research, the prevailing science is likely to be lost on TM advocates who hold some rather old, non-mainstream, fringe ideas on "pure consciousness" and EEG. So it may just be you're at a disadvantage from having non-critically accepted some grossly out-dated and/or misleading research. In science, it helps to be more discriminating, not less and up on the latest developments. Fortunately, I've been able to attend a number of recent conferences and keep up to date myself.

Also Timidguy, please remove my name from one of the section titles where you added it. Thanks.--Kala Bethere (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Will, could you comment on how to open the mediation process? (Please feel free to respond on my Talk Page). Is there a particular mediation group dedicated to neurology or medicine? These would probably be the most appropriate, if the people mediating are familiar with EEG and meditation. I believe the sources I'm using are of such sufficiently high quality that any mediator with a good medical background would understand both their import, their significance and their appropriateness. Unfortunately 'the wonders of EEG and TM' is one of the "golden calves" of the TM movement fringe/pseudoscience orthodox belief system, so if we're dealing with people who adhere to these beliefs, it may require mediation that includes actual experts.--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Mediators aren't experts. Their purpose is just to facilitate the discussion. It's normal to start with the WP:MEDCAB, which does informal mediation. If you go to that page there's blue box with instructions for filing a request. The parties would probably be yourself and TG since you two are the most invoved in this.   Will Beback  talk  19:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Kala, individual studies are primary sources, such as Morse, Tebecis, and Warrenburg. Possibly also Lachaux's theoretical paper. And certainly the 1982 biofeedback study that you inserted. A secondary source according to WP:MEDRS is a meta-analysis or research review that looks at multiple individual studies and tries to draw conclusions. This makes sense because research (especially clinical research) often has varying results, so you survey those results to see if there's some common conclusion that can be drawn. It's fine that you've been to meditation conferences, but what we report are what secondary sources say. So far we have the Cambridge Handbook, which is a good one (though I've found a couple errors that I'm going to alert the author about). Another good one is Cahn and Polich 2006. The field of EEG, as you know, has evolved quite a lot over the decades, so ideally we'd use recent secondary sources. TimidGuy (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Timidguy, most of the above sources are used in reviews, as sources, the individual paper is listed to specifically identify it. Some appear in more than one review. Since it's a well known medical fact that alpha relaxation states can be trained by biofeedback, it's just a matter of finding another source. I'm sure there are quite a few, this is nothing new.

You're also spreading misinformation on what you claim is my intention. I am less concerned about primary sources, as in individual studies, and specifically concerned about primary sources written by the organization who directly benefits from the results of said research. In this case TM research performed by TM employees, teachers or other affiliates of the TM org.--Kala Bethere (talk) 11:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Will that looks like too general of a mediation area to be of help. Isn't their a medical mediation board? TIA.--Kala Bethere (talk) 11:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

All mediation is general, no matter how obscure the topic. Mediators aren't there to decide who's right. They just serve to help the involved editors find consensus. If editors are acting in good faith, then mediation can be very helpful.   Will Beback  talk  14:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that first you bring it up at Wikipedia Project Medicine. [4] There, you will have some knowledgable editors who can provide input on the controversy. I have tried to stay out of the merits of this particular kerfluffle. Fladrif (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The issues are pretty simple, really. Kala wrote that Morse, Tebecis, and Warrenburg found that TM decreases alpha. But the sources don't say that. It's not clear why we need mediation or a wikiproject; we just need Kala to point to where in those sources it says that. And she wrote that the study of alpha coherence was used at one time and is now obsolete. If she wants to say that, she needs a source. And she would need to explain why she deleted material that i had added that was sourced to Cambridge. TimidGuy (talk) 11:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Remove EEG section?

Since this section is duplicated in the TM article, and since it is specifically research on TM, I'd like to remove it here. There is some EEG research that's specific to the TM-Sidhi program and I've found a secondary source that includes some of the studies. So we may want to eventually put that in. But until such time it seems like we could remove this. TimidGuy (talk) 10:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I was just noticing the same thing, and about to make the same suggestion.   Will Beback  talk  11:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. I think I'll go ahead and delete. TimidGuy (talk) 11:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Pseudoscientific concepts

I was reading the TM-Sidhi program article and came across the box that describes the Maharishi effect as Pseudoscientific. It is unclear to me where the source for this claim is coming from when reading the citations associated with the relevant text. --Uncreated (talk) 10:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes we just get the term being used in a sentence but there is no reference to support this characterization. The "Critiques" section does give some of the objections raised by other scientists to the Maharishi Effect, but the word "pseudoscientific" is not used. Perhaps the author of this sentence felt it self-evident that the ME is "pseudoscientific", or that by reading the linked article, one would see that the ME can be so classified. --BwB (talk) 14:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If the author felt that way, it's original research. I, too, am surprised to see that there's no source for these assertions. I think that if no source is found, the claim should be removed. TimidGuy (talk) 10:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It was added here: [5].   Will Beback  talk  05:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

But there is no direct reference, that I can see, that TM-Sidhi is "Pseudoscientific". --BwB (talk) 09:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the assertion is that the Maharishi Effect-related claims are pseudoscientific, and it's that specific assertion that's unsourced, and perhaps unsourceable. I don't object to removing the word from that sentence.   Will Beback  talk  09:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Even better, we could restore the prior version of the sentence: The Maharishi Effect has been compared by Maharishi and others to the Meissner effect which occurs in superconducting materials. Any objection?   Will Beback  talk 

No objection to the use of this sentence. --BwB (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Done.   Will Beback  talk  09:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. What about the infobox? TimidGuy (talk) 10:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

While there weren't any easy-to-find sources that call the Maharishi Effect a pseudoscience, there are plenty that use the term for Yogic Flying.[6] [7] etc. We also know that TM or SCI have been called pseudoscience. So two option would be to move it to the Yogic Flying section, or to move it to the TM article.   Will Beback  talk  10:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Good questions, Timid - what about the infobox? Should it go? --BwB (talk) 13:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

But where should it go? There are several specific issues within this topic that have been labeled "pseudoscience" in reliable sources.   Will Beback  talk  00:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Pseudoscience is a point of view. It seems to be a violation of NPOV to highlight one view so prominently by giving it an infobox that gives such a definitive label. TimidGuy (talk) 10:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Timid on this. --BwB (talk) 12:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Useful source...reliable source?

Terrorism, Retaliation, and Victory: Awaken the Soul of America to Defeat Terrorism Without Casualties by Bryan Rees.[8] It is Discussed here[9]

Are both of these reliable sources? I do not have access to the book...is the 2nd link simply a review of the book?--Uncreated (talk) 09:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The book itself could be a good source. The review may not be great as it seems to be a review on a blog. If a review were published in a reputable journal, then that would be good. The book looks interesting though. --BwB (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Xlibris is a vanity-press,[10] and so its publications would not be considered reliable sources under Wikipedia's policies.   Will Beback  talk  10:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Women and Yogic Flying

The editors of this article might be interested to know that although women were shown flying in photographs taken when the TM-Sidhi Program was first introduced, Maharishi later banned all photographs of female flyers. If you do a search on "yogic flying" in Google Images, you will find only one picture of two women flying, taken in the early days. Also, there are no photos of women flyers in Craig Pearson's "Complete Book of Yogic Flying" published by the MUM Press in 2008. When asked about this, Mr. Pearson has said that, although women are permitted to participate in yogic flying contests, the ban on photographs was imposed by Maharishi himself, and the editors of the book were therefore compelled to operate within the constraints imposed by him.

This discriminatory policy is very troubling to women who practice the TM-Sidhi Program for three reasons. First, it gives the false impression that only males participate in yogic flying. Secondly, it denies to women the role models they need for spiritual development. Finally, the lack of documentation of females actually flying makes it much easier, at some future date, for the TM organization to change its policy and withhold the flying sutra from females, solely on the basis of gender, because no pictures of female flyers will exist to corroborate the fact that women were originally given the technique on an equal basis with men. If you think this sounds paranoid, take a look at the TM leadership these days: it is ALL male. Women are photographed alongside leaders only if they are married to a man who is prominent in the TM organization, and women are rarely given the opportunity to speak in the organization's Global Family Chats, broadcast worldwide from the Netherlands on a daily basis. Also, all the Vedic pandits whom the TM organization is sponsoring in Fairfield, Iowa and in India are male. The TM organization is definitely no longer an equal-opportunity organization, yet they continue to receive federal funding in the form of grants.

One further point: this type of paternalistic attitude toward women is one more indication of the fundamentally religious nature of the TM organization's program for the world. All the world's major religions are dominated by men, and in most religious traditions, roles for women are highly circumscribed, as they have become in the TM movement. Thoughtful women who practice TM should speak out in defense of secularism, which has given us many valuable freedoms over the past century. The genie of women's freedom cannot be forced back into the bottle.

One last point: how "spiritual" is it to try to erase from the public record the fact that women, who constitute over half the human population, are just as proficient at yogic flying as men?

149.152.61.36 (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)A Female Critic

Something I didn't expect

I've occasionally been bumping into TM research reviews that also mention the Maharishi Effect research. I had earlier mentioned the book by Harry Hunt. And now I've found an additional book, plus three reviews in academic journals that include the Maharishi Effect research. How would we use this? In place of citing the original studies? I was surprised to find these references. TimidGuy (talk) 11:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not much information to go on. What are the names of these books and journal articles?   Will Beback  talk  11:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

References

does "exceeded the square root of 1%" mean 10% ? as sqrt(0.01)=0.1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.92.34 (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Borderline Psychotic

Beliefs of levitation and flying abilities border on psychotic. They appear in other group activities such as Kundalini Yoga and QiGong. It has not occurred to anyone in mental health services that there is a connection between the different systems. They all create the "special circumstances" for Subliminal Distraction exposure.

Eyes open meditation while performing group exercises allows repeating failed attempts to trigger the vision startle reflex. That's Subliminal Distraction. The subliminal detection of threat-movement and your brain's reaction to that threat detection is a Subliminal Distraction if the startle reflex fails.

That happens when you learn to consciously ignore movement around you to stop the distracting reflexes.

Discovered to cause mental breaks for office workers the cubicle was designed to stop the problem in offices by 1968. Today almost no one remembers why the cubicle was created. In eight years searching I can not find a paper or research about the potential outcomes of the phenomenon.

Does anyone really believe that waving your arms and legs about in unison with a small group commands powerful supernatural forces? (Kundalini and QiGong) The same thing applies to meditating while cross-leg hopping in groups.

Quoting what others have said does not create an encyclopedic article. This article should use some measure of scientific investigation not rely on the writings of believers.

The first comment in the thread above about the reliability of source materials is well taken.

VisionAndPsychosis.Net is an eight year investigation of Subliminal Distraction and I am the copyright holder.

The only reference to Yogic Flying on the research site is on the "Letters" page. 24.96.50.139 (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:DPR if you wish to pursue this further.(olive (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC))

Footnote

In March, Kala Bethere added this footnote [11]. I've taken it out because it looks entirely like original research. If anyone disagrees and thinks it should be re-inserted, I'd be happy to discuss. Fladrif (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Mis-attribution?

If we're going to start attributing factual statements with multiple sources, then we need to be careful when we do it.

• Williamson asserts that the chosen sutras are repeated mentally every 15 seconds, and repeated twice, and that here are 18 sidhis, each with an associated sutra, which is a word or phrase in English. The TM sidhis include friendliness (repeating the word "friendliness"); knowledge of the motions of the stars (repeating the word "polestar"); omniscience (repeating the phrase "distinction between intellect and transcendence") and levitation or flying (repeating the phrase "relationship of body and akasha (ether)-lightness of cotton fiber"). Other sidhis include superhuman strength, the ability to find lost objects and the ability to walk through walls. The flying sidhi, which was emphasized by the Maharsihi over the other sidhis for unknown reasons, is practiced after completing the other sidhis, and may be repeated for 5 to 30 minutes, followed by a rest period, and then a 10-minute reading from an English translation of the Rig Veda. According to Williamson, the version of TM-Sidhi that is taught to "Citizens" (those who are not also TM teachers) is slightly different from the version taught to "Governors" (TM teachers).

An editor has twice attributions to Williamson to this paragraph. Since there are no other attributions, that phrase implies this is all from one source. Yet there are two other sources cited. First, is there a particular need to attribute these assertions? Second, are the attributions correct and complete?   Will Beback  talk  07:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I made a mistake in the attribution of this text. I read the Williamson section where she talks about the practice and she writes about some details of the technique. So I attributed some text to her. It is necessary to attribute this text because we cannot verify the correctness of what she and others have written. The Maharishi nor the TM organization have published any material detailing the specifics of the practice of the TM-Sidhi program, to my knowledge, so it may be difficult to find primary sources for the exact details. So the text presented in the Wiki article must be attributed to Williamson. If some of the text in this paragraph comes from other authors, then we need to attribute their text in the article. --BwB (talk) 08:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "we cannot verify the correctness of what she and others have written"? What in this article can we verify, other than through sources? That seems like an odd point to make. The TM organization is just another source, and we can't necessarily verify everything (anything?) they say either. If carried to its logical extreme, every sentence in this article and throughout Wikipedia would need to be attributed. Obviously, that result would be hard for readers to get through. Until we can clear up which text in this article needs to be attributed, and why, perhaps it's unhelpful to just randomly insert attributions that we're not sure of.   Will Beback  talk  08:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

So, Will, you do not want any of the details of the practice of the TM-Sidhi program attributed in this paragraph? --BwB (talk) 08:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying that if you don't know who said what in a paragraph with multiple sources then you shouldn't start adding attributions nilly-willy. Again, why do these particular statements need to be attributed, and why aren't we also attributing the assertions sourced to other writers that are in the same paragraph?   Will Beback  talk  08:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The point I am trying to make might best be illustrated by another example. The exact formula for Coca Cola is not published by the makers of Coke. Yes, everyone who buys a bottle of Coke sees that it contains sugar, caffeine, etc., but the exact proportions are not given. If an author was to write a book or article giving the supposed details of the formula, we would want to attribute this formula to the author rather than stating that this WAS the formula for Coke. So if Williamson or someone else says that there are 18 sutras, etc. we need to attribute this statement to the author. Please help me to understand if my thinking is off here. --BwB (talk) 08:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's hypothetically posit that we have a source which says Ezekial Godfroy was born in 1937. Godfroy never wrote an autobiography, so he's silent on the matter as far as the published word goes. A former associate of his, Winkelhew, is a scholar in the field. He writes a biography which asserts Godfroy's purported birth year, along with a variety of other biographical assertions. We see this data in a Wikipedia paragraph which also has footnotes to other sources, which we don't have at hand. How do we decide that the birth year in particular needs to be attributed, and how can we be sure which assertions belong to which sources?

As for your analogy of Coca-Cola, I think one difference here is that there are many people who know the "secret formula", tens of thousands. At least a few of them have written books or articles, and some have spoken to those who have. On the other hand, I've seen no denials or corrections from the organization about any of the published assertions concerning mantras. These are undisputed claims made by scholars writing in their field, or other well-reviewed authors. They aren't opinions or assessments, just simple facts. Would you have us attribute every sentence, giving multiple credits where necessary?

According to Winkelhew, Smythbottum, De Pieu, and Malarkey, 'TM-Sidhi' is also known as 'yogic flying'. De Pieu, Beteljus, and Holeburn say it was introduced in 1975. Eckelberg says it not demonstrated publicly at first. Joans says it was first shown in 1982, while Smythbottum says it happened in the early 1980s.

Nobody would read that. Attribution is important for opinions and disputed facts, but over-attribution becomes tiresome for the reader and impedes reading. This is not an academic review, it's an encyclopedia article intended to be read be a lay person. Footnotes are sufficient attribution in most cases.   Will Beback  talk  09:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I am trying in good faith to improve this article. I feel it is important to let the reader know that an author claims there are 18 sutras. Are there 18 sutras? I think you completely understand the point I am trying to make. There is a huge difference to saying "Joans says it was first shown in 1982" and "Wiliamson asserts there are 18 sutras". The demonstration was public and publicised, but the contents of the TM-Sidhi course are not published. Anyway, you can continue to argue against this as you like. You seem adamant not to include attributions here, and I am not going to argue the point further for now. Thanks. --BwB (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Essentially, the difference is between saying, "there are 18 sutras ^(Williamson)", and, "Williamson says there are 18 sutras ^(Williamson)". In both cases the reader can easily see who makes the assertion. The question is why it needs to be detailed in the text, as opposed to just in the footnote. If there's no answer I'll remove the new attributions.   Will Beback  talk  10:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Then why do we ever attribute anything in any article? --BwB (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

In the "Yogic Flying" section we have the text - "According to the Maharishi, Yogic Flying is a phenomenon created by a specific thought projected from the simplest state of human consciousness called Transcendental Consciousness. Maharishi states that there are three distinct stages of Yogic Flying: hopping, floating, and flying. " This could be written "Yogic Flying is a phenomenon created by a specific thought projected from the simplest state of human consciousness called Transcendental Consciousness. There are three distinct stages of Yogic Flying: hopping, floating, and flying." Why do we not remove the Maharishi attribution in this text? --BwB (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I am likewise troubled by the over-attribution of plain vanilla statements of fact, as opposed to theories and opinions, or disputed facts, for which attribution is appropriate. First, I agree with Will about the particular attributions here. We have multiple reliable sources for the basic practice of TM-Sidhi, so attributing that to Williamson is inappropriate. Second, on the 18 sidhis in the current TM-Sidhi program, and examples of the associated sutras, Williamson is the only readily available online RS, but it the information on all the sidhis and sutras is publically available. It is in the Kropinski case court records. The judge in that case denied a protective order sought by the TM defendants to prevent publication of that information, finding that it was not a trade secret. So, we can indeed verify that she is correct. Fladrif (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

@BwB: The first sentence you quote was added by user:Uncreated in 2009. I've asked for a quotation from the obscure book that he or she cited. The statement is about a theory. Unlike the number of sutras used, this is not an objective fact. Depending on what the source says, we could rephrase to say something like, "According to the Maharishi's theory..." or "The Maharishi has written that..."

Regarding the second sentence, there are two points. If we are quoting someone, then it's appropriate to attribute. We might write, "Obama said that the economic outlook is hopeful", but we would not write, "The economic outlook looks hopeful" without attribution. As for the text itself, I think the attribution to MMY is unnecessary because many sources and many people have said the same thing. However, if I understand correctly, no one has ever achieved the two higher states of Yogic Flying, so their existence is still theoretical. Therefore that statement is still basically an opinion and should have some form of attribution, if only an impersonal one like "According to theory..."   Will Beback  talk  22:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems that this discussion may be getting bogged down in philosophy and hypothetical situations. Would BWB like to take specific sentence propose a wording that includes an attribution? Then we can discuss that particular sentence and come to some consensus on the issue. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

In the next day or two I will have time to focus on this. --BwB (talk) 13:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

This isn't hypothetical. This thread concerns the edit which added "Williamson asserts that ..." to the lead sentence in the paragraph pasted at the top of the thread.   Will Beback  talk  23:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hendel

It's not clear that we should be citing this lawsuit, given that the appellate court made no mention of religion. (Will Beback said at RSN that a lower court judgment is a primary source and an appellate court judgement a secondary source, and has often said that we should prefer secondary sources.) So already it's marginal. And it seems especially problematic that we state the claims, since they weren't upheld. If we're allowed to state the claims, then why wouldn't we detail the claims in the Skolnick suit? TimidGuy (talk) 10:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we should mention the case at all, unless we can find better sources for it. I suppose that it was added in order to say that a federal judge called TM-Sidhi a religious practice, which is significant. But apparently the declaration is unnoticed by any secondary sources, probably because it was dismissed. I've searched and can't find anything. Pending better sources, I agree that it should be removed.   Will Beback  talk  10:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. I'll remove it. TimidGuy (talk) 11:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe that wa precipitous. We haven't consulted with the editors who added it. Maybe I should revert your edits and say "RSN is thataway". If not, why not?   Will Beback  talk  11:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

No response?   Will Beback  talk  18:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Shermer book

The last paragraph says this: "In his book, Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time, skeptic Michael Shermer says that the Hundredth monkey effect, which he says is unsupported by evidence, is used as empirical proof of the Maharishi Effect.[109]"

But Shermer doesn't specifically say that the TM proponents use the hundredth monkey effect as empirical support. And in fact they never have. Not a single study mentions hundredth monkey. This should be removed. TimidGuy (talk) 10:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe he was saying that it's the same concept, related to a shared consciousness field. Like any passage, I'm sure we can improve it. I'll go dig up the source and recheck it.   Will Beback  talk  19:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I found it on the GB. [12] I've rewritten the text to shorten it and focus it on the main point of the comparison which is saying that the shared trait is collective consciousness.   Will Beback  talk  11:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

self-published sources

John Hagelin organized the Invincible America Assembly in Fairfield, Iowa on July 23, 2006 as a demonstration of the Maharishi Effect. Hagelin said in a press release announcing the project that "for the United States, with a population of just over 300 million, the required number of peace-creating experts is 1,730". According to the Global Good News website "on 28 November 2006, the United States achieved invincibility and are stabilizing the number of Yogic Flyers—rising from 1,600 to 1,730—assembled at the Invincible America Assembly in Fairfield, Iowa". In addition, Hagelin's Institute for Science Technology and Public Policy web site says that the Invincible America Assembly in Iowa "is rising quickly toward its target of 2,500". Daily tallies of participants in the project are maintained on the Invincible America Assembly website.

Hagelin predicted that when the number of assembly participants reached 2,500, America would have a major drop in crime, and would see the virtual elimination of all major social and political woes in the United States. He said that the Assembly was responsible for the Dow Jones Industrial Average reaching a record high of 14,022 in July 2007, and predicted that the Dow would top 17,000 within a year. On the first trading day after the Assembly began in July 2006, the Dow had closed at 11,051.05, up 182.67 from 10,868.38. In the weeks that followed the S&P 500 as well as the Domini 400 Social Equity Index rose an average of 0.7% per week in contrast to a weekly average decrease of .06% going back to 2000. The Dow failed to reach 17,000 as predicted and peaked on October 9, 2007 at 14,164.53. The Dow then declined, closed under 7,000 in March 2009 for the first time since May 1997, and did not again close above 10,868 until March 23, 2010.

It has been suggested that self-published sources should be avoided. This article makes extensive use of movement websites and press releases in the section on Demonstration Projects. Seems like the last two paragraphs in that section should be deleted. TimidGuy (talk) 10:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this the material to which you're referring? It looks like the first paragraph provides relevant material from movement sources to give context to the independent secondary sources in the second paragraph.   Will Beback  talk  11:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there support for this rationale in a guideline? Note that much of the second paragraph also consists of self-published sources. TimidGuy (talk) 10:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Bloomberg, Telegraph, Reuters, Wall Street Journal. Those aren't self-published sources. What exactly is the problem here?   Will Beback  talk  19:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

So then you don't mind if we delete those that are self-published? TimidGuy (talk) 10:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I do mind. You haven't explained your point. Which sources do you want to delete and why? What's the problem you're trying to fix?   Will Beback  talk  11:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It has been suggested that self-published sources should be avoided. (See recent discussion on TM movement Talk.) The first paragraph above cites two press releases and the Invincible America Assembly website . These are self-published sources and should be removed. Is there a guideline that supports their use? TimidGuy (talk) 10:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Reliable Source

Would this site be considered a reliable source? http://www.beirut-online.net/portal/index.php?id=1 --Uncreated (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

We already discussed it. Talk:Transcendental_Meditation_movement#Press_release. No. it isn't reliable. It's mostly just a portal, reprinting material published elsewhere. The original sources may be reliable.   Will Beback  talk  23:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I was unaware it had come up on another talk page. The Article I was thinking to use was this one...but the author doesn't look reputable. http://www.beirut-online.net/portal/article.php?id=5050. I thought to use it since he quotes a number of independent academics on their thoughts about the Maharishi effect. I did find a useful article that we could use in relation to the Merseyside research though. https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/bitstream/2134/936/1/1998_Zero_Tolerance_Policing.pdf--Uncreated (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

That's the same article we discussed on the other page. It's just press releases.

I assume that the Police Foundation is a journal. If so the article would qualify as a reliable source. It looks like it has usable assertions about the response to the Merseyside study.   Will Beback  talk  00:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction? (scientific views)

Should the phrase "generally considered" be replaced by something else like "assumed to be generally considered"? The sentence seems like a contradiction and intellectually shallow.

Or, "for reason's not identified in reliable sources, scientists have not widely confirmed or denied..."

_*_*_*_* Quote:

These assertions are generally considered unproven by the scientific and skeptic community[citation needed], though empirical studies have been published in peer-reviewed academic journals.

--Ihaveabutt (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Since the sentence has been tagged for a while without any source provided, the whole thing should probably just be deleted. TimidGuy (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

There are sources in the "Critiques and responses" section. We can add one or two of those. I'd object to removing it, which would violate NPOV.   Will Beback  talk  18:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. There are sources for this statement in the article. Generally, the lead summarizes the article and as such sources in the article don't have to be repeated in the lead. If others have concerns with my deletion please revert me. (olive (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC))

Lutes v Lutz

Will, in this edit[13] you noted the citation to Cooke de Herrera. Have you checked that citation? There is no mention of Lutes or Lutz or the TM-Sidhi program on the page that she gives. TimidGuy (talk) 09:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course I checked it. I added that citation a week ago.[14]

• Cooke de Herrera, Nancy (1992). Beyond Gurus: A Woman of Many Worlds. Blue Dolphin. p. 432. ISBN 978-0931892493.

Cooke de Herrera's book was in various editions, so I can't vouch for the page numbers in any other edition. She specifically quotes Lutes on page 432 as saying that a motivation for introducing the new technology was a need to "bring in more money". Williamson, in turn, is citing Cooke de Herrera. So now we have both citations. It's clear that the speaker is Charlie Lutes, not "Lutz". If we're going to attribute the quote it'd be better to assign it to Cooke de Herrera, and just use Williamson for the interpretation.   Will Beback  talk  10:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you point me to the various editions? My impression is that there is only one and that Williamson had the page number wrong. TimidGuy (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a trivial issue. Is there any doubt that Charlie Lutes is the person in question?   Will Beback  talk  19:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right. There is no doubt. But I guess that wasn't really my point. I was concerned about how to represent sources that are incorrect. And also about the fact that Williamson's book has so many errors. In this instance she misspells Lutes and then gives an incorrect page number in the citation. Anyway, I agree with your changes rather than using the convention of "sic" to note inaccuracies in the sources. Thanks. And no doubt you appreciate my catching these errors in the sources that were repeated in Wikipedia, right. : ) TimidGuy (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Typographical errors are an inevitable part of publishing. IIRC, even the Maharishi misspelled his own name in one early publication. Not only that, he misspelled "siddhi". ;)   Will Beback  talk  20:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I've re-worked it so the attribution goes to Cooke de Herrera. I'll check Williamson again to see if she has anything worthwhile to add.   Will Beback  talk  20:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscientific Concepts box?

We have a box describing the Pseudoscientific Concepts of the TM Sidhi Program...yet we dont actually have any sources in the article describing it as a Pseudo Science. I think it is OR to have it in there. Robert Duval in his opinion piece TM or Not TM? A Comment on" International Peace Project in the Middle East" in the JCR, suggests that the research on the Maharishi effect is not Pseudoscientific. I think the Pseudoscientific Concepts box should be removed...since it appears it was put in with out any sources in the article to support it. If at sometime in the future sources are found that are conclusive enough then it can be put back in.--Uncreated (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you quote the text in Duval to which you're referring? I don't have ready access to that paper.   Will Beback  talk  07:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have a copy protected PDF of the article...The Author rambles a bit and is not very concise in his opinions. However if I was to pick a sentence it would be..."It is seen as sufficiently internally consistent by the JCR editorial review process to say that it conforms to acceptable standards of scientific research. And yet almost certainly it remains outside the conventional beliefs of the majority of the journals readers". Page 816-817--Uncreated (talk) 04:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That text seems to say that this is pseudoscience. "it remains outside the conventional beliefs". That's what pseudoscience is: concepts that have no conventional explanation that are presented in scientific terms. A well-crafted study that purports to prove the existence of ESP or ghosts is pseudoscience.   Will Beback  talk  06:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

. According to the Oxford Dictionary(its best to use authoritative sources I think) the definition of Pseudoscience is: "a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method." The JCR is saying the method is scientifically sound but it is the readers who mistake it to be "Pseudoscience".--Uncreated (talk) 07:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Where does the JCR say that it would be a mistake to call it "pseudoscience"? That certainly isn't what the quoted text says. I'd interpret it to say the opposite. There is no 'conventional belief" or identifiable scientific principle which allows people using a purely mental process to defy gravity or alter the emotions of people thousands of miles away.

• Jón Steingrímsson, a local Lutheran pastor, grew famous because of his eldmessa ("Sermon of Fire"), which he delivered as his congregation took refuge in the town church. His sermon was credited with stopping the advance of the lava flow. Móðuharðindin

It may be possible to see exactly where the lava stopped, and the complete story may even say at what point in the sermon it stopped. We could write a study about the phenomenon. But if we then said that sermons are an effective way of stopping lava and proposed various principles for the effect, then that would become pseudoscience. There's no conventional scientific explanation for how a sermon given indoors could have any effect on flowing lava outside, even though it's indisputable that a sermon was delivered and that the lava stopped.

It's certainly possible for MUM scientists to create rigorous studies that show these phenomenon exist and to measure them, but even they don't offer any conventional explanation for the mechanism. Some scientists have have gotten positive results in careful studies of ESP but those haven't been reproduced by independent scientists. Reproducibility is a hallmark of real science.   Will Beback  talk  08:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

(undent) Are there not about 40 published studies on the ME? (Reproducibility?) --BweeB (talk) 09:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

How many of those "40 published studies on the ME" were done by scholars with no connection to MUM?   Will Beback  talk  11:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Many were published in reputable journals such as the "Journal of Conflict Resolution (JCR)". --BweeB (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

But none of the results have been reproduced by non-MUM scientists.   Will Beback  talk  21:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The claim that it's pseudoscience needs to be sourced. Even if a source were found, it would still be problematic, because the infobox doesn't adhere to NPOV. If research uses the scientific method and is published in multiple journals that are independently peer reviewed, it's not pseudoscience. It's science. The infobox highlights only one point of view -- a violation of NPOV. TimidGuy (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The scientific method includes publishing results that can be reproduced by other scientists. To date, no independent scientist has published any studies confirming the ME nor has anyone witnessed actual levitation.   Will Beback  talk  21:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

As for NPOV, do we have any sources which say that ME is not pseudoscience? If so we should include those.   Will Beback  talk  21:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Do we have any sources that say it is Pseudoscience? The only time we mention it in the article is in the BOX...no where else...none of the critics of the maharishi effect we have sited and summarized have used the word "pseudoscience" to describe the ME.--Uncreated (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

According to Hunt (1995), the JCR published Orme-Johnson's Israel study "with editorial comments praising the methodology and rejecting the theory".   Will Beback  talk  23:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I started this thread because we don't use the term pseudoscience anywhere except in the box. In the lead we summarize the status of the Maharishi effect as "These assertions are generally considered unproven by the scientific and skeptic community, although empirical studies have been published in peer-reviewed academic journals." I am happy with this and appears to be a reflection of the situation. I am just unsure why we have the Pseudoscientific concepts Box.--Uncreated (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

There are many sources which refer to various aspects of the Maharishi's teachings as pseudoscience.[15]   Will Beback  talk  04:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious Will? This is about the "Maharishi effect", not Maharishi teachings. Once again I will say it...no critic that we have summarized in this article describes the maharishi effect as Pseduoscience...even if half of them did it would not be appropriate to have a box factually stating that the Maharishi Effect is pseudoscience since it is not a universally shared belief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncreated (talk • contribs) 21:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:FTN#Pseudoscience infobox on Maharishi Effect.   Will Beback  talk  23:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Cheers Will.--Uncreated (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The two responses there say that boxes like this are not "useful or appropriate". If there's no objections I'll remove it.   Will Beback  talk  22:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Awesome.--Uncreated (talk) 02:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hearing no objections and in consideration of the feedback at the noticeboard, I'll delete it.   Will Beback  talk  00:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with deleting the box. However if we have sources that critique TM-Sidhi/Yogic Flying as pseudoscience [16] then that critique should be summarized in the article text. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point. That particular search focuses on Yogic Flying, but that's almost impossible to separate from the Maharishi Effect. The matter is currently under-represented in the article.   Will Beback  talk  03:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's a broader link.[17]   Will Beback  talk  03:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yogic flying isn't a science psuedo or other wise. Its a meditation technique. The Maharishi effect is a name to describe an effect this Meditation technique may have. The meditation technique has been the subject of research studies , and there may indeed be scientists who consider the research pseudo science. Adding content that clearly delineates the 'science ' from opinion, the meditation technique from the research would be a great improvement in the article. Good suggestion.(olive (talk) 04:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC))

If one is claiming they can fly with the will of their mind yes that is pseudoscience cause it sort of contraveins much / all of physics.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Carl Sagan specifically names TM as a pseudoscience in Demon Haunted World. Why is this (and other equally compelling critiques) not represented in the article? - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

This article isn't about TM. Sagan is a referenced in the Transcendental Meditation article. Check the lead. There is a rather hefty section on the "reception" to the Sidhi program in this article which contains questions as to the legitimacy of the science of the program. There is also a separate article on TM technique research. Will Beback was rather keen to have a separate article so with agreement a separate article was created just for TM research. Again the TM research is a different body of research than the Sidhi research. There are multiple TM related articles in varying states of incompleteness. Some are being added to as more content appears others need corrections and updates following split offs of content. This isn't necessarily a fast process. As well, the TM article which originally contained extensive content on the TM technique was split off as a separate article and became a summary article while the TM technique article became a more extensive article on the technique. (olive (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC))

The TM movement has attempted to disassociate from its Hindu roots and ally itself with science in the Western world, and in doing so it has made its promotion of Hinduism somewhat covert and more convincing to an American audience. In what follows, we will examine the progression of language, from religious to scientific and pseudoscientific, used in the movement’s literature as it relates to a Hindu nationalist goal (called “Hindutva”) of establishing Hindu superiority over the West.

[18]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

(undent) "YOGIC FLIGHT Yogic flight is an ability claimed by those who study the philosophy of transcendental meditation (TM) and its offshoot TM Sidhi." from Regal, Brian (2009). Pseudoscience : a critical encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Greenwood Press. ISBN 9780313355073. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscience infobox

Doc the concern was that text could be added to the article if sourced...This wasn't in reference to the info box. Please check the discussion and especially when you come sweeping in and make edits over top of discussion and a NB; you should have some knowledge of what has gone on. Further the first source you cite here is not reliable for text, its a student journal. I'm concerned about the obvious disregard you have for other editors here and on the NB and your lack of accuracy in describing the situation here and commenting on editors in efforts that could to poison the well. I will revert you per the agreement on this page.(olive (talk) 21:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC))

The source I used in the article was not however. A source was requested and now a source was provided. Please stick to the topic at hand rather than make personal comments. We all have concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Please read the discussion and save us both a lot of wasted time. The sources was not requested, as you put it, for the info box. Please read the discussion... (olive (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC))

Requests for broader and hopefully independent comments has been requested. Lets give it some time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

independent? There are two independent comments. The article will be placed in NB/consensus compliant position. If there is a change I'm sure the info box can be reinstated. In the meantime your behaviour on this is not only disruptive but inexplicable especially for an admin. (olive (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC))

The concern was a lack of references. It has been referenced. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

My concern is not lack of references, but relevance and POV. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Please note: Given your mistaken understanding I suggest you revert yourself. While the info box means very little to me, the behaviour of an admin who behaves as you just have is of paramount concern. (olive (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC))

"Hearing no objections and in consideration of the feedback at the noticeboard, I'll delete it. Will Beback talk 00:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)"

"I agree with deleting the box. However if we have sources that critique TM-Sidhi/Yogic Flying as pseudoscience [4] then that critique should be summarized in the article text. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)}}"

I don't think the info box adds to the article. It is misleading in what the article is about, and the focus of the practice. Are people flying? it seems not, but why highlight that people have tried to in an info box? In my opinion, the info box violates a neutral view point on the article. If anyone can justify WHY it is necessary on these medtiation articles, please, sell it to me. right now I'm not seeing it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Another article on Chissano

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/10/world/beatles-guru-offers-nirvana-to-mozambique.html

I would like to add to the article where Mozambique is discussed..."Mr. Chissano has credited meditation with ending Mozambique's 16-year civil war and the century's worst drought." as well as...a quote from him..."Crime and accidents are down. We still have to do a thorough study, but we can feel the positive effects."

--Uncreated (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's the current text:

• In 1992, President Joaquim Chissano of Mozambique learned Transcendental Meditation. Two years later he ordered all military and police recruits to meditate twice a day. Over 16,000 soldiers and 30,000 civilians were taught the TM-Sidhi techniques. When the program was ended in 2001, for "administrative reasons", the Defense Minister said that the country had experienced triple the expected economic growth and crime levels had dropped. Chissano also attributed the signing of the peace treaty with RENAMO in part to the practice of TM in his country.

`

I suppose the we could say, "Chissano also attributed the ending of a drought and the signing of the peace treaty with RENAMO, which ended Mozambique's 16-year civil war, in part to the practice of TM in his country. In 1993 he told the Maharishi at meeting in MERU, Holland that 'Crime and accidents are down. We still have to do a thorough study, but we can feel the positive effects.'" How's that?   Will Beback  talk  23:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

That sounds pretty good Will...Maybe though we could say something more about the drought...? These two articles below describe it as a "40 year drought...and "the worst drought in living memory". Describing it as a drought I don't think does justice to it. The source article itself describes it as the "century's worst drought".

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-03-02/local/me-1630_1_mozambique-drought http://www.nytimes.com/1992/05/15/world/new-mozambique-ordeal-drought-comes-atop-war.html --Uncreated (talk) 23:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem with expanding this is that it is just one person's view. The rains that ended the drought led to devastating floods and cholera. The practice of TM-Sidhi continued to 2001, but the natural disasters didn't end in 1992. It's fine to give Chissano's claim brielfy, but let's not belabor an unbalanced, partisan view.   Will Beback  talk  00:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

We should accurately reflect reliable sources.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Chissano's statements are a reliable source for his own views, but not for anything else. We already summarize his views - we don't need to go overboard.   Will Beback  talk  20:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

For myself I don't see mentioning the size of the drought to be going overboard. The New York Times mentioned it...I dont see why we cant. Also Tobias Dai the Minister of Defence in Mozambique also credited the group meditation with averting the drought. --Uncreated (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Did TM-Sidhi cause the flood too? The problem is that Chissano is a partisan source. We're only giving one view of the issue. There are no independent views of this issue. Let's keep it short.   Will Beback  talk  01:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I am unaware that floods took place at the end of the drought. Did the TM-Sidhi cause the floods? I don't know the source doesnt say if it did or not...Is Chissano a Partisan source? Does thinking the Maharishi effect works make you Partisan? From what I understand Chissano is a highly respected politician in Africa. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10471626. Like I said, if its good enough for the New York Times...However if we wanted to give a different view we could add the view of the deputy defence minister who didnt believe meditation stopped the war or the drought. "The new deputy defence minister, Henrique Banze, confirms that TM is no longer compulsory in the army, although the practice continues in some units. "My personal opinion is that transcendental meditation and yogic flying did not end the war," he said. "But then I never tried it." Though we would want to mention that his superior did believe it worked if we were to add his comments.--Uncreated (talk) 06:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Despite what the president said, TM-Sidhi didn't end the drought. Rain did. The same rain also caused a flood, and the flood caused cholera. Cause and effect. TM-Sidhi may have caused the rain, but if so it can't escape responsibility for the rain's other effects. It's apparent that this is a complicated issue and so I suggest we just leave the existing text as it is.   Will Beback  talk  07:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

(undent) Complicated or not, we must use the text from RS. --BweeB (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

We already do. The existing text is adequate.   Will Beback  talk  08:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The Source says "century's worst drought"...to describe it simply as a drought does not accurately summarize the source in my opinion. I think what you originally suggested was excellent, lets just add "40 year" to it... "Chissano also attributed the ending of a 40 year drought and the signing of the peace treaty with RENAMO, which ended Mozambique's 16-year civil war, in part to the practice of TM in his country. In 1993 he told the Maharishi at meeting in MERU, Holland that 'Crime and accidents are down. We still have to do a thorough study, but we can feel the positive effects.'"--Uncreated (talk) 08:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

We have many sources which say many things. We have some sources that say a little but which we use a lot. Like this one. We have other sources which say a lot but that we use only a little. Nancy de Herrera Cooke's Beyond Gurus has a chapter or two on TM-Sidhi and its origins, for example. If editors here really believe that "We should accurately reflect reliable sources" and "Complicated or not, we must use the text from RS" then I welcome that approach and look forward to adding much more such text in the future.   Will Beback  talk  09:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I must admit I am confused by your post...? I am not familiar with the book you are referring to. If it conforms to the requirements of Wikipedia go for it...--Uncreated (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Not that I can see that the floods have anything to do with this particular point regarding how we summarize the source text...but didnt the floods occur in 2000? I dont think the Maharishi effect was even in effect anymore...the army which had been practising the TM Sidhi had been broken up due to the mandate by the UN in 94-95...--Uncreated (talk) 08:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. We think it's important to tell readers that an otherwise respected former president of an African nation, and an avid TM practitioner, has said publicly that this meditation program changed the weather in his country? It's an exceptional claim but the NYT is a highly reliable source. The Mozambique experiment was the biggest in the history of TM-Sidhi. It deserves considerable space, even of the TM movement never wrote about it. I don't see any reason for censoring it. Let's add it, and all other sourced claims.   Will Beback  talk  09:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I think adding these comments by Chissano are notable. If you feel like other material should be in the article...why wouldnt you add it? For the record I understand the movement has printed materials concerning Mozambique and the instruction of the army. I just didnt think it would be considered a reliable source since it was published by the movement...For the record the news papers have not accurately reported how many people were taught the TM sidhies and taught TM. According to the movement documentation only 3000 were taught the TM sidhies and about 15000 were taught Transcendental Meditation. This took place in 1993. By the end of 1994 the UN resolution called for the disbandment of the army which 3000 of had been trained...so in effect the "greater" maharishi effect ended in 1994. Small groups continued practising but no where near the 3000 that had been taught.--Uncreated (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

We need to use reliable secondary sources, where possible. --BweeB (talk) 11:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Am I right in concluding that we have consensus for the following? "Chissano also attributed the ending of a 40 year drought and the signing of the peace treaty with RENAMO, which ended Mozambique's 16-year civil war, in part to the practice of TM in his country. In 1993 he told the Maharishi at meeting in MERU, Holland that 'Crime and accidents are down. We still have to do a thorough study, but we can feel the positive effects.'"--Uncreated (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but no. If he is talking about the TM technique, instead of the TM-Sidhi program, then this isn't the right article for it. We need to make clear that he says it was "Yogic Flying", not just TM, that led to the changes.   Will Beback  talk  23:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay. The guardian article describes yogic flying as an advanced form of TM. The NYT article just uses the generic term "meditation". How about this?

In 1992, President Joaquim Chissano of Mozambique learned Transcendental Meditation. Two years later he ordered all military and police recruits to meditate twice a day. Over 16,000 soldiers and 30,000 civilians were taught the TM and the TM-Sidhi techniques. When the program was ended in 2001, for "administrative reasons", the Defense Minister said that the country had experienced triple the expected economic growth and crime levels had dropped." Chissano also attributed the ending of a 40 year drought and the signing of the peace treaty with RENAMO, which ended Mozambique's 16-year civil war, in part to the practice of TM and the TM Sidhi's in his country. In 1993 he told the Maharishi at meeting in MERU, Holland that 'Crime and accidents are down. We still have to do a thorough study, but we can feel the positive effects.'--Uncreated (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The dates don't make sense. Chissano personally learned TM in 1992, and in 1994 he ordered the army, etc, to learned and practice it and TM-Sidhi. But in 1993, a year earlier, he said that crime was down. Was that simply because he alone was practicing? If we're going to spend so much space on this, let's get it right. Let's make it clear what happened when.   Will Beback  talk  04:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right will. Unfortunate the Guardian article is not clear, it initially says:

The president discovered TM, the teaching of the Beatles' guru, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, in 1992, shortly before the end of Mozambique's 16-year guerrilla war. It was no coincidence. "First I started the practice of transcendental meditation myself, then introduced the practice to my close family, my cabinet of ministers, my government officers and my military," Mr Chissano, a former Marxist bush-fighter, is on record as saying in literature published by Maharishi devotees. "The result has been political peace and balance in nature in my country." But then goes on to say: The attractions of this to Mr Chissano and his generals seemed clear. From the end of 1994, all military and police recruits were ordered to meditate for 20 minutes, twice a day. More than 16,000 soldiers were taught yogic flying and TM, according to Mozambique's defence minister. So were 30,000 Mozambicans, according to the Maharishi movement. In October, 1994, the deputy defence minister of the day, Antonio Hama Thay, wrote to the national military school ordering that, "transcendental meditation must be an integral part of the curriculum of the cadets in the school, as a requirement for them to become officers".

The NYT article(Feb 1994) says: The Maharishi's advance on Mozambique began about two years ago with a team from Europe and India that instructed 1,500 Mozambicans in meditation training. The Government has allocated the instructors a house near the presidential villa where they conduct classes for military and civil service officials and their families.

So I guess the NYT article is referring to the first paragraph of the Guardian article. However I think the newspapers are confused in regards to the numbers learning. I have a copy of a speech given by Tobias Dai, the minister of defence at the time that was given at the end of 1994 and he describes that in total 15000 people were taught TM (i understand in the military and Government) but only 3000 of them were trained in yogic flying. Its a hard copy, published in a 23 page brochure by Maharishi University of Management Holland. So I don't think we would be able to use it.

In 1992, President Joaquim Chissano of Mozambique learned Transcendental Meditation along with 1500 military personal and civil service officials and their families. In 1993 he told the Maharishi at meeting in MERU, Holland that 'Crime and accidents are down. We still have to do a thorough study, but we can feel the positive effects.' During the next two years over 16,000 soldiers and 30,000 civilians were taught the TM and the TM-Sidhi techniques. From the end of 1994, all military and police recruits were ordered to meditate for 20 minutes, twice a day. When the program was ended in 2001, for "administrative reasons", the Defense Minister said that the country had experienced triple the expected economic growth and crime levels had dropped." Chissano also attributed the ending of a 40 year drought and the signing of the peace treaty with RENAMO, which ended Mozambique's 16-year civil war, in part to the practice of TM and the TM Sidhi's in his country. How is this?--Uncreated (talk) 08:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's put it into chronological order. I guess that would be something more like this (using the same basic text).

• In 1992, President Joaquim Chissano of Mozambique learned Transcendental Meditation along with 1500 military personal and civil service officials and their families. Chissano attributed the ending of a 40 year drought and the signing of the peace treaty with RENAMO, which ended Mozambique's 16-year civil war, in part to the practice of TM and the TM-Sidhi. In 1993 he told the Maharishi at meeting in MERU, Holland that 'Crime and accidents are down. We still have to do a thorough study, but we can feel the positive effects.' During the next two years over 16,000 soldiers and 30,000 civilians were taught the TM and the TM-Sidhi techniques. From the end of 1994, all military and police recruits were ordered to meditate for 20 minutes, twice a day. When the program was ended in 2001, for "administrative reasons", the Defense Minister said that the country had experienced triple the expected economic growth and crime levels had dropped."

Can we add the citations? That'll make it easier to double check that we're summarizing them correctly.

This version from Will seems acceptable. --BweeB (talk) 08:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Good...how do the citations work? I can try putting them in...but is it easier to put them in when we put it in the article?...or does it not make a difference?--Uncreated (talk) 10:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

We can put them in the same way as we do in the article. Just add {{reflist|close=1}} at the end to make the references appear.   Will Beback  talk  10:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

In 1992, President Joaquim Chissano of Mozambique learned Transcendental Meditation along with 1500 military personal and civil service officials and their families . Chissano attributed the ending of a 40 year drought and the signing of the peace treaty with RENAMO , which ended Mozambique's 16-year civil war, in part to the practice of TM and the TM-Sidhi . In 1993 he told the Maharishi at meeting in MERU, Holland that 'Crime and accidents are down. We still have to do a thorough study, but we can feel the positive effects.' During the next two years over 16,000 soldiers and 30,000 civilians were taught the TM and the TM-Sidhi techniques. From the end of 1994, all military and police recruits were ordered to meditate for 20 minutes, twice a day. When the program was ended in 2001, for "administrative reasons", the Defense Minister said that the country had experienced triple the expected economic growth and crime levels had dropped."

--Uncreated (talk) 12:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps pin down what we're saying. The Salon source doesn't look that useful - it just repeats what the other sources say, and may be copied from them, unless we want to add the part about Chissano doing yoga. OTOH, the plan to turn over acreage to MAHEDCO is relevant and should be mentioned briefly. We can also add the dates of the RENAMO treaty and the end of the drought. I'll post a draft shortly.   Will Beback  talk  21:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Cool.--Uncreated (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry it's taking so long. I found many additional sources on Chissano, etc., and am working through them. I'll post something this weekend.   Will Beback  talk  22:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hows it coming Will? I guess where you are its still the weekend and you are out partying.:)--Uncreated (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. It took longer than I expected to do the research and I've been away from the computer more than I thought I'd be, plus other on-Wiki demands. It's a complicated issue. Other sources give different explanations for the end of the civil war, and other accounts of the length of the drought. Then there was the cholera and flooding. Further, the drought returned a short while later. But I haven't forgotten.   Will Beback  talk  08:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Chissanos at MUM

I just discovered that one or more of Chissano's children, plus some children of his associates, attended MUM in Fairfield in the mid-1990s. If any editors here knew them, or Chissano himself, they should either disclose that fact or refrain from participating in the editing or discussions related to Chissano.   Will Beback  talk  19:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Will. What policy are you citing? While I should probably walk away from such statements, I'm intrigued to see how you tie this kind of ownership statement to Wikipedia. I suggest that if this is another COI accusation you take it to a Notice Board. This is not the place for it.(olive (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC))

I'm just asking for a level playing field. There shouldn't be a problem with saying something like, "I think we should add more about Chissano's perspective. Full disclosure: I met the man once at an event, but have no other connection to him." Editors on other topics make disclosures like that all of the time. It's also fine to keep quiet and simply stay out of the discussion.   Will Beback  talk  19:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

All levity aside. Your statement is disruptive. Please reconsider posting such statements in the future(olive (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC))

I wasn't joking. Asking editors to follow relevant guidelines is not disruptive. If you think it is then I'd ask you to explain in what way it disrupts the editing of an article to disclose significant connections to people whose views are being promoted.   Will Beback  talk  19:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there a policy you're citing. If not your statements indicate attempts to create "rules" for this page-ownership. Ownership statements disrupt because they intimidate, and shift balance. (olive (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC))

Take it to a Notice Board or leave it out of the discussion.(olive (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm here because of Notice Board postings.   Will Beback  talk  11:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of why you are here, your request (above) for personal information from other editors based on a paranoia about conflict of interest issues has no place on this or any other talk page and smacks of intimidation and disruption. Please stop. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 11:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't requested any personal information, simply compliance with WP:COI. Please don't accuse me of having a mental illness.   Will Beback  talk  20:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• You've caste an aspersion at me by saying “please don’t accuse me of having a mental illness”. I have not mentioned your state of mind and you know it. Please strike that comment immediately.
• You requested personal information of other editors when you said (bold added by me for emphasis): “If any editors here knew them, or Chissano himself, they should either disclose that fact or refrain from participating in the editing or discussions related to Chissano.” Asking random editors to disclose an alleged relationship with a person and his children, who are not even the topic of the article and telling editors to give that personal information or leave, is a clear act of intimidation and ownership.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You said my concerns were paranoia. Paranoia is a mental disorder. If you'd withdraw that comment I'd certain appreciate it.

Once again, I'm asking for compliance with WP:COI. The Chissano children apparently attended MUM and lived in Fairfield for a number of years.   Will Beback  talk  02:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

paranoia is not a mental disorder but rather "a thought process believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear" and anxiety and fear are common human emotions that we all have. However to satisfy your concern, I have stricken the word "paranoia" from my original comment. Please return the favor and honor my request to strike your accusation. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that it's unwise for us to start commenting on the mental or spiritual failings of other editors. Thank you for striking through your accusation, I've done the same to my complaint.

Since no one has disclosed any connection to the Chissanos here I assume, in good faith, that no one actively editing issues related to them is acquainted with them, through MUM, Fairfield, or elsewhere.   Will Beback  talk  00:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Chissano draft

In 1992, President Joaquim Chissano of Mozambique learned Transcendental Meditation and yogic flying along with 1500 military personal and civil service officials and their families. In October of that year the armed opposition, RENAMO, signed a peace treaty ending a 16-year civil war. Two months later what was described as the worst drought of the century across southeastern Africa ended with heavy rains that also causing flooding and cholera outbreaks. According to Maharishi literature, Chissano said that the meditation practice led to "political peace and balance in nature. In 1993, Chissano told the Maharishi at meeting in MERU, Holland that "Crime and accidents are down. We still have to do a thorough study, but we can feel the positive effects." However, a deputy defence minister said he did not believe the TM and yogic flying had ended the war. Some commentators say that RENAMO started negotiations because their funding had been cut off by the South African government in 1990. A diplomat serving as the United Nations' special representative said in 1993 that many in the country thought God had ended the drought as a sign of favor over signing the peace treaty. In 1993, Chissano received an honorary degree from one of the movement's universities. His son and the children of cabinet members went on to attend Maharishi University of Management on scholarship. In addition, Chissano entered into an agreement to turn over control of 25% of the arable land in Mozambique to the Maharishi Heaven on Earth Development Company, but the agreement was nullified when it became public in 1994. Over 16,000 soldiers and 30,000 civilians were taught the TM and the TM-Sidhi techniques. From the end of 1994, all military and police recruits were ordered to meditate for 20 minutes, twice a day. In 2001, the Defense Minister said that the country had experienced triple the expected economic growth and crime levels had dropped". When the program ended in 2001, for what the local Maharishi center described as "administrative reasons", some individual units maintained the practice.

Draft discussion

Sorry this took so long. This is a more comprehensive of the treatment of the Chissano/Mozambique involvement with TM-Sidhi. While it is long, this represents the largest single group practice of TM-Sidhi so it's worth thorough coverage. Any comments?   Will Beback  talk  04:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Will, I appreciate that you put a lot of time into this researching this…however I think that we should only use sources that talk about the Maharishi effect or Yogic Flying since this is an article obout TM Sidhi, Yogic Flying and the Maharishi effect. It seems to me to be a form of OR to add sources that don’t talk about the Maharishi effect. --Uncreated (talk) 03:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we have a situation in which a partisan is making an extraordinary claim. Other competent commentators have different views. NPOV requires that we include all significant points of view on an issue. If we're going say that someone believes that the rain may have been caused by the ME, then we'd be remiss to omit the fact that there are other views. And there are other issues that relate directly to Chissano's promotion of TM and TM-Sidhi. Any other comments?   Will Beback  talk  06:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Like I said earlier does thinking the maharishi effect works make you partisan? Which competent commentators have different views of the Maharishi effect in regards to Mozambique? NPOV requires that we accurately summarize relevant sources. --Uncreated (talk) 07:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

UN-appointed diplomats have some competence on the issue of the Mozambique peace treaty, for example. Receiving compensation, like university scholarships to American schools, is an intrinsic factor. Promoting a cause, such as signing over 1/4 of the nation, was a partisan activity that was not supported by the populous.   Will Beback  talk  11:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you point me to where the UN-appointed diplomats comment on the Maharishi effect? Receiving compensation, like university scholarships to American schools, is an intrinsic factor. According to who? What does this have to do with the Maharishi effect/Sidhi Programme? "Signing over 1/4 of the nation, was a partisan activity that was not supported by the populous" What does this have to do with the Maharishi effect/Sidhi Programme...? Please provide sources that explain the relevancy...other wise as far as I can see its OR. If someone like the New York Times or Guardian thinks that his thoughts about the Maharishi effect where influenced by the movement etc...we should site it, if not I don't think we should. I can see how these points would be relevant in other articles...just not this one.--Uncreated (talk) 02:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This particular paragraph concerns Chissano's claim that the peace treaty and the rain were the result of practicing TM and TM-Sidhi. However there are other significant views about the causes of those events. Per NPOV, we should include all significant points of view, not just Chissano's. Readers should also be aware that Chissano had unusual financial connections with the TM movement at the same time as he was making these assertions. BTW, someone said that the program actually ended or was curtailed before 2001 - do we have a source for that?   Will Beback  talk  04:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This particular paragraph concerns Chissano's thoughts on the Maharishi effect/TM sidhi programme and how they influenced his country. Yes, that is why it is notable to this article...however the UN appointed diplomats thoughts on what the population thought about god and the ending of the drought would be appropriate in the god ending droughts article...not this one. If we have other peoples points of view about the Maharishi effect and Mozambique then we should add those...however if we do not then we should not have them. I think it is appropriate to comment on the deputy minister of defences thoughts on the Maharishi effect...however we should also then have the minister of defences thoughts on the Maharishi effect. I think since the New York times article describes both Chissanos thoughts on the maharishi effect and the land development in conjunction with the movement we should have something in there about that... but I don't think its relevant to mention his children going to mum or he receiving an honorary doctorate etc....If we want to we can ad them to the article on Chissano. The points that are made by the 3rd and 4th sources are not vaild because the article does not mention or are concerned with the Maharishi effect. They could be made in the article about Mozambique I think. --Uncreated (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is another source that may be relevant to these discussions on Chissano:

• [And how did the civil war eventually end? Maybe it was all down to the Beatles, or at least their teacher of transcendental meditation, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. In 1992 he was invited to Maputo by President Chissano, who is quoted as saying: "The result has been political peace and balance in nature in my country."][19]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• This particular paragraph concerns Chissano's thoughts on the Maharishi effect/TM sidhi programme and how they influenced his country.

No, this paragraph concerns the very large, long-term group practice of the TM-Sidhi program in Mozambique, and its possible effects on the country's civil war and its climate. Chissano has his views on that topic, but those aren't the only views. NPOV requires that we include all significant views.   Will Beback  talk  22:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Will, they do not have a few on the "long-term group practice of the TM-Sidhi program in Mozambique, and its possible effects on the country's civil war and its climate." They only have a few on "the country's civil war and its climate." This article is about "long-term group practice of the TM-Sidhi program in Mozambique, and its possible effects on the country's civil war and its climate." Their views should go in the article about "the country's(Mozambique) civil war and its climate."--Uncreated (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

When people are saying that the war ended because the rebel's funding was cut off, that's also a statement that it was not caused by Chissano's meditation. If we have one source that says the ball is blue, then second source which says it is red is also implicitly saying it is not blue, and so contradicts the first source.   Will Beback  talk  23:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

"When people are saying that the war ended because the rebel's funding was cut off, that's also a statement that it was not caused by Chissano's meditation." Sounds like Original Research to me.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 11:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

to go back to the analogy I used before, Chissano is saying that "the ball is blue". If there are sources that say "the ball is red" then they are also saying, by implication, that the ball is not blue. On the question of whether the ball is blue or not, the mention of other possible colors is appropriate. It would be original research if there was a significant reason to doubt that the sources were discussing the same ball, but I think the two issues here, the peace treaty and the rain, are clear enough that there's no confusion.   Will Beback  talk  20:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Your analogy is an excellent description of Original Research which states: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." -- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Which original conclusions does the draft make?   Will Beback  talk  03:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

We have 2 main sources of information (NYT article and Guardian Article) that deal with the Maharishi effect/TM Sidhi Programme and Mozambique. The other sources that have been used in the draft do not have any information about the Maharishi effect/TM Sidhi Programme, they only have information about Mozambique.

The other sources could not be used this article about the Maharishi effect/TM Sidhi Programme independently of the NYT article and Guardian article because they have no information that we could source about the Maharishi effect/TM Sidhi Programme. As such we are using them “to to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources (NYT article and Guardian Article)” that actually have information about the Maharishi effect/TM Sidhi Programme.

I can’t speak for Keithbob, but that is my thinking.--Uncreated (talk) 09:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I concur. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that these "concurrences" really have much weight.

As far as the sources go, every one of them is about Chissano, the civil war, or the drought. They are all reliable sources. The paragraph in question concerns the view that the Maharishi Effect was responsible for both the end of the war and the end of the drought. We can't just give side. NPOV requires that we include all significant views. As a compromise, I'd be willing to leave out the extensive and somewhat bizarre financial ties between Chissano and the TM movement. But we need to keep in the other views on the civil war and drought.   Will Beback  talk  04:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the proposed draft also has NPOV issues, but let's finish the discussion on OR first. Since we are not making any progress on the OR issue I have asked for community input on the OR noticeboard. Here is the link:[20]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Cheers Keithbob.--Uncreated (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Draft 2

In 1992, President Joaquim Chissano of Mozambique learned Transcendental Meditation and yogic flying along with 1500 military personal and civil service officials and their families. In October of that year the armed opposition, RENAMO, signed a peace treaty ending a 16-year civil war. Two months later what was described as the worst drought of the century across southeastern Africa ended. According to Maharishi literature, Chissano said that the meditation practice led to "political peace and balance in nature. In 1993, Chissano told the Maharishi at meeting in MERU, Holland that "Crime and accidents are down. We still have to do a thorough study, but we can feel the positive effects." However, a deputy defence minister said he did not believe the TM and yogic flying had ended the war. In 1993, Chissano received an honorary degree from one of the movement's universities. His son and the children of cabinet members went on to attend Maharishi University of Management on scholarship. In addition, Chissano entered into an agreement to turn over control of 25% of the arable land in Mozambique to the Maharishi Heaven on Earth Development Company, but the agreement was nullified when it became public in 1994. Over 16,000 soldiers and 30,000 civilians were taught the TM and the TM-Sidhi techniques. From the end of 1994, all military and police recruits were ordered to meditate for 20 minutes, twice a day. In 2001, the Defense Minister said that the country had experienced triple the expected economic growth and crime levels had dropped". When the program ended in 2001, for what the local Maharishi center described as "administrative reasons", some individual units maintained the practice.

Draft 2 discussion

Here is a second draft with the disputed material removed. Comments?   Will Beback  talk  09:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Why do we still have material about "honorary degree" and family attending MUM? What has this got to do with TM-Sidhi and the ME? --BweeB (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

From the feedback at WP:NORN: "Otherwise the business of the children would be just drawing inferences without a source." TimidGuy (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The Joaquim Chissano article is the place for all this stuff about hie awards and family. --BweeB (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The response at NORN is that if the RS mentions it in the context of discussing the ME then it's appropriate to include. Something talking about the TM claims for ending the war and financial problems sounds eminently suitable and is the sort of thing you need if it ties them together in some way. It could also possibly be used to justify including the business about the children and the TM university as well. The material is relevant: Chissano is no scientist. He was a member of the TM movement who was receiving financial and other benefits from the movement. The discussion of these entanglements is brief.   Will Beback  talk  18:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Any further comments?   Will Beback  talk  21:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Something talking about the TM claims for ending the war and financial problems sounds eminently suitable and is the sort of thing you need if it ties them together in some way. It refers to a source tying them together. If the source doesn't make an explicit connection and you make a connection in the article you are synthesizing content and creating OR. And you've left out the line which clearly indicates the it means the source,

Something talking about the TM claims for ending the war and financial problems sounds eminently suitable and is the sort of thing you need if it ties them together in some way. It could also possibly be used to justify including the business about the children and the TM university as well. Otherwise the business of the children would be just drawing inferences without a source

When he says drawing inferences with out a sources I believe he means OR. So the content you are suggesting cannot be used. (olive (talk) 22:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC))

But the source (cite#5) does make an explicit connection. It appears that the article is not online - would you like me to mail you a copy?   Will Beback  talk  22:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the ME/Yogic Flying: In 1993, Chissano received an honorary degree from one of the movement's universities.[4][5] His son and the children of cabinet members went on to attend Maharishi University of Management on scholarship.[2] Where is Yogic flying or ME mentioned in this content? This is creating by inference information about the TM org and the university. Unless you can find a source that explicitly makes that connection you can't use that kind of content in an article. To do so is synthesizing content and creates OR. And thanks very much for the offer of sending the source. :O)(olive (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC))

" Unless you can find a source that explicitly makes that connection you can't use that kind of content in an article."

But that's what I'm saying. The Van Niekerk article does connect these issues, covering them together in the same way that this draft does. Have you read that article? It's no original research to correctly summarize a source.   Will Beback  talk  21:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Our job isn't to summarize sources, its to summarize sources that explicitly reference the topic of the article or possibly section. Does the source tie together Chissano's children, where they went to school, and the ME. As far as I'm concerned you can add this content. I note a growing concern with your support of OR here and else where. Either there is a lack of understanding, I am not explaining myself well enough, or you know what is OR but want to add it anyway. Either way we are at an impasse so I will back off and suggest you add what you feel is right. (olive (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC))

You've avoided answering the basic question of whether you've read the source being summarized. If a source says, X+Y=Z (or something like that), then it's not original research to mention X and Y in an article about Z. Less abstractly, if a source on Chissano's views of TM/TM-Sidhi discusses his financial involvements with the TM movement, then it's not OR to mention them here using that source. Maybe we don't share an understanding of WP:NOR. Could you please cite the passage that you think this draft violates? Then we'd be working from the same definition.   Will Beback  talk  21:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Will. Its really tiring having you constantly infer some nefarious dealings on the parts of editors because they bypass your questions for whatever numerous reasons. I thanked you for your kind offer of providing the source, and thought that was the end of it. I have the source. I don't see that the inference made in this article, that somehow the fact that Chissano's children went to MUM is somehow connected to the TM Sidhi program. Synthesizing those two pieces of material together creates something the source to me does not seem to be saying. "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context." The source seem to indicate this is only biographical background. and infers nothing more. But since I have agreed in this instance to include the disputed material I have no desire to keep rehashing this point.(olive (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC))

Thanks, I have trouble guessing what you mean sometimes. Your emoticon ":O)" was mysterious to me. Let's post the relevant material here in case anyone hasn't seen the article:

• The victory of President Joaquim Chissano in his country's October elections could open the way for devotees of the Maharishi Mashesh Yogi, one-time guru of the Beatles, to implement a spiritual and agricultural Utopia in the world's poorest country. Chissano is an enthusiastic practitioner of Transcendental Meditation, into which teaching he has roped his family and a large section of Mozambique's ruling elite. On receiving an honorary doctorate last year from the Maharishi Vedic University in Vlodrop, Holland, Chissano credited the 'technology of consciousness' with bringing peace to his country, lowering the crime and accident rates, and bringing good rains to the countryside. He even sent thousands of soldiers on meditation courses and, he claimed, 'a positive effect was felt throughout the country'. His honorary degree was awarded for 'adopting the TM programme in such a way that he calmed down the whole population'. Encouraged by sympathisers in such high places, the Dutch-based Maharishi Heaven on Earth Development Company (Mahedco) has asked Maputo for permission to implement an ambitious plan to develop 20 million hectares of Mozambican territory - almost a quarter of the countryside. Mahedco wants to plant cotton, timber, mangoes and pawpaws, rebuild the infrastructure of the country, and set up a national health scheme based on 'natural' holistic medicine. It is nothing less than a holistic cure for an entire country, one that was at war non-stop from 1964 to 1991. 'But first we need to revive the consciousness of people,' Mahedco chief executive Jacques Uijen told The Observer. 'As long as they remain in complete inertia, no project will succeed.' He said they had reached Chissano and several other Cabinet ministers. 'Now we have to convince the whole population.'

So it directly connects the award of the honorary degree to the assertion that TM-Sidhi was responsible for the end of the drought and the civil war. The writer further connects the outcome of the TM-Sidhi experiment with the deal to turn over land to MAHEDCO. The TM spokesman makes clear the relevance of the cabinet's involvement, and he also mentions the goal of convincing the entire country. We can leave out the MUM scholarships if that's the sticking point.   Will Beback  talk  22:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.(olive (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC))

I'm sorry, I'm once again mystified. "Thanks" for what?   Will Beback  talk  22:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

....for dealing with my sticking point. In or out as you wish.(olive (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC))

You're welcome. Hopefully draft #3 will be acceptable to all.   Will Beback  talk  00:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Draft 3

n 1992, President Joaquim Chissano of Mozambique learned Transcendental Meditation and yogic flying along with 1500 military personal and civil service officials and their families. In October of that year the armed opposition, RENAMO, signed a peace treaty ending a 16-year civil war. Two months later what was described as the worst drought of the century across southeastern Africa ended. According to Maharishi literature, Chissano said that the meditation practice led to "political peace and balance in nature. In 1993, Chissano told the Maharishi at meeting in MERU, Holland that "Crime and accidents are down. We still have to do a thorough study, but we can feel the positive effects." However, a deputy defence minister said he did not believe the TM and yogic flying had ended the war. In 1993, Chissano received an honorary degree from one of the movement's universities. In addition, Chissano entered into an agreement to turn over control of 25% of the arable land in Mozambique to the Maharishi Heaven on Earth Development Company, but the agreement was nullified when it became public in 1994. Over 16,000 soldiers and 30,000 civilians were taught the TM and the TM-Sidhi techniques. From the end of 1994, all military and police recruits were ordered to meditate for 20 minutes, twice a day. In 2001, the Defense Minister said that the country had experienced triple the expected economic growth and crime levels had dropped". When the program ended in 2001, for what the local Maharishi center described as "administrative reasons", some individual units maintained the practice.

Draft 3 discussion

Here is a revised draft, without the MUM scholarships awarded to the children of Chissano and his cabinet. Any further comments?   Will Beback  talk  00:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It can be added...its pretty long and may violate weight, but its OK for now, as far as I'm concerned.(olive (talk) 01:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC))

Seeing no other responses, I've added it. Regarding weight, the matter has been covered in a number of sources, and it is the largest demonstration yet, so it seems like it deserves considerable attention.   Will Beback  talk  02:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I feel the sentence "In 1993, Chissano received an honorary degree from one of the movement's universities." should be removed from the section. I has nothing to do with the subject of the section on the demonstration. --BweeB (talk) 07:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

We can add more text to explain the connection.   Will Beback  talk  08:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

No, this is not the place for it. It can be done at the Chissano article. This is the place to talk about research and demonstrations of the effects of TM-Sidhi. --BweeB (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

That includes the relevant issues surrounding the demonstrations. Just like a proper studies controls for variables, a proper discussion of a demonstration project will mention the asserted outcomes as well as other relevant details. Chissano is the one making the assertion so his credentials, etc, are relevant. The degree is mentioned in at least two sources that talk about the project, so it's not just my opinion that it's relevant.   Will Beback  talk  08:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)