Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

The "environmental" study

Jeffire, please let's discuss before removing well-sourced material. The study may be bogus (I don't really know), but in that case what would be required is to cite a reliable source saying that. Tanaats 13:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tanaats.TimidGuy 16:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually it would be up to you to provide sources demonstrating it's reliability. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, such as repeated large trials. Silly pretend studies by cultists don't cut it. The study is widely considered bunk.

Of course, in contentious matters like this there is a simple solution. If this is a real phenomenon then it will be a simple matter to find an appropriate relicate study. Jefffire 16:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You haven't offered any evidence that it's not a valid study. It was published in a peer-reviewed journal based in the Department of Political Science at Yale University. TimidGuy 16:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Simply being peer review doesn't make a study reliable. Since it is largely considered bunk by the scientific community the best practice would be to simply leave it out. Jefffire 16:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, I don't particularly like that paragraph, which is left over from an earlier version. And the study you're referring to isn't on Transcendental Meditation, I'm happy to leave it out. But it sure would be great if you could justify a deletion of a study appearing in a respected, peer-reviwed journal by offering some evidence.

You inserted some very old studies. Note that the guidelines specifically say if old studies have been superseded, they may not be reliable sources. The hypertension research is top notch. Robert Scheider has been elected a fellow of the American College of Cardiology. The research has been funded by the NIH. You must know that in order to get funding, the research must be very rigorous. This funding has been ongoing over a period of 15 years.TimidGuy 16:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

An fairly definitive if informal proof that the study is considered bunk is that there has been no repitition of it, despite it's rather vast implications.

You should also bear in mind that that studies can well be biased by various factors, such as the identity of the funding body. Trancendental Meditation is a heavily commercialised entity, and so any research on the matter must be viewed with heavy suspician. In any case none of the older studies cover the same ground as the newer ones, so I see no need to worry about them being superceded. Jefffire 16:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

There are also some fairly heavy criticisms of the NIH's CAM division's funding policies, but that's another matter. Jefffire 16:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The funding body in the main research on Transcendental Meditation in the past 15 years has been the National Institutes of Health. Over $20 million. This is federal funding. The research has been carried out at about a dozen medical centers and universities around the country.

Regarding the environmental research, it's been replicated a number of times. But I'd rather not debate that here. And as I said, it's not really related to TM. It studies the effect of the TM-Sidhi program. TimidGuy 17:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Not all of the NIH funding is from NCAM. It's also from the Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The NCAM funding is very competitive. TimidGuy 17:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Jeffire, actually you can't take well-sourced material out of the article on the basis of personal opinion and hear-say. A peer-reviewed study is most definitely well-sourced. If you wish to challenge the study then your only option would to be to find an RS that presents an opinion that there are faults with the study. I strongly doubt that you will find such a thing. Regardless, the well-sourced statement about the study has to stay in. Tanaats 18:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Rather the onus is upon the editors wishing to keep this study to prove it's reliability. Given the points against raised by me (which are so far unchallenged), there is very good reason to consider the research bollocks until proven otherwise. Please provide the independent replications you (sorry, that was TimidGuy's claim) speak of, as that would go some way to resolving the issue. Jefffire 18:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I mean it is clear the scientific community considers the study a joke.... no one is going to disagree with you on that.... and WP:FRINGE says "Any non-mainstream theories should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major mainstream publication." So one way to look at this is to examine the journal it appeared if it is a "major mainstream" publication.

At first Jefferies I thought you were taking the wrong tact with this, and now that I read the policies, I am actually grateful you raised it. I am not sure taking it out is the answer, and the Maharishi Effect is certainly fringe/pseudoscience with a very large number of critics and Wikipedia is very firm about dealing with such claims. Sethie 18:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If I may clarify - that the study exists, what it report, and where it was published are not in any doubt. That it is considered to have any scientific legitimacy is. When I removed it it was nestled in amongst some other studies which I see no reason to challenge on strict factual grounds (it would be expected that any relaxation technique would have such effects). Perhap a small section on the so-called "Maharishi Effect" would be useful to provide a seperate space for such studies? Jefffire 15:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:FRINGE: "If another, adequately reputable source discusses the theory first, Wikipedia is no longer the primary witness to notability." Tanaats 15:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on what you mean? I think my stance on the matter is covered by WP:FRINGE#A_note_about_publication. Jefffire 15:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm quite mistaken. I thought that we were talking about a peer-reviewed study. Tanaats 18:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:Fringe What is more, while peer review is a necessary feature of reliable sources that discuss scientific, historical or other academic ideas, it is not sufficient. It is important that original hypotheses that have gone through peer review do not get presented in Wikipedia as representing scientific consensus or fact. Jefffire 12:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Jeffire, we are not representing the article's conclusions as either "scientific consensus" or "fact". We merely report the conclusions without comment. WP:FRINGE does not apply in this case either. Tanaats 14:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

By presenting implausible fairy tales next to better research we imply it is reasonable. It is not so, so it should be treated differently. Jefffire 16:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems that we are deadlocked. I'll file an RfC. Tanaats 20:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Further thoughts on the TM article, and discussion pages

I think these are good ideas from everyone , and any combination of them could work better than what we have now. This article has become unwieldy even since I've been here. I don't consider myself to be a major editor in terms of many of these discussion points, although the TM and religion article interests me, and I have been commenting, and working there.

I do have a thought or two (or more)

• As you all hash out the more controversial issues I would like to "fill in the blanks" with less controversial material. We are missing M Jyotish and I have stared to work on the introduction to that. This, like the Sthapatya Veda article is pretty straight-forward, and just requires that I report on the material without inserting any opinions.

It occurred to me that the organization of the article as a whole is causing problems.

• First we may be dealing with two major areas of discussion. One the reference/citations sources, etc , and the other the fundamental structure of the article as a whole. This includes naming of the articles, naming the organization /technique, what to include, how to include it and overall format. This article is not about TM .... I know this is a controversial point but just follow me here and see if there is any sense in this. What we are putting together on this site is actually an article on The Forty Disciplines of Maharishi Vedic Science. TM is perhaps the most fundamental discipline of these. If we begin with this as an introduction we can place everything inside of this in an orderly way. Every discipline can be named, along with information about it, controversy linked to it, science supporting it and against it, and so on. This gives us a consistent format for the article as a whole.
• As an aside, I realized that whatever we called this organization in the past, this is not what the organization calls itself now . We are not in the position to change the name for our own purposes, that is, to make the article clearer for someone who comes into and doesn’t know what MVS is. If I am writing an article on Prince Charles and everyone calls him Charlie down at the pubs, which they do, well I can’t call him Charlie in the article, because this is an encyclopedia and not a magazine or newspaper or any publicly read written material that uses a popularized version of anything unless we first define that that is what we are doing. Maybe, we could say however, Prince Charles known down at the pubs as Charlie, is the next in line to the throne of England. For the purpose of this article we will be calling Prince Charles, Charlie, so all the chaps down at the pub know whom we are talking about
• What we can do in terms of our own article, all nonsense aside, is define a) Maharishi Vedic Science b) relate how this name refers to the commonly used term, TM c) establish that we will differentiate the organization formally known as the TM organization or the TM movement from TM, a discipline of MVS, and a technique for meditation.
• For the purposes of this article we then need to name the so called, TM Organization, in some way that we all agree on, and use it consistently throughout the article. If we don’t take these steps I fear we will be arguing forever and more importantly will never have consistent use of terminology on this site.
• The site as a whole can still be called Transcendental Meditation, since most people will need that popularized version of this material to actually get to the site. We can then add our material on terminology. (olive 17:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC))

I like your overall concept, including discussing the different names. The TM organization changes is in a near constant state of re-definition, and covering that is an essential component of an acurate article.

Your analogy of "a pub" is flawed. Please look at the actual citations that I provided which call the whole movement TM. They include dictionaires and encyclopedias, and scholarly articles. Hardly tabloids or gossip! However, I resonate with the spirit of your analogy- which is, people call the movement TM. Sethie 17:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Olive, a couple of replies...

• Filling in the blanks sounds great as long as it doesn't bloat this main article. Please see below re sub-articles.
• Describing the 40 disciplines of MVS would bloat this article incredibly, and there is already an article on Maharishi Vedic Science. It is currently only a stub. The full description of MVS that you propose belongs there.
• I understand you to be saying that MVS is identical to what I have been calling "MMY's entire corpus of teachings". Is that correct? I just want to make sure that I am following you correctly.
• Sure, it sounds good to distinguish things as you have described. The accepted WP way of doing this is to create short summaries in the main TM article, and to put a "see also" pointing to the relevant sub-article above each summary.
• What do you propose as a replacement for "TMO"?
• This is very carefully thought out. Thanks. Tanaats 18:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Tm and the TM Sidhi program are the practical side of the programs Maharishi developed - the experiential side . I would like to think about this more ....since I think we have a lot of things entangled, Maharishi Vedic science of which Jyotish for example is a part, and maharishi educational programs... about how to simplify, untangle , clarify, and of course input from experts in this area welcome.... i think I am being obtuse and apologize until I can think on this more .... thanks for patience.As well info in the stub is not particularly accurate, but that could be revised easily. (olive 21:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC))

"When America is ready for Hinduism, I will tell them!”

I have been hunting high and low for a source for this interesting quote of Maharishi and have finally found one, "The Center for Consumer Freedom." [[1]] They publish a site called "Activist Cash" that seems to have gotten some high praise from the wall street journal. One non-profit they look at is the "mothers for natural law" in which they quote Denaro saying Maharishi said this. [[2]]Sethie 23:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Sethie. There needs to be evidence that Maharishi actually said this -- such as a reference to a book or a particular talk or press conference. You can't simply quote something based on hearsay.TimidGuy 11:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well... the report says, "DeNaro has written." So I am not sure how this is hearsay? They obviously have some document written by Denaro in which this is claimed.

I am not clear why you believe a specific date and time must be provided- please elaborate?Sethie 17:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It's hearsay, because Denaro is saying, "I heard this." It doesn't say where Denaro wrote this -- whether that was reliable. It doesn't say who Denaro is, other than to say that he was a former follower. There's nothing to give credibility to this hearsay. Plus, this organization is controversial -- and not a reliable source. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] and Center_for_Consumer_Freedom.

Activistcash.com is funded by the Center for Consumer Freedom, which is a "front group for the restaurant, alcohol and tobacco industries. It runs media campaigns which oppose the efforts of scientists, doctors, health advocates, environmentalists and groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, calling them "the Nanny Culture -- the growing fraternity of food cops, health care enforcers, anti-meat activists, and meddling bureaucrats who 'know what's best for you.' " This isn't a neutral source. It's basically a PR initiative to discredit various organizations that specific industries don't like. It could hardly be said that this is a reliable source for a quote from Maharishi. TimidGuy 20:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh I understand. It is hearsay, which means that we need to attribute it to who is claiming they heard it, thanks.

Please note that the first link you gave me is a link to a mirror to wikipedia!

Ummm since when does controversy make a source unreliable? And since when does a source having a POV mean it is unreliable? If so, everything said by the TM organization is unreliable on the grounds of they do have a POV and they have been associated with controvery.

Please refference wikipedia policies when you wish to discount a source. Sethie 22:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR says " Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, verifiable, published secondary sources wherever possible. This means that we present accounts of views and arguments of reliable, verifiable scholars . . ." Does Activistcash constititute a reliable, verifiable scholar? WP:RS says, "In articles on religions and religious practices, religious scholars (recognized authorities on the religion) are considered reliable sources for the religion's practices and beliefs, and traditional religious and academic views of religious practices should generally both be cited and attributed as such when they differ." This section of the TM article is claiming that TM is a religious practice. Does Activistcash.com qualfiy as a religious scholar?

This discussion highlights a problem with the religion section. I believe stringing quotes together, as has been done, constitutes original research. For example, "Official TM teachings include teachings about 'God'". Who says that it's an "official" teaching? And who says that just because Maharishi says something about God that suggests that TM is a religion? I believe this whole section is OR. You need an authority who says this is a religious practice and cites a range of evidence and offers analysis. It's possible that a valid argument could be made. You need to do your homework and find it, rather than quoting Activistcash.com. TimidGuy 12:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Your understand of WP policies is novel, factually wrong and it applied NOWHERE on wikipedia the way you assert them.

You continisoulsy assert, as did PeterKlutz as did Lumiere, that all sources must be peer reviewed scholary sources. This is a rather unique understanding of the policies. I invite our advocates to comment on this. Please re-read the same paragraph you quote from in WP:OR. It also contains the following sentences. "A journalist's analysis or commentary of a traffic accident based on eye-witness reports is a secondary source. A New York Times analysis and commentary of a president's speech is a secondary source." Do those sound like scholarly sources to you?

Please note wp:RS "Wikipedia relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world" The next paragraph gives guidelines for using non-scholarly sources! Will you please stop asserting an arguement over and over which is obviously contrary to wikipedia policy?

If you want to qualify TM as a religion, I am happy to look at the Wikipedia guidelines on religions. My sense was this was not your stance though? Sethie 18:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sethie, I tend to agree that a consumer-protection site is not really an appropriate source for an article on Transcendental Meditation. Tanaats 18:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Tanaats- shhhhhh! You promised to agree with everything I said! :)

I agree the source is weak, and before we go for content, I am wanting to get clarity on policies. Sethie 18:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tanaats. Sethie, here some relevant guidelines. WP:RS says "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources." This is an exceptional claim, since there is little evidence that he said it, and no corroborating evidence. In addition, this site has a bias. "If an author has some reason to be biased, or admits to being biased, this should be taken into account when reporting his or her opinion." The site is funded by the Center for Consumer Freedom, which is a front group for the restaurant, alcohol and tobacco industries. I'll go ahead and remove this sentence. TimidGuy 20:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Co-operation and its role in producing a better article

"Co-operation, not competition is the very basis of existing life systems and of future survival." A quote from Bill Mollison, founder of Permaculture. (If you never heard of Bill Mollison or Permaculture, Google them. WP has neither entry. Permaculture ethics involves three main concerns: caring for the earth, caring for the people, and sharing the surplus.)

I have been away from the discussion for a couple days. On returning and reading the latest developments, I am encouraged that we seem to be moving a little closer to the cooperative state. As I have said before, when we reach that state of interaction as editors on this article, we'll all have more fun, and the article will benefit from it. I still believe this article can become a Featured Article.

Disregarding the ongoing discussion of NPOV for a moment, the main body of the article is beginning to take a more balanced form (in my opinion, of course). I still feel the emphasis on criticisms that have been effectively rebutted or discridited is violating NPOV, but we can work on that piece by piece as our ability to cooperate gets better. Right now, I'm appreciating the progress made in the last week.

In reading the whole article, I found several mistakes, including typos, mistaken attributions, etc. that I want to deal with over the next days. Most will involve points about which there will likely be ageement among the current editors. What I will do, however, is list these items first on the talk page and let everyone reach consensus as to the intended changes (unless the consensus among editors is that I should go ahead and make the changes, as long as they are relatively minor, and give the reasons with each one).

Concerning the NPOV issues we have been discussing related to proportionality, even though this problem permeates the article in several ways, at least with the peer reviewed papers, I have a suggestion. I mentioned this problem to a colleague the other day, and he suggested that we insert citations for all the published papers, with links to the actual paper or abstract where possible. This could be done in a way that would not greatly expand the length of the article. I'll give a bit more detail of this possibility later, so we can get feedback on the logistics. However, this move would help to meet the proportionality rule we have been discussing. It would be easy, in this context, to list the critical reviews and the published rebuttals to these reviews, too, all without offering any of our own opinions regarding what is "truth." Again, I congratulate everyone on the recent increase in cooperation. ChemistryProf 06:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chemprof. thank for wanting to establish a good collaboration. Regarding making changes in the article I suggest that we all accept WP:BRD for changes that the editor doesn't feel will cause a dispute. That means that the editor is bold and makes the edit with a very descriptive edit comment. If someone else objects they can revert the change and no one will take this personally. Then the original editor opens up a Talk discussion if he still wants to pursue that edit. This way we only spend time on Talk on edits that do in fact end up causing a dispute.

Regarding proportionality, I have seen a convention on a number of other articles that seems to have wide defacto acceptance. What one does is to briefly quote or summarize the relevant information from the source. Then one sites the source using the <ref> tag, including a more extensive direct quote from the source. I've provided an example at User:Tanaats/sandbox2. This approach does increase the size of the References section, which is no problem because the additional detail doesn't affect the flow of the main article, but we avoid bloating the main article and thus reducing reader comprehension of it. Tanaats 14:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

However, if the editor desiring to introduce a change does feel that the change is likely to cause a dispute, then he will Talk about it first. Tanaats 14:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Please provide any citations you think fit.

Please don't discuss typos! :) Just fix them.

I am not sure how a list will help things.... why not just pick one issue and raise it? Please post the published rebutalls, IF they are in WP:RS. Sethie 17:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Chemprof, BTW it is customary to mark edits that don't change the meaning of the article as "minor." Tanaats 18:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Having discovered the lack of WP entries on Bill Mollison and permaculture, I look forward to creating these someday. Here is the URL for a great interview with Mollison: http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC28/Mollison.htm . I like the introduction that precedes the interview. It reminds me of the reception that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and his Transcendental Meditation technique have received over the years, especially this sentence: “But whether it's glowing admiration or sneering dismissal, reaction to Mollison is invariably strong.”

Thanks for the advice and feedback, Tanaats and Sethie. If I hear similar confirmation from TimidGuy, I’ll be off and running. ChemistryProf 21:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Go for it.TimidGuy 22:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

All right, I will begin adding references, with the goal of referencing every peer reviewed article ever written on the Transcendental Meditation program. I will be slowed down a little, however, due to needing to travel across country to visit my 90-year-old mom, who is in the hospital with pneumonia. I expect to have some time to work while there, but perhaps not nearly as much as I might if I were at home. Please bear with me, everyone.

Thanks, Tanaats, for the specific suggestion about adding a brief note to each reference in the reference section. This will be useful in many cases. Also, on the topic of cooperation, if anyone has peer reviewed papers that are not now referenced and wants them to be, please supply them to me here in the discussion and I will make sure they get included.

I was wrong about Bill Mollison and permaculture not being on WP. Tonight I found them all over the place. I don't know what happened the other day when I searched. I must have mispelled both, but I could have sworn I spelled them correctly. Oh well, one fewer project to think about. ChemistryProf 05:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The goal is not to add every article on TM, but to provide a reasonable number of references reflecting common opinions. Michaelbusch 06:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Michaelbusch, please read the long discussions over the past couple of weeks concerning the need for proportionality to maintain a neutral point of view NPOV on this controversial article. While other ways of dealing with this issue may be necessary for non-peer reviewed publications, at least for the peer reviewed ones, an agreement has been reached on an equitable, fair way to appropriately represent all sides of the issue by referencing, in a brief manner, all the papers. If you feel this is not the case, then please put your reasons up for discussion. Thank you. ChemistryProf 07:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Chemprof, I'm sorry about your mother. I hope she can get well soon.

Actually I wasn't suggesting a ref note for every reference.

I do suggest that it would be quite non-proportional to cite each and every TM peer-reviewed study. Tanaats 13:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tanaats. Mother appears to be gradually improving; however, she needs help to do just about anything, so I am much busier that I expected to be. Today is the first day I have had time to get back on the Internet.

My earlier query, which everyone seemed to answer in the positive, was why it would not be totally proportional to cite every published paper. By leaving nothing out, either positive or negative, how could it not be proportional? ChemistryProf 22:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I am glad that your mother is experiencing some improvement.

Well, I think that by the time you summarize 200 studies that even a separate "TM Research" article will be incredibly large, much much larger than what is considered acceptable on WP. Tanaats 00:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tanaats and group, I have been following some of this thread for awhile now and want to state my opinion as a scientist and user of wikipedia. I think having all the peer reviewed published studies on TM at least referenced here on the wiki for TM (if not briefly summarized) would be both valuable and worthwhile. The body of research on TM is substantial and intriguing. It would be a benefit for researchers and others to have easy access to this very relevant source of information on the wiki page for TM. It will likely take some time, but I would be willing to at least help compile a detailed list of published studies. I think that the many studies done over the years on TM meditation comprise important contributions to the field of medical research. Also, reading this article's highlight of several studies gives readers a far more negative and unfairly biased impression of the whole of published research than the scientific literature suggests. I look forward to contributing to the quality of this article as time permits. Duedilly 04:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not meant to be a replacement for PubMed. Tanaats 04:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the references should be much better organized (into relevant sub-sections) than simply posting database results. This will take more work, but it will be much easier to understand and make use of. Duedilly 16:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A summary of every study is not going in this article, sorry to disapoint you gentlemen.

A summary of every study about a particular subject (when we are talking about 200+ studies) is not going into any article about that subject. You could try and do a "Research on _____" article. The wiki community MIGHT allow that, though my hunch is that in the case of TM, such an article would be deleted as an advertisement. Sethie 09:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sethie, I don't think anyone has proposed a summary of every study, but rather I believe the proposal is to reference them in a minimalist way. maybe we could wait and see what Chemistryprof and Duedilly have in mind. Let them get started on it, and if it's not working, give feedback.

And by the way, welcome to Duedilly. You have an interesting range of contributions to Wikipedia.TimidGuy 12:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Organizing the studies into relevant sections could minimize the need for a full summary of each study. Thanks for the welcome. I am pretty busy, but I have already begun looking at the studies. Regards. Duedilly 16:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Organizing them in that way would be very good.

Wikipedia has a recommended maximum size for articles. We are already exceeding that on the TM article. I suggest that you plan on not being much larger than the current TM article in the "TM Research" article. Tanaats 16:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Given approximately 200 studies, I think it will be impossible to not have this article be much larger than it is. However, I think if we look over the article more carefully, we will find that there are sections which do not meet the level of reliability and scholarship that scientific studies published in refereed journals do. Duedilly 16:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You will not be able to put all 200 studies into a Wikipedia article. Tanaats 18:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is very clear in their hierarchy of RS, and peer reviewed scholarly work is at the top of the RS list. There will be opportunity to get rid of sections with much lower RS and relevance than these studies. Duedilly 21:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned you can prioritize the studies in any way that you see fit, as long as the result does not exceed the Wikipedia maximum for article size. Tanaats 00:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

We can start by looking at all the research studies together, eliminating the lowest quality ones (non-peer reviewed and published studies - of which there are ~400). We'll then organize the rest into relevant and descriptive sub-sections, before considering the remaining article to see which of the other sections (that do not have the level of scholarship and WP:RS that the filtered research studies do) can be further eliminated to bring the article size down, while maintaining the highest level of RS.Duedilly 05:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

That's actually what I was envisioning when I said "summary." However, a list of even just the cites for 200 articles would be huge. Again, that's what PubMed is for. BTW it is also a reversal for Chemprof to propose this as it doesn't meet his criterion of balance that he discussed earlier. Tanaats 14:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Back for a few minutes only. Mom is at home now and I am her chief attendant, so not much time to contribute to this important discussion. Tanaats, please explain your last statement above. I am unclear on both your first sentence and your last one. Please give me a better handle on what you mean. Thanks. ChemistryProf 21:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I understood your intention to be to cite all 200 or so peer-reviewed studies on TM. Perhaps I misunderstood. But if not I think that would produce an article that is much too large.

Best wishes to your mother. Tanaats 23:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Effortlessness

I don't mind if the intro says something that is more qualified, such as "Maharishi describes the TM technique as being effortless, and that this effortless distinguishes it from other techniques that involve concentrion or contemplation." Tanaats 18:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I like this. Want to make the change? I guess either in the intro or where Sethie put it is OK with me. Would be nice to get an opinion from Purple Iris, since she's the one who wrote that version. But she hasn't been around lately.TimidGuy 22:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

OR in the religion section

I like each topic heading to be clear about what is being talked about, so I coppied your comments from there to a new section:

This discussion highlights a problem with the religion section. I believe stringing quotes together, as has been done, constitutes original research. For example, "Official TM teachings include teachings about 'God'". Who says that it's an "official" teaching? And who says that just because Maharishi says something about God that suggests that TM is a religion? I believe this whole section is OR. You need an authority who says this is a religious practice and cites a range of evidence and offers analysis. It's possible that a valid argument could be made. You need to do your homework and find it, rather than quoting Activistcash.com. TimidGuy 12:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

We can remove the word "official."

I don't see any sentence in the article which states that "because TM teaches about god, it is a religion." If I am missing it, please point it out to me.

I would agree with you that the section is OR if we didn't have numerous RS's who make the link between TM and religion.

Ummm I am not quoting any arguement from activecash, so not sure what you mean? Sethie 18:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

TimidGuy, my response:

• You are right about "official TM teachings." I have changed "Official TM teachings include teachings about "God" to "Maharishi's teachings include teachings about "God". The latter statement is supported by cites from TMO RSs.
• Nowhere in the section does it say that "because Maharishi says something about God that suggests that TM is a religion".
• Re "You need an authority who says this is a religious practice and cites a range of evidence and offers analysis". We don't need such an authority because nowhere is it stated that TM is in fact a religious practice.
• The quote from Activistcash.com doesn't say that TM is a religion. Tanaats 19:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The section claims that TM is a relgion -- Markovsky says it's a stealth religion, Ryan says that people worship Maharishi. The whole point of the section, explicitly and implicity, is to say TM is a religion. And that is supported by stringing quotes together. I believe that just putting in quotes without any context, any analysis or interpretation, without any reference to authoritative opinion -- that is, a qualified secondary source that's making the claim and backing it up -- makes them primary materials. And the guidelines say, "Thus, primary materials typically require interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation, or corroboration, each of which usually constitutes original research."

What you really need is a qualified secondary source. And I'm betting that such a source exists. That source might draw on former meditators or from critics like Markovsky, but it would also bring in other evidence. It would systematically martial facts and quotes and opinions and definitions. Indeed, it might bring together the sorts of materials you've presented. But Wikipedia editors can't do that; it's necessary to find a qualified secondary source to do it. It would make your argument stronger. And it would feel more like an encyclopedia.

Really what we need to do is identify a model article -- one that's a featured article, and see how the really good editors do it. Do other articles throw in quotes without context? In fact, do featured articles draw so heavily on quotes? I get the impression from the guidelines that one is supposed to find qualified secondary sources and then simply present that information, not necessarily even quoting the source. Just present it in paraphrase and then give a citation to the source.

Hope you have patience with me. I just want this to be a better article. And everything I read in the guidelines and in the discussion of those suggests that this article could be better in accord with them. TimidGuy 19:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi TimidGuy...

• Re "The section claims that TM is a relgion": I can find no such claim.
• Re "Markovsky says it's a stealth religion, Ryan says that people worship Maharishi": These are direct quotes from verifiable RSs.
• Re "The whole point of the section, explicitly and implicity, is to say TM is a religion".
  • Nowhere does it explicitly say that TM is a religion.
  • We cannot judge the admissibility of material based on what we think that people will infer from it. If we could do such a thing I'd really be going to town.
• Are you saying that no primary source can be cited in the entirity of Wikipedia unless backed up by secondary sources? If you are right then almost every article in WP needs to be slashed. In fact, that is not the case and we need not provide a secondary source to back up every primary source.
• Re "Do other articles throw in quotes without context?": Hell yes they do. Everywhere.
• Re "I get the impression from the guidelines that one is supposed to find qualified secondary sources": I think that you mean "must find" and that you are quite wrong. Just try to find any article that cites secondary sources at all. I presume that you'll be able to find one if you search hard enough, but as yet I haven't personally run across one.
• No problem here with patience. I just don't think that you are interpreting and applying the guidelines correctly. Again, if you are right about the requirement for secondary sources then the word needs to go out and every editor needs to go slashing through every article removing every primary source that isn't backed up by a secondary source. Tanaats 20:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's the guideline I had in mind from WP:OR when I made the above points: "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[2] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article." I believe this could be an example of a new synthesis of material.

Tanaats, I believe that giving the quotes from Markovsky and Ryan serves to make the claim that TM is a relgion.TimidGuy 20:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a very fuzzy guideline. I suggest that we RfC it and try to get the input of some very experienced editors. Tanaats 21:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Its hard to believe that this discussion is beginning again. Several discussions ago I think there was some agreement to possibly changing the heading for the "Is TM a religion"article, and to a possible restructuring. I was advised to hold off on any editing at that time.

I have to agree with TG that there is an implied suggestion that TM whatever that is, is a religion. In the end, if there was no concern about this idea , then the question would not even have come up. The answer to this question is never directly given but instead the reader is fed disconnected information and quotes whose link to the question is implied . I am talking about God and spirituality. Many people in the west only see the term God in terms of their religion , therefor here if we mention God than this must be a religion, or at least the people who connect religion and God are going to believe TM is a religion . I would like to go out on a limb here - not very far out, and suggest that some of the editors involved in this discussion believe TM ? is a religion and want to have the opportunity to present material on that. I equally would like to present material on spirituality and the compatability of TM and diverse religions, and religious beliefs. The article, however, is poorly written and structured,contains no logical sequence of facts - no connecting statements. Neither side can present clear information in this environment. Before we go another round on this topic is it possible to agree to restructure the article in a way .... however that can be done... so that all the material can be presented in a fair and unbiased, encyclopaedic fashion . Just a thought. (olive 21:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC))

Hi Olive.

• Re: "I have to agree with TG that there is an implied suggestion that TM whatever that is, is a religion." That is your personal inference. We put well-sourced material into articles and we don't try to predict what inferences people will draw because that is completely irrelevant. What you want to do is to find well-sourced material presenting a counter-point.
• Re: "The answer to this question is never directly given." Yes, and that is the only thing that we are allowed to be concerned about.
• Re: "instead the reader is fed disconnected information and quotes whose link to the question is implied." First, there is no disconnection unless perhaps you can be more specific. Second, it is not "implied" that the quotes are linked to the qustion; if they weren't linked to the question they wouldn't be in the section. However, they are linked to a question, not linked to an answer.
• Re: "Many people in the west only see the term God in terms of their religion , therefore here if we mention God than this must be a religion, or at least the people who connect religion and God are going to believe TM is a religion." We are not allowed to admit nor exclude material based on what people might infer from it. Otherwise I'd be hacking this article into little pieces. :)
• Re: "suggest that some of the editors involved in this discussion believe TM ? is a religion and want to have the opportunity to present material on that." Yep.
• Re: "I would equally would like to present material on spirituality and the compatability of TM and diverse religions, and religious beliefs." As for presenting material on spirituality, you can't just introduce material on sprituality in general, otherwise the article would bloat until it burst by all of us introducing material that we feel supports our positions but doesn't clearly directly relate to the subject of the article. You wlll have to introduce material that says something about TM vis-a-vis spirituality.
• Re: "is it possible to agree to restructure the article in a way .... however that can be done... so that all the material can be presented in a fair and unbiased, encyclopaedic fashion." Sure. As I said awhile back, go ahead and present your suggestions. Tanaats 23:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Olive. I'm glad you agree regarding the inference. My inclination would be to hold off rewriting it by adding subheads, etc. I think we'd want to do an RfC first. It may be that this whole section is considered Original Research -- even the court case, since the guidelines say that this kind of legal thing is a primary source.

Both Sethie and Tanaats have said that this section doesn't say that TM is a religion. And Tanaats, as I understand it, says that it's okay to put in a list of statements (including contentious statements such as a quote that says TM is a religion) and let a reader draw his own conclusions. This is a fairly sharply defined issue, and it will be good matter for an RfC.

By the way, sometimes I regret having rewritten this head so that it's a question. : ) Most recently it was "Transcendental Meditation as a religion."TimidGuy 17:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually TG if you read that section, you will see NOWHERE does it claim TM is a religion. It contains statement by others that it is. WP:V- verfiability, not truth.

We have a sociologist, a judge, former teachers, the NRM website, dictionaries, Maharishi's biographer, encyclopedias, and quotes from Maharishi himself, all asserting that it is a religion or is religious in nature. MOST, not all of the cited facts which are in that section are spoken by one of these sources. So you can drop the claim it is OR, it is just false.

Numerous people list it as a cult! Cults are by definition, religious. The Judge in the Court case ruled on specific components of SCI and TM that now, by law, in the US, are considered religious. I look forward to spelling out all the specifics he ruled on.

Olive, again, you say you want to add in the spiritulity angle. And again, I say, FIND SOURCES. Find sources. Quote them. Put them in. Sethie 18:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sethie, actually there are many other types of cults other than religious. Lyndon LaRouche runs a "political cult", for example.

Well, I guess you've proven my point. The gist of the section is that it's a religion. You need to explain why it doesn't violate the OR policy that I cited. It makes no difference whether these are reliable sources -- it's OR to string them together to make a point: "TM as a religion." And by the way, the court case said it's a violation of the first amendment to teach SCI in schools. The ruling did not say that the practice of Transcendental Meditation is by itself a religion. TimidGuy 20:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see how Sethie has proven your point. Many other sections in the article "string together" statements that are sourced only by primary sources. The "gist" of these sections is that TM is a Good Thing, which is definitely OR by your definition. We're not going to have any article left if we apply your criterion.

But we're going around in circles. I'll stop responding to this issue until/unless we have an RfC. Tanaats 20:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

To all... I haven't added anything to this article because a) I was asked by Tanaats not to until the RfC was complete, and b) as I said before, the structure of the article is weak, and I would only add to the jumble. I wanted to reformat so that information could be easily added.I have asked for /discussed this a couple of times. I will not add or do anything until RfC is complete.(olive 23:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC))

Actually, I don't recall intending that you shouldn't add anything to tha article. The RfC only concerns certain parts of the article.

We seem to be going around in circles a bit on the reformatting issues as well. :) You say that you want to reformat, and I say to please present your ideas for discussion, and then you say that you want to reformat, and I ask for your ideas, and so on. At least it seems that way to me. Tanaats 04:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Tanaats, I was suggesting that Sethie has proven my point by first insisting that the section doesn't say that TM is a religion and then insisting that it shows TM is a religion. Regarding stringing together things to make a point. I think there's a difference. A scientific study is an extended treatment of a topic, making a strong case for cause and effect. The reason for the study is to show whether there's a correlation and a possible cause and effect.

On the other hand, taking a miscellaneous quote from Maharishi out of context isn't the same thing. If a qualified secondary source, an expert in religion as the guidelines require, were to examine many statements by Maharishi and then say that TM is a religion, then this would be something that could be represented in Wikipedia. If any of the instances cited in the religion section were qualified secondary sources, that is, "informed and expert interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation or corroboration of primary sources to synthesize a conclusion," then that source itself could be used. But none of these sources are qualified secondary sources. Rather, what we have are various quotes etc from various sources strung together in a way that seems to violate this policy:

WP:OR "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[2] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article."

We've got a number of well-defined RfCs. This will be very instructive. Thanks for having patience and hanging with these discussions. Hopefully we'll all eventually have a better idea of how the policies and guidelines can make this a better article. I've been waiting on the RfCs due to the pending mediation, since I believe a person is barred from editing if mediation commences.TimidGuy 12:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification regarding your understanding of Sethie.

Thanks, I believe that I understand your position.

Yes, this will definitely be educational. :) Tanaats 14:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

As it stands right now, there are certainly some facts in there that are not CLEARLY connected to other sources, like the Puja, mantras, Hindu Gods, SCI, TM technique, bliss consciousness. I reject your claim that the section itself is OR, however, the 2nd to last paragraph is shaky in terms of OR, because it is not attributed to anyone else making the connection, and that is easy to remedy, I have plenty of sources which make those connections and am happy to provide them.Sethie 20:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Was Malnak v. Yogi overturned?

The second paragraph below seems to be confused:

In 1979 the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Malnak v. Yogi (592 F.2d 197) that under the Establishment Clause[1] of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution the teaching of the theory and philosophy of the Science of Creative Intelligence (SCI)[2] could not be taught in New Jersey public schools. The Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion. The lower court based its decision in part on its examination of the puja ceremony that is performed by teachers of Transcendental Meditation prior to giving instruction. The appellate court said that the puja wasn't an issue.
The TM movement states the puja is a ceremony of gratitude. Judge Meanor, the lower court judge, was concerned with the portion of the ceremony in which Guru Dev, Maharishi's teacher, is praised as "the Lord," as "Him" and as Eternal and perfect.[62] At the appellate level, Judge Adams emphasized the secular nature of the ceremony, referring to it as “a secular puja, quite common in Eastern cultures” and distinguished it from unlawful school prayer because: “(a) the Puja was never performed in a school classroom, or even on government property; (b) it was never performed during school hours, but only on a Sunday; (c) it was performed only once in the case of each student; (d) it was entirely in Sanskrit, with neither the student nor, apparently, the teacher who chanted it, knowing what the foreign words meant. Moreover, the elements of involuntariness present in Engel and Schempp are wholly absent here.” [63]

As it says in the first para, the final ruling was by a Federal Circuit Court. It's ruling was to confirm the decision of the lower court. The injunction issued by the Jude Meanor against teaching SCI in NJ public schools is still in effect today.

The only way Judge Adams could have issued that statement is if we was the author of a minority opinion, but we have no cite for that. Unless someone can explain why I am confused about this, and unless we can find a cite for the second para, I think that the second para needs to come out. Tanaats 21:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking now that Judge Adams probably rejected the "puja argument", yet still concurred with upholding the lower court's decision. I'm glad that we had this little discussion. :) Tanaats 14:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry folks, just realized that I created two sections on this. I must have thought I'd forgotten to save the first section! Sheesh. Tanaats 14:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

What was Judge Adams' role in Malnak v. Yogi?

The second paragraph below seems to be confused:

In 1979 the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Malnak v. Yogi (592 F.2d 197) that under the Establishment Clause[1] of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution the teaching of the theory and philosophy of the Science of Creative Intelligence (SCI)[2] could not be taught in New Jersey public schools. The Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion. The lower court based its decision in part on its examination of the puja ceremony that is performed by teachers of Transcendental Meditation prior to giving instruction. The appellate court said that the puja wasn't an issue.
The TM movement states the puja is a ceremony of gratitude. Judge Meanor, the lower court judge, was concerned with the portion of the ceremony in which Guru Dev, Maharishi's teacher, is praised as "the Lord," as "Him" and as Eternal and perfect.[62] At the appellate level, Judge Adams emphasized the secular nature of the ceremony, referring to it as “a secular puja, quite common in Eastern cultures” and distinguished it from unlawful school prayer because: “(a) the Puja was never performed in a school classroom, or even on government property; (b) it was never performed during school hours, but only on a Sunday; (c) it was performed only once in the case of each student; (d) it was entirely in Sanskrit, with neither the student nor, apparently, the teacher who chanted it, knowing what the foreign words meant. Moreover, the elements of involuntariness present in Engel and Schempp are wholly absent here.” [63]

As it says in the first para, the final ruling was by a Federal Circuit Court. It's ruling was to confirm the decision of the lower court. The injunction issued by the Jude Meanor against teaching SCI in NJ public schools is still in effect today.

The only way Judge Adams could have issued that statement is if we was the author of a minority opinion, but we have no cite for that. Unless someone can explain why I am confused about this, and unless we can find a cite for the second para, I think that the second para needs to come out. Tanaats 21:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

According to this, Judge Adams ruled that the teaching of SCI in public schools violated the Establishment Clause.

And according to this, Judge Adams wrote a concurring opinion.

So I really doubt that the second paragraph is at all accurate. Tanaats 05:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh, perhaps Adams dismissed the puja argument while still supporting the CC's overall decision to uphold the lower court's decision. Tanaats 05:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad we had this little talk. :) Tanaats 05:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's as I understand it -- Judge Adams wrote a concurring opinion regarding the teaching of TM AND SCI in NJ public schools but said that the puja wasn't an issue. TimidGuy 12:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

JAMA suit

I now have some court papers in hand, as well as the original JAMA article, the article by Skolnick, and the published rebuttals. I'd like to gradually add some detail to this section.TimidGuy 12:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. BTW I think that the JAMA material probably belongs in its own section. It is fairly large. Tanaats 14:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tanaats. Seems like a good idea. TimidGuy 17:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

A subsequent study...

I've been looking into the details of the paper presented as countenance in the validity section. It appears to have been written by someone who has a substantial conflict of interest in the matter, and who appears to be decidedly biased on the matter. Despite those facts it is being presented uncritically as objective fact and without comment on the authors connection. This is highly misleading to the readers. I have reworded it to reflect the overall notability of the objection and to make note of the authors affiliations. If the study criticized truly has faults then it should be possible to find independent criticisms written by objective parties in other journals. Jefffire 16:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Jefffire, for coming here to explain. In all of the research debates that I'm familiar with, it's the researchers themselves who debate the results. One study comes out by researcher A saying such and such. Researcher B then has a study with different results. Then A publishes again, challenging research B's results. Usually the researchers themselves who have done the studies are the ones debating. I don't see the problem with that. Fine to note affiliaton, but I think it would be fair to note very briefly what the critcism is, especially since that criticism is easily verifiable by anyone willing to follow up. TimidGuy 17:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That is certainly an option, but you agree that presenting this as objective truth is not neutral? Jefffire 20:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you that it could have been worded better and that it's appropriate to identify the authors of the critical study. I do want to add a phrase saying what the criticism is.

Although a number of other researchers spoke out against this report, I believe that this study by the TM researchers is the only published critique. But as I say, that's not unusual, since it is typical that the researchers themselves carry on the debate in the academic journals. I've never seen this referred to as a conflict of interest. I'm not a scientist, though.TimidGuy 12:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for comments: Deletion of material based on WP:FRINGE

Statements by editors previously involved in the dispute

• Jeffire has deleted material that is sourced from a respectable peer-reviewed journal on the basis of his interpretation of WP:FRINGE. My position is that WP:FRINGE states that "If another, adequately reputable source discusses the theory first, Wikipedia is no longer the primary witness to notability." This means that the fact that the material is sourced from a respectable peer-reviewed journal means that WP:FRINGE does not apply. We have discussed the subject at length, to no avail, hence this RfC. Tanaats 21:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Statements by neutral third parties

• Clarification To save me having to read every bit of the talk page and look through the history, could you please explain, briefly and concisely (1) what the "fringe" material is? and (2) how it is or is not relevent to this article. Thanks. Pastordavid 21:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Pastordavid, thanks for your participation and sorry that you had to ask, I should have anticipated that need. The deletion in question is at here. This passage:

A subsequent study found that this report was based on a report commissioned by the U.S. Army in 1986. "The NRC review was based almost entirely on a single unpublished review (Brener & Connally, 1986) and overlooked virtually all of the research current to the review, including numerous studies directly bearing on its conclusions. Even though the review cited a bibliography of hundreds of studies on meditation in its reference section (Murphy & Donovan, 1988, 1999), it did not include this material in its review."<ref>Orme-Johnson, D. W., Alexander, C. N., & Hawkins, M. A. (2005). Critique of the National Research Council’s report on meditation. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality,17(1), 383-414</ref>

• Was replaced by this:

...although the report has been criticised by TM researchers <ref>Orme-Johnson, D. W., Alexander, C. N., & Hawkins, M. A. (2005). Critique of the National Research Council’s report on meditation. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality,17(1), 383-414</ref>.

• With this edit comment: "rv. as per WP:Fringe. Assertations like this require impeccable verification)".
• Note that the Journal of Social Behavior and Personality is a peer-reviewed journal.
• The material is relevant to the article because it is an important part of the discussion in the article on the scientific research that has been done on Transcendental Meditation, which is one of the major aspects of the article. Tanaats 22:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Before seeing the content in question, let me say the following. Yes, an article being in a peer-reviewed journal is pretty much the universal standard for it being reliable. However, I don't see reliability as being the issue in question here. The issue is, does the material represent a minority opinion, and how much emphasis do you place on that minority opinion in a given article? Even if the material is not {{WP:FRINGE|fringe]], there still may be issues of undue weight. Pastordavid 21:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• In my opinion the deleted material is not a "minority opinion", neither is it given undue weight. Tanaats 22:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I clearly disagree. Please provide references from other sources, preferably ones which don't have a clear conflict of interests like the good doctor who authered the first criticism. If your opinion is valid, then that should be an easy matter. If not then it is clear it is a minority opinion. Jefffire 12:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do you insist that the JSBP study be corroborated but not the NRC report? Your charge of conflict of interest seems to me a POV subjective criterion. Is every published study on Transcendental Meditation a conflict of interest? If not, then what makes this study a conflict of interest and not simply the ordinary sort of dialog that takes place in science journals? Also, you didn't explain why you cited wp:fringe in the edit summary when you revised this.TimidGuy 16:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The standard for inclusion in wikipedia is RS. Wikipedia guidelines place peer reviewed published studies at the top level of reliability: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Aspects_of_reliability . Being impartially vetted by the scientific community outweighs any opinions by wikipedia editors (which would be OR). Further, a strong argument could be made that before any peer reviewed study is removed, all other non-peer-reviewed studies and other lesser forms of RS should be removed.

Further, I find no justification for characterizing or qualifying a peer reviewed study as being done by TM researchers or anti-TM researchers. This is constitutes OR. I propose that any such qualifiers on either side of the research issue be removed from the article. Duedilly 16:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Jeffire, please place your responses below that of others you have already responded to the same comment. Otherwise following the conversation becomes a tortuous task.

I wish that you had taken the trouble to particpate when the RfC was actually in progress, while we had a knowledgable neutral third party involved.

Regardless, please cite a guideline saying that references from other sources are required. Please cite a guideline saying that POV invalidates a criticism of a study. Tanaats 18:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall making that claim at all. I reduced the size of the contribution on the basis of undue weight, and noted the contributer's affiliations. I certainly did not "remove" the criticism, it's still there. I would appreciation a ceasation of non-truths on your part. Jefffire 12:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

In the jumble that this section has become I have no idea what you are referring to. What I do know is that you have inserted OR, have attempted to delete material based on OR, and have filled up this Talk page with arguments based on either OR relating to TM or OR regarding the guidelines. I would much appreciate a cessation of the OR bombardment on your part. I have come to accept that it is futile to discuss this with you, so I will not respond further on this topic. Tanaats 19:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

RFC Response

• Take the extended JSBP quote out of the article. The section is on the validity of TM research. In that context, the NRC quote has a place. However, this article is not about the validity of NRC research. Yes, the JSBP is a peer reviewed article, but the topic of the article in the JSBP was the NRC article - in other words, it is a step removed. It would be more appropriate in an article about the NRC than here. If you must include it, I would place a brief note in the reference - something to the effect of "This report by the NRC has been called into question in the following article in the JSBP ...". I hope this is helpful. Pastordavid 22:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Pastordavid, thanks for the response. A couple of comments....

• I presume from the fact that you've moved on to other issues that you feel that WP:FRINGE should not be applied here?
• As for the applicability of the JSRB article, I'm glad that we've moved on to something substantive. I don't have a particular need to keep the JSRB material in the article. I was mainly concerned with what is the second deletion out of the article based inappropriately on WP:FRINGE (I reverted the first one and when the second came along I was anticipating a painful pattern developing). Perhaps TimidGuy, Chemprof, and Olive might want to respond to your suggestion. I'm quite satisfied if in fact WP:FRINGE has been dismissed as irrelvant Tanaats 00:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No, personally, I don't think that WP:FRINGE applies, although I think there are other issues, namely relevence and to a lesser extent undue weight. As I noted above, I don't think it is the job of wikipedia - within the context of an article - to debate rehash the reception of given sources. For my money: the NRC report stays, the quote from JSBP goes. If a compromise is absolutely necessary, make note of the questioning of the NRC report in the footnote. The article is about TM, not the NRC and their research methods. Pastordavid 03:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not experienced in this but this is what occurs to me. First from what I've read I don't see how WP:FRINGE applies either. Second, if the NRC article is about the validity of TM research which it is as I understand it, and if the information we have used initially proves to be weaker than was originally thought - the subsequent JSBP article seems to indicate that then why use any of it ....Maybe, find something else... the validity of the first article seems to be called into question... one cancels out the other, and we are left with, well, not much that has much validity.This just weakens the site as a whole when we use weak material.

Perhaps, we are discussing this in the first place because the material has some flaws in it....doesn't stand up to scrutiny... and frankly the shortened version of the added article is somewhat patronizing:(.... what is a TM researcher for heaven's sake. These people are respected researchers in their fields, whether they are doing research on TM or on something else. Thanks Tanaats for fielding this on your own, and for your integrity in attempting to maintain the correct neutrality of the article whatever your personal opinions might be. Sorry, if I've gone on and on trying to explain. (olive 05:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC))

oops sorry forgot to include edit summary with the discussion.(olive 14:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC))

Article Size

The article is currently 56 KB long. This seems rather lengthly, and in light of the above discussion, without a change in editing, it will grow larger. In my opinion, much of the material in the article is interesting, but not particularly relevant. I tried to remove some material that seemed largely irrelevant, but encountered objection. So: what parts of the article may be condensed and edited down to make it both concise and accurate? Michaelbusch 22:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I objected to large deletions with zero discussion first. I'd be happy to discuss your suggestions for removing what you consider to be irrelevant material. Tanaats 00:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

General thoughts on removing material: this article seems to aspire to present anything anyone ever said about TM. That is excessive. This is an encyclopedia: we only want to have a first approximation with the most important information. Material that is tangential to the main points of the article is distracting and not usefl and should either be moved to secondary articles or removed completely. I put the statement that TM is 'effortless' and the details of Maharishi's sales pitch for the history of TM in the category of being unnecessary, as well as the problems associated with sounding like advertising. There are similar bits throughout the article.

Note also: the style of the article is still pretty rough. The article lacks overall cohesion and, on a strictly typographical level, needs a lot of editing. Michaelbusch 16:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Please present specific suggestions as regards the style of the article.

I am a former TM teacher. The claim of "effortlessnes" is one of the central features of how TM is presented.

Please refrain from extreme exaggeration or we'll never get anywhere. To represent everything anyone has ever said about TM would require a book, and in fact several such books have been written. The article actually presents a highly condensed summary of what has been claimed and what has been said about TM. Tanaats 18:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tanaats. I agree. Effortlessness is a fundamental characteristic. And I agree that the article is quite condensed as it is. TimidGuy 20:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Focus of RfC

Regarding the RfC. Jefffire deleted reference to the Maharishi Effect study that appeared in the peer-reviewed Social Indicators Research and referenced the guideline on fringe. Most of the discussion has been in that context. The RfC has shifted the focus to his edit of the NRC rebuttal that appeared in the Journal or Social Behavior and Personality -- an edit that he justified in his Edit Summary by referring to the fringe guideline but hasn't yet discussed on the Talk page.

Thanks, Tanaats, for exploring the issue of the relevance of this guideline. TimidGuy 12:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As I have explained earlier, it seems to me uncontroversial to regard this subject as not being considered scientifically valid. Where are the repeats? Where is the discussion for what would completely revolutionize our understanding of the entire universe? Please remember, extrordinary claims require extraordinary references. Jefffire 20:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Jeffire, your argument is completely baseless because no claim whatsoever is made in the article. All that is done is to cite the conclusions of a peer-reviewed study. It is only in your imagination that there is a "claim".

Furthermore, you are also letting your imagination run wild as to what it says in WP guidelines. I have already explained why WP:FRINGE is irrelevant. For some reason you chose to sit out the RfC, but the external opinion that we got was that FRINGE indeed does not apply. Furthermore, you are making up "guidelines" out of thin air:

• Your notion that "repeats" are required is something that you have made up.
• Your notion that some sort of academic "discussion" is required about the conclusions of the study is yet another thing that you have made up out of thin air.

You seem to be dedicated to pursuing your imaginative notions. I'll stop debating this with you. However, be assured that you will have a fight on your hands if you attempt any further destructive edits based on such notions. I am just going sit here silently and wait for you to make another such edit. Tanaats 23:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposing an edit war is deeply incivil behaviour. Now I have explained why it is deeply disingious to present this study uncritically beside other, plausible studies and why it should be mentioned elsewhere. You have yet to respond to this rational. Jefffire 12:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I said nothing about an edit war. Please start going by literal meaning, both of my comment above and of the article, without continuing to extrapolate. Tanaats 17:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions on how to shorten main article

I will try not to be long winded here:) This is preliminary but necessary references for my next points

• Answer to Tanaats question, about "Mahrishi's entire corpus of teachings" to the best of my understanding, and after "talking around to various and sundry persons"
• TMO and TM Movement are outdated terms, within this organization
• TM and TM Sidhi program are the practical, experiential aspects of Maharishi’s knowledge
• Our title implies we are talking about just TM , the technique
• An umbrella term that is more accurate could be Transcendental Meditation and Related Programs, or Maharishi's Programs
• Maharishi Vedic Science is an educational modality, of which TM and TM Sidhi program is one side and the Vedic Literature and its application to everyday life is another side.

Sthapatya Veda for example is one of the aspects of Vedic literature.

• Maharishi Vedic Educational Development Corporation includes all whom are included under subliscense.

Suggestions:

• develop MVS site

move "Related Programs" material to MVS site

I would like to edit MVS material I wrote to be more, average-reader friendly

take more concise form of TM Sidhi material out of "related programs" and put in right after introductory TM material to complete experiential arm of MVS

make reference to MVS site for vedic literature material... as in link to MVS

• Move research on any material on TM page to its own site... include material on concerns about research..
• Any research on material on MVS ...is there any?.. put on mvs site
• I am working TM and religion stuff hope to finish by tuesday at latest have to be away from computer for awhile so husband doesn't leave me:)... joking
• Can also move this material over myself if everyone thinks this is a good idea
• title becomes accurate if we make this adjustment, and article shorter

although, research on TM could always be left on TM site as long as it is specific to TM technique or TM Sidhi Program... Possible rewrite of first line on TM:

Transcendental Meditation or TM, the experiential, practical side of Maharishi Vedic Science, and a trademarked form of meditation introduced in 1958 by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, involves the repetition of a specific sound, called a mantra... well,let me know what you all think.(olive 17:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC))

Hi Olive. Wow, you have definitely given this a lot of thought. My thoughts...

• Re: "TMO and TM Movement are outdated terms, within this organization." I'm not sure what the alternatives would be. The only alternative that I think for "TMO" is "Maharishi Vedic Educational Development Corporation and its sublicensees", which is too unwieldy. Offhand I can't think of an alternative for "TM Movement" either. Do you have any ideas? (All, please see section for this discussion below.)
• Re: Changing the title to "Transcendental Meditation and Related Programs". I don't mind. All, please see section for this below.
• Re: "Move 'Related Programs' material to MVS site." That sounds pretty good. The subarticles for MVS, and TM-Sidhi, etc. are pretty small to be their own articles. Condensing them into the MVS article would create a respectably-sized articler. We could redirect the existing subarticles to the MVS article so that people could still use Wikipedia's title-search capability to find, for example, the article on "TM-Sidhi", but on going to that article they would automatically end up at the MVS article. We could put a summary of the MVS article in the main article, and direct reader to the MVS article for further information. All, see new section below.

• Sure, go ahead and copyedit the MVS article. "Copyedit" means that an editor improves the writing style of an article without affecting the article's meaning or doing any major surgery.
• I suggest that a one-liner about TM-Sidhi be placed in the intro. Then put a para about the historical aspects of TM-Sidhi's (I'm going to start calling it "TMS") intro in History, down at the bottom where it belongs chronologically. Then put a para (nothing massive please) about TMS at the bottom of "Procedures and Theory." Move the "Other programs offered by Maharishi" section up underneath "Procedures and theory". Keep "Other programs offered by Maharishi" where it is; this is where the short summary of the MVS subarticle would go, with a "see also" to the MVS article.

• Yes, research should be its own subarticle, with a short summary and a "see also" in the main article.
• I've create a new section below where you can expand your proposal re religion land spirituality.
• Sure, go ahead and do the work yourself after consensus is reached.
• Yes, the title would be more accurate and the article would be shorter. These are Good Things.
• Re: "Transcendental Meditation or TM, the experiential, practical side of Maharishi Vedic Science, and a trademarked form of meditation introduced in 1958 by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, involves the repetition of a specific sound, called a mantra..." The "experiential practical side" parts sounds a bit ORish unless you can find an RS to quote.

Alternatives for "TM organization" and "TM Movement"

Olive says above that "TMO and TM Movement are outdated terms, within this organization." What would be the proposed alternatives? Tanaats 18:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Change the title to 'Transcendental Meditation and Related Programs'?

Olive suggests chaning the title to "Transcendental Meditation and Related Programs". Discussion? Tanaats 18:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC )

if we are agreed on this ... I don't really know how to do it .... do you have to go to the Template ..... I couldn't figure it out so maybe someone else knows how and do it

I also thought maybe to make the title very clear we could say,

" Transcendental Meditation Technique and Related Programs" Being very clear at this point about what we are talking about will perhaps save us time and discussion later on , eh?(olive 17:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC))

I think it would be better to split the article into a main TM article and smaller pages on related topics, carefully checking for redundancy with pre-existing articles (see above discussion on length). Michaelbusch 17:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Olive, as I understand it changing the title involves something called "moving an article." I haven't every done it, but I ran across some instructions on how to do it once and it didn't look hard at all. We can easily do that if we get consensus on the title change.

There would be a serious dispute about changing the title to "Transcendental Meditation Technique and Related Programs." Sethie and I have a position that the article should also admit the use of a general sense of "Transcendental Meditation" as meaning MMY's entire body of teachings. There is DR brewing on that topic. Tanaats 18:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Move pertinent material to the MVS article?

Olive, suggests that we move 'Related Programs' material to MVS site. In addition, I suggest that we consolidate some of the various subarticles into a single larger MVS article (see above). Discussion? Tanaats 18:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Treatment of TM-Sidhi in the main article

See initial discussion above. Any further discussion? Tanaats 18:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Proper treatment of "religion" and "spirituality

A section for Olive to expand on her proposal for the treatment of religion and spirituality in the article. Tanaats 18:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Official list of terms used by TM organization (MUM)

Any questions about what terms are or are not currently used by the TMO are resolved here, as far as I know:

Maharishi University of Management style guide Sparaig 03:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Sparaig. On a related point, I came across this Wikipedia guideline regarding trademark usage: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(trademarks). It says to avoid the use of trademarks as a noun. I'd like to adhere to this guideline in this article, and as I have time will gradually edit the article to be in accord with it. TimidGuy 20:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) says: "Avoid use of trademarks as a noun except where any other usage would be awkward." Therefore we can in fact use "Transcendental Meditation" as a noun because any other usage would be certainly be awkward. Tanaats 20:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it means awkward syntactically. But in most cases inserting "technique" after Transcendental Meditation wouldn't create awkward syntax. TimidGuy 21:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It would significantly change the meaning of the article in instances where "Transcendental Meditation" is used in the wider sense to refer to MMY's entire body of teachings. This is already the subject of pending DR. Please let's wait for that to finish first. Tanaats 21:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting -- whenever I read "Transcendental Meditation" in the article, I read it as the technique. Just shows our different backgrounds, I guess. Would you mind if I made this change to the sections I added, where I was clearly intending to refer to the technique? TimidGuy 12:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think that would be a very good idea. Tanaats 19:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks! We can take up the other issue later. TimidGuy 20:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

OR and intro to article

I can certainly cite this but I wonder if its really necessary. All this is saying is that the TM technique is the "do" part of MVS as opposed to the "application to life"part-vedic literature.There is no comment on the experience, what it is or anything like that. This is a neutral statement. If you still want a citation let me know , I'll put it in but I think its not necessary and will chop things up a bit —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs) 17:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

yikes, sorry forgot to sign .... also referring to intro , words "practical , experiential" (olive 17:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC))

Olive, I'm afraid that you will have to find cites. It should be relatively easy to find them on official TMO websites. The tiny reference numbers will not break up the flow; as a matter of fact, the more the better. Tanaats 18:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Just because the words practical and experiencential are contained on those pages, does not make them sources. The citations provided for this do not say anything about the idea presented, they merely contain some of the words used in that sentence. The first citation makes no refference to Maharishi Vedic Science, and the 2nd refference does not call the TM technique "the practical side" of MVS or anything similar. In fact, it says the opposite, calling the TM Technique "the principal educational methodology of Maharishi Vedic Science." Hence I have removed the sentence, since it innacurately represeting what the sources say. Sethie 06:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sethie, it would have been appropriate to use the fact tag rather than delete. Please see Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Tagging_unsourced_material. TimidGuy 12:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of any policy that applies to sourced statements which inaccurately reflect the source provided. If you find any, let me know.

As per your revert- I am fine with giving someone a chance to find a source.... however the source your revert re-introduces does not say what the sentence in question says. Please provide a source which actually SAYS what it is claimed it says!

Please note, the page you cited is a "manuel of style" not a guideline! :) WP:V clearly says that "Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." The policy page says nothing about it being "appropriate" to do fact tags. Sethie 17:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Sethie, for not reverting and using a citation tag. Regarding the page I cited, here's what it says: "This page is part of the Manual of Style, and is considered a guideline for Wikipedia." Note that it's referred to as a guideline. And here's the relevant quote from that page: "To summarize the use of in line tags for unsourced or poorly sourced material: 1. If it is doubtful but not harmful to the whole article, use the {{Fact}} tag to ask for source verification, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time."TimidGuy 20:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, it is listed as a guideline.

Please note, the guideline you are refferencing speaks of unsourced material. It says nothing about sourced material that is innacurate.Sethie 21:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverting OR doesn't count against 3RR

Interesting stuff. I just found out on Help that reverting OR doesn't count against 3RR. Tanaats 02:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes, it does

That's nonsense, I'm afraid. What is "Help"...? Wherever you read that, you were misled, or misunderstood. Please review the 3RR policy page and you will see that it is only reverting the clearest cases of simple and obvious vandalism that "doesn't count" against the 3RR. OR is hardly ever simple or obvious vandalism. Note also that the 3RR is not an entitlement to revert three times a day. It sounds like you're looking at the rule from altogether the wrong angle. Gaming or skirting the 3RR is in itself a blockable offense. Please just don't revert war, that's the only way of making sure the 3RR doesn't bite you. Bishonen | talk 02:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for the very helpful correction, Bishonen. But, actually, I wasn't at all planning to even approach 3RR. That would be both tedious and non-productive anyway.

I asked the question on what I referred to as the Help page because we have recently had to deal with a lot of OR. OR has been inserted into the article. Very well-sourced material has been deleted from the article based on OR.

It's died down a bit, but it happened again today. Overall, it's been very tedious to try to keep the article from being torn up by OR.

I actually didn't ask on Help whether I could exceed 3RR in the face of OR-based edits. I was just curious as to what my options were in the event that I couldn't reverse OR-based edits without violating 3RR. My respondents volunteered that I could in fact exceed 3RR in the face of OR-based edits.

Thanks again, and I'll definitely remember that I can't trust what I am told on Help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tanaats (talk • contribs) 03:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Thanks, Bishonen, for a clarification -- and for showing up here after a long absence. I just wanted to note that Tanaats has never shown any inclination to edit warring and so far as I recall has never reverted three times. It's great working with him. TimidGuy 12:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This may have been the misleading comment: [8]. Dreadlocke ☥ 04:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Tanaats 04:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting thread, that one. A couple of folks agreed, and a couple strongly disagreed. [9]. No wonder it was confusing! Bishonen has it right. I should also add that I haven't seen either Tanaats nor Timidguy engage in any edit wars - they are both very polite and civil editors. Dreadlocke ☥ 04:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Dreadlocke.

Interestingly, the problem that I was anticipating has just recently occurred. We have someone on some of the "cult" pages, especially Cult apologist, slashing and burning. He's slowed down though in the last day or so, though. Tanaats 04:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

On changes to end of intro TM article

Whew!.... I didn't delete this section just a few words I think it was something like "TM technique is described by the TM organization..... this seemed awkward, so I took out two or three words to "TM is described . I also felt that we are describing this according to the organization , so this was implied ....that is, who said this ..... The citation to the TM site explains TM as experiential and practical ..... Tanaats objected to these words I understood, so I was covering my basis by finding a source for them. Thankyou Tanaats..I realized after I has hit saved that "signed" was the wrong word to use here and also that I had looked in the wrong place .... but some of my edit info had disappeared so feeling confused by this .... apologies for this

and hey I don't care about this end line if all are happy with it .... it was simply meant to remove awkwardness not to create a problem (olive 17:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC))

For Sethie request for citation

from deleted citation ...the Maharishi Transcendental Meditation program and a program of reading the Vedic Literature as formulated by His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. These two programs represent the principal educational methodology of Maharishi Vedic Science [10]

and as further explanation of vedic science

This field can be directly experienced in the simplest state of everyone's awareness through Maharishi's Technologies of Consciousness... Complete knowledge of consciousness is available in Veda and the Vedic Literature. Maharishi has completely restored the thousands-of-years-old Vedic Literature for the total significance of its theory and practice, and has organised it in the form of a complete science of consciousness-Maharishi's Vedic Science and Technology. [11] The Maharishi Vedic Technologies of Consciousness include the practical, scientifically validated program called the Maharishi Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program. [12]

we can use all or some of these... does this clarify(olive 19:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC))

Please present how you want to summarize this source, then I can tell you if it clarifies things or not. The current version is unnacceptable... it introduces a meaning that is nowhere to be found on the sources you listed. Sethie 21:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

sorry I have taken so long to take care of this - have been sick .... I have added a single citation that is not so obtuse as is all of what is above and that i think carries all of the information we need for this single line. I have placed pertinent parts of the quote and the explanation for the quote below:

"This field can be directly experienced in the simplest state of everyone's awareness through Maharishi's Technologies of Consciousness."and,"The Maharishi Vedic Technologies of Consciousness include the practical, scientifically validated program called the Maharishi Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program."

This statement is saying that A) this "field " can be experienced "in the simplest state everyone's awareness through the "Technologies of Consciousness" B) that the "Technologies of Conciousness" "include...the Maharishi Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program,and that "field" mentioned here is..."the field of pure consciousness." (olive 18:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

should have added, that the first line of this part of the citation , referring to MVS, says that MVS offers "knowledge and experience" . TM as can be understood in the material above is the "experience".(olive 18:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

Olive, you would have to say something like "Maharishi teaches that <insert accurate summary of exactly what the quoted material says>." Or else you could put in a direct quote. Tanaats 19:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This is already in place, the article already says,"Maharishi describes TM as being the experiential side of Maharishi Vedic Science. This is a succinct paraphrase of the material above. (olive 20:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for the correction, in that case I'll bow out.

(Olive, absolutely no biggie, but convention would dictate that your comment above be indented below mine. That way it becomes obvious excactly what you are replying to.) Tanaats 20:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

okay thanks ... didn't know that. Indents all seemed quite random .... tHis makes sense(olive 21:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

I see you have switched sources, and taken out "principle." I will update what you have written so as to make it accurate.Sethie 22:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You could make this so much easier on yourself.... instead of trying to introduce an idea which isn't there... why not just summarize what is there? For example, using your current source, you could say, "According to the Maharishi, the Transcendental Meditation Technique is a way to experience the Unified Field." That is clearly there. Start with the sources, THEN introduce an idea... it will go so much more smoothly. Sethie 22:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I like your addition , and I will keep your advice in mind.(olive 23:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

Forthcoming RfCs

The article has been fairly stable -- though a tenacious defense by Tanaats was required to stem some controversial deletions. : ) It may be a good opportunity to get feedback on several specific issues that we've agreed would benefit from input from others. I'd like to start with Denaro today or tomorrow. As before, I won't post a notice to the RfC page until each party to the dispute has had a chance to make a one-paragraph Statement.

Also, as I understand it, the Comments area is primarily for people who are new to the issue -- not us regulars who are here every day duking it out. : ) TimidGuy 12:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, what I've seen on other RfC's is that the top section is for "opening statements" by those involved in the dispute. The bottom section is for neutral third parties to offer their opinions Then the bottom section turns into a discussion involving everyone as the disputants respond to the comments by the third parties.

The person opening the RfC should provide a very clear summary of the dispute in their comments in the top section. It should be complete enough that third parties shouldn't have to wade through previous discussions on Talk. Tanaats 19:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

And, actually, I think you could go ahead and open the RfC without waiting for everyone to summarize their opinions first. Then everyone could put their opening statements in the top section after you do so. While these statements should be succinct, I don't know that they should necessarily be limited to one paragraph. However, anyone putting in a long and tedious opening statement is likely to have their comments ignored by the third parties, who from what I've seen won't be interested in wading through a lot of minutae. Tanaats 19:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Disputed statements originating from an affidavit

This is a dispute about whether controversial statements from an affidavit, which is quoted in The Skeptic's Dictionary, should be quoted in this article on Transcendental Meditation.

Statements by editors previously involved in the dispute

• This article includes controversial claims [13] originating from a 1986 affidavit by Anthony Denaro, who was employed by Maharishi International University for approximately 10 months 1975-76. The source given in the Transcendental Meditatiion article for these particular quotes is Carroll's The Skeptic's Dictionary. The claims allege that Maharishi University of Management is characterized by, among other things, nervous breakdowns, crime, and suicide attempts. These controversial claims from a primary source are presented in but not corroborated by TheSkeptic's Dictionary. According to WP:5, it's especially important to cite authoritative sources on controversial topics. The standard is reliable secondary sources.WP:RS defines a secondary source as: "The informed and expert interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation or corroboration of primary sources to synthesize a conclusion." Carroll offers no informed and expert interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation or corroboration of these claims found in the affidavit. He simply quotes the document. Further, The Skeptic's Dictionary web site cites an unsigned text copy of the affidavit that's on a POV web site, which cites a court case. However, an examination of the Docket Entries List for this court case shows no such document. In addition, Carroll acknowledges in the introduction of the print edition that his book is biased: "The reader is forewarned that The Skeptic's Dictionary does not try to present a balanced view . . . ." Controversial claims made in a primary source such as Denaro's affidavit need solid support from authoritative sources. The affidavit and its quotation without corroboration in The Skeptic's Dictionary aren't the sort of substantial evidence necessary to verify controversial claims such as these. TimidGuy 12:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• My statements:

• The Skeptic's Dictionary is used throughout Wikipedia as a reliable secondary source. It should be treated no differently in this article.
• As an accepted reliable secondary source, Carroll is presumed to be exercising good editorial control over the contents of his book and website. If he quotes from the document in question then in his reliable editorial opinion the material is valid. We are not to judge the editorial decisions of a reliable secondary source.
• Carroll's report is therefore completely admissible to the article. Any challenge as to the accuracy of his report is also admissible to the article if supported by another RS. However, material presenting such a challenge would have to be admitted to the article in addition to the Carroll report, since one RS cannot be used as a basis for removing material supported by another RS. Tanaats 19:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Tanaats has spoken well. I would add that the Skeptics Dictionary is published by a reputable publisher [[14]]. TimidGuy is a proffessor at the university in question and I beliecve his wanting to do edits on this part of the article, ESPECIALLY around controverial material, obviously violates WP:COI. His arguement that if a source has a POV it is invalid are novel and would render wikipedia unworkable. And please note the full text, which he neglected to present: "The reader is forewarned that The Skeptic’s Dictionary does not try to present a balanced account of occult subjects." The claims from the Skeptics Dictionary ARE co-obborated. There are RS sources in this article which claim that TM can be very hazardous to your mental health and that the TM movement engages in lies and deceptions, the two points from the Skeptic's Dictionary which are cited in this article Sethie 05:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments from neutral third parties

TimidGuy requested my input based on my participation in WP:RS so I've had a look over the area in question. I'm conscious that that this debate is quite involved so I'm trying to focus just on the reliability aspects although I will say that I am an experienced meditator and my experience of TM practitioners has left me reasonably ambivalent towards the method. Notwithstanding all of that it would be useful to drop a note on the RS talk page about this RFC to get some other views.

• The Denaro affadavit is a reliable indication of his retrospective views with respect to his experiences during a period in 1975, and articulate some 10 years later. Given that the affadavit is available through a convenience link then that should be used directly rather than going through the Skeptics Dictionary. Notwithstanding that the actual existence of the affadavit should be investigated, online copies related to contentious issues should be verified. Nevertheless, it is not an expert view, he is a lawyer not a psychologist of psychiatrist and his assessment of the reasons for the incidents resulting in banishing are supposition.
• The majority of the content of the Denaro document relates to management, culture and potential fraud rather than the TM technique itself. His criticisms of the technique form quite a small part of the document. I'm not convinced that his issues are reasonably represented in the article.
• The criticisms of the technique itself should be corroborated, noting that the Skeptics Dictionary indicates that these can be then effort should be made to do so. I am skeptical of the sources used for the dictionary, but given the age of the debate and the polarised views then there should be something reliable out there, more likely in dead tree format than online.
• The existing discussion of criticisms could do with restructuring, there is a lot of weight given to the criticisms in court cases with an almost offhand comment that the cases were dismissed.

In summary, I think there is enough material to support the section, but usage at the moment needs some work, and probably more investigation to find reliable sources. Skeptics Dictionary itself shouldn't be used because it doesn't add value and provides links through to other sources. Hope that's useful. ALR 08:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much, ALR, for your excellent analysis. We really appreciate your coming here to comment. This is the sort of feedback that we've been needing. TimidGuy 12:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

In your summary statement, wheen you refer to "the section," I assume you are referring to the section of criticisms as a whole, since that was the topic of your previous sentence. Is that correct? TimidGuy 12:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I was looking specifically about the section on harmful effects, the general principles apply across the whole criticisms area though. You need to ensure that sources are represented fairly and that a minor aspect isn't being over-emphasised.ALR 20:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm just sure exactly what you mean by a "minor aspect", however. I just got off the phone with a woman who recently spent about three years at MUM. Pre-MUM she was artistic, creative, outgoing, energetic, full of life. Post-MUM she can barely function. Her experiences during her MUM years echo what DeNaro describes. For, example she was constantly going to her professors saying that she needed more time to complete her assignments because she was too baked to do them. Her professors would always cut off her explnanations with an "I understand", and would then give her more time. And, when she reported suicidal ideations to her professors they told her that it was just "heavy unstressing" and that "something good was happening." I could go on. She also told me that similar things were going on with others around her.

There is nothing "minor" about the issues that DeNaro raises.

But perhaps I misunderstand you.Tanaats 01:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

From an evidential perspective there is very little in the Denaro source about the subject, the majority of the source appears to talk about management issues, given that it is the personal opinion of a layman with respect to psychiatric phenomena then I would suggest that it is misuse of the source to substantiate the effects of TM.

ALR 11:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't make his observations about widespread serious psychological issues at MIU at all minor. This topic has come up repeatedly, I will quote his comments here:

The extent and scope of the deception before, during and after becoming "initiated" (their term) into TM-Sidhi programs is so vast and far-reaching with enormous potential for severe injury, and, even death, that it is impossible, within this necessarily abbreviated brief, to document it all.

At para. 17, President Morris claims "heightened intellectual clarity." As a professor who taught at MIU that claim is false. The effect is the opposite: a spaced-out, unfocused, zombie-like automaton, incapable of critical thinking is the more usual "benefit" of prolonged meditation.

In fact, meditation was used as an excuse (probably valid) by my students for not completing a project much in the way a "virus" or "the flu" debilitates the average college student. The consequences of intensive, or even regular, meditation was so damaging and disruptive to the nervous system, that students could not enroll in, or continue with, regular academic programs.

Many of my students offered as an excuse for not being able to sit for an examination or write a paper, the fact that they had a "bad meditation" or just "got off rounding" (group TM) and haven't gotten "back to earth yet."

13. The source of my statement that the deceptions existed, were substantial and material, were intentional, and have detrimental consequences are my personal and professional observations (I lived on campus with faculty, staff and students), internal "secret" correspondence (not privileged), president council meetings, faculty senate meetings, executive sessions and conferences with MIU and WPEC-US hierarchy.

The individuals I spoke to included, but are not limited to, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, on or about December 6-9, 1975 on campus (at least two private conferences while he presided over a physics conference at MIU), Keith Wallace ([then])President), Steve Druker, Steve Schwartz, Sy Migdal, Robert Winquist ([then]Vice President), Ed Tarabilda, Dean of Students Dennis Raimundi, Robin Babov, Professors Michael Weinless, Barbara Edison, and Franklin Mason, Vice President David Clay (Vice President of Administration) and psychologist Jonathan Shapiro.

14. A simple review of internal correspondence reflects the inconsistency between the outward, sanitized, "safe" public image they try to present, and the frequently dangerous reality of TM-Sidhi techniques.

Tanaats 17:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, ALR. My thoughts:

• A GIF of the affadavit is available here. Yes, we could refer directly to the affadavit itself.
• I don't mind expanding on DeNaro's views on management, culture and potential fraud.
• I'm not sure what you mean by "The criticisms of the technique itself should be corroborated." Do you mean that we need to corroborate that the criticisms are true? Or that we need to corroborate that the criticisms were in fact ever made?
• The dismissal of a court case doesn't make the lower court's opinions irrelevant. For example, in some cases the reversal will have been made on legal technicalities that have no bearing on the merits of the case on which the lower court ruled. In such cases the decisions of both courts should be reported. Tanaats 01:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that you need to use a hard copy source with respect to the Affadavit, to ensure that you are working from a fair reflection of the document.

There is a requirement to corroborate the criticisms, otherwise they're just opinion.

The fact that it has been dismissed means that the judgement of the lower court, from a sourcing perspective, is invalid. The reasons for the dismissal are not relevant unless there is a third party source which has analyses that decision and comes to the conclusion that the dismissal is based on a technicality. You can then reference that third party source.

ALR 11:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

In my admittedly limited time here, I have yet to see a source excluded because an editor didn't have a hard copy in hand. Nor do I see that requirement in WP:RS or WP:V.

Yes, absolutely DeNaro's comments are just opinion. And they are presented as such. I am open to suggestions on how to make that point clearer in the article, however, if anyone feels that it is not clear enough.

The only issues that an appellate court is allowed to rule on are points of law. They never rule on points of fact. Regardless, DeNenaro's statements are presented as opinion rather than fact, and the rulings of neither court has a bearing on what his opinions are. In fact, the appellate court decision is completely irrelevant as to what his opinions are, and the mention of that ruling should come out. Tanaats 17:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Working from a convenience copy of the document is inherently less reliable than an assured copy, as pointed out below there appear to be pages missing from the online copy. Sources need not be disallowed should a hard copy be available, but their use becomes vulnerable to suggestions of misuse in a contentious debate.ALR 19:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ughhhh "need" a hard copy? A scanned copy definatly ups the reliability. Sethie 19:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

An affidavit is certainly a self-published primary source and that should only be used to presents the opinion of the person signing it, in an article about that person (if that person's notability warrants an article in WP, that is). The fact that it is referred to in Tod Carrol's SD, means that it may be admissible as it is reported on a secondary source. My concern is that this secondary source is not necessarily neutral. I would support ALR's call to find better sources, and in the meantime, reduce the too-long a quotation from that affidavit, summarizing the affidavit's comments into something more encyclopedic. If this affidavit is only mentioned in the SD, then I would argue that it may be not a good source for this article, but that is something that involved editors will need to agree upon. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much, Jossi. Your points are very helpful. TimidGuy 20:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, please see above. DeNaro's allegations are not only significant and relevant in an article about TM, they are also in no way given undue weight unless one accepts as given the declarations of the TM organization. Tanaats 01:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

An important point: the gif only lists 7 points. What I have seen in text-form includes about 30 points, so several pages are missing, including the reference to MMY as being worse than Jim Jones.Sparaig 09:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for the discussion. Both ALR and Jossi question the use of The Skeptic's Dictionary as a qualified secondary source. And both point out that the affidavit, a primary source, is opinion and needs corroboration. Further, ALR suggests that it would be good to have a hard copy source. But given that the affidavit is not part of the court record, that may not be possible. I would like to emphasize ALR's point that these allegations, if true, should be able to be corroborated by a reliable secondary source. Many of the allegations, such as attempted suicides, crime, and assaults, would be a matter of public record (hospital and police).

If we were to, as an intermediate measure, reduce and summarize the material and provide a convenience link to the Denaro affidavit, then I believe it would also be appropriate to provide a link to, and summarize, an affidavit that has been written by the legal counsel for Maharishi University of Management that disputes Denaro's claims that he served as legal counsel, professor of law and government, and "director of grants administration" for Maharishi University of Management, and that offers statements that reflect on Denaro's credibility.

Many other good points were raised, such as sources in the criticism section as a whole and issues of undue weight. These are matters that we should address. TimidGuy 16:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

My responses:

• Opinions, when presented as such, don't need corroboration. Why would we want another source to say "Yes, those are DeNaro's opinions"?
• Yes, it would be great to have a hardcopy source. But if we go through Wikipedia and delete every statement for which the editor has no hardcopy source in hand, there would be no Wikipedia left.
• The affadavit doesn't have to be part of the court record in order for it to document DeNaro's opinions.
• Again, we are not presenting DeNaro's allegations as "true", we are presenting them as opinion. No corrobation that this is indeed his opinion is required.
• DeNaro's lengthy allegations regarding serious psychological issues are already is summarized in one sentence. I will want to put a longer excerpt in the "ref". However, I wouldn't mind moving the second paragraph of his fraud allegation down into a ref, and then move the remaining blockquote up into the paragraph as an in-line quite so that the quote is presented in a less showy manner. Tanaats 17:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Actually, I missed where either ALR or Jossi said that SkepDic wasn't a reliable secondary source. However, I agree that pointing straight to the GIF of the actual affadavit will be preferable. Tanaats 17:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The opinions ARE co-obborated. Specifically the allegation that the TM organization engages in deception and fraud and that TM may be hazardous to your mental health. How many colleges have murders happen at them? MIU did which would seem to co-orborate that homocidal ideation goes on. Sethie 19:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Murder is quite rare but other crimes are not so rare [15]. The rule of thumb is that crime-rate on campuses is about 50% of the rate found in the surrounding community. It's hard to judge what happens in a college campus however, since ALL campuses are under pressure to under-report crime, and MUM would be under more pressure than most. Sparaig 22:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: Denaro's claims and the RS issue. There's what is said in WP:RS about bias in non-scholarly sources:

Bias of the originator about the subject—If an author has some reason to be biased, or admits to being biased, this should be taken into account when reporting his or her opinion. This is not to say that the material is not worthy of inclusion, but please take a look at our policy on Neutral point of view.

In the case of Denaro, he explicitly states, in point 29, which was deleted from the wikipedia TM article some time ago, that in his opinion, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is "more dangerous than Jim Jones, who enticed 900 of his followers to commit suicide." That seems to point to bias and should be mentioned whenever this affidavit is mentioned.Sparaig 22:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Any mention of bias would be OR. Tanaats 01:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Definatley. However, by wanting to include that quote Sparig are you indicating you consider the entire affidavit to be a RS? If so, there is a whole lot of other information in that affidavit that would be pertinent, including: He (Maharishi) was aware, apparently for some time, of the problem, suicide attempts, assaults, homicidal ideation, serious psychotic episodes, depressions, inter alia, but his general attitude was to leave it alone or conceal it because the community would lose faith in the TM movement. Maharishi had a very cavalier, almost elitist, view about very serious injuries and trauma to meditators. His basic attitude towards the concealment of the religious nature of TM was: "When America is ready for Hinduism I will tell them." That would be fantastic if we could use the whole affidavit. Sethie 01:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

My attitude: include as much as you want, but make sure to include point 29 in theorder it was written--at the end to provide a punchline to the entire thing. That you don't see this as a punchline speaks volumes about your own non-NPOV.Sparaig 04:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. We would also need to include a number of selections from his assertions about the dangers of TM in order to place his "Jim Jones" comment in context. Tanaats 04:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I take it you agree with him that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is more dangerous than Jim Jones? Sparaig 06:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope. I don't. I chalk it up to his grasping to find a strong enough metaphor to express the seriousness of what he saw at MIU. Tanaats 07:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"That you don't see this as a punchline speaks volumes about your own non-NPOV." Maybe. It also might have something to to do with the fact that Tanaats has eyeballs, like Denaro! Tanaats, with his own eyes, as a TM teacher, has seen and reported some of the same things as Denaro. Sethie 07:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Tanaats, I feel like you've ignored the main thrust of the comments from ALR and Jossi. And I feel like you're ignoring the Wikipedia guidelines related to primary and secondary sources. The affidavit is a primary source. The guidelines say that primary sources can't stand alone. Primary sources, especially those that make controversial claims, require corroboration by expert secondary sources. Both ALR and Jossi question Carroll as a secondary source. You have yet to give evidence that Carroll meets the criteria of a secondary source. Jossie notes that the affidavit is a primary source, hence needs corroboration. ALR feels the affidavit needs corroboration and that Skeptic's Dictionary shouldn't be used. Jossi questions use of the Skeptic's Dictionary and supports ALRs call to find better sources to corroborate the affidavit. He says that if a better source isn't found, he would argue that the affidavit shouldn't be used.

I feel we were fortunate to get the feedback of two experienced editors who have played an active role in shaping the guidelines, and I think their points are good. I'm surprised that you seem to be arguing that opinion is acceptable if it's presented as opinion. If that's acceptable, I'll write an affidavit today in which I describe how Denaro admitted to lying during cross examination, get it notarized, put an image on a web site, and then reference it in the article.

And on a minor related point, I think you're flat out wrong when you say, "The only issues that an appellate court is allowed to rule on are points of law. They never rule on points of fact." TimidGuy 12:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

TimidGuy, my response:

• We've been over and over the fact that the guidelines don't say that.

I don't recall that you've ever explained why Carroll qualifies as a secondary source. You simply repeat that it's a reliabile source. Here's the criteria for a secondary source: "The informed and expert interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation or corroboration of primary sources to synthesize a conclusion. In general, Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable secondary sources." Is Carroll an expert on Maharishi University of Management? Does he give any informed and expert interpretation, interpoliation, extrapolation, or corroboration of Denaro's statements?

• Jossie didn't say that.

"An affidavit is certainly a self-published primary source and that should only be used to presents the opinion of the person signing it, in an article about that person (if that person's notability warrants an article in WP, that is). The fact that it is referred to in Tod Carrol's SD, means that it may be admissible as it is reported on a secondary source. My concern is that this secondary source is not necessarily neutral. I would support ALR's call to find better sources." He feels Carroll isn't a qualified secondary source.

• Yes, that is ALR's opinion. The opinions of respondents to an RfC, especially one who is not neutral (not a slam, just a fact), are not binding.

You have no evidence that he's not neutral. I had no idea he practiced Zen meditation.

• Jossi didn't say that corroboration was required.

He noted that a primary document is OK if presented in the context of a secondary source. But he questions Carroll as a secondary source.

• A GIF of the actual document is a "better source."

The GIF is apparently incomplete.

• If opinions is inadmissible even if presented as such, then we should delete all of MMY's teachings from the article.

You tend to throw out a red herring whenever I try to focus on a specific point.

• Neither ALR nor I are lawyers. Please do consult about this with TMO legal counsel and let us know what they say. This will be interesting, but the point is moot because even a ruling by the Supreme Court, even one on a point of fact, has no bearing whatever regarding what DeNaro's opinion is.

• I think that we are clearly deadlocked. I suggest that further discussion is futile and that we should proceed to the next step in DR if you like. Lest we continue to go in circles, I will bow out of the RfC now. Tanaats 18:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Tanaats, I sincerely appreciate your measured tone and sincerity in wanting to proceed to DR. I would point out that we were deadlocked before Sethie inserted it. But he inserted it anyway. I don't understand why Sethie's insertions become the default and that I have to spend months debating his insertions. I think we have valuable feedback from experienced editors and that it should be deleted pending DR. TimidGuy 13:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi TimidGuy. I would just have to repeat previous arguments, which I don't think would serve any purpose. Thanks for the kind comments. Tanaats 16:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

My computer has been down for several days and I have come back to the discussion above.

• It seems curious to me that MUM's accreditation with the Higher Learning Commission, a commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools,a commission recognized by the U.S. Department of Education, and Council on Higher Education Accreditation should be ignored. This commission accredited MUM for, I believe, the longest possible term given - ten years. That term length indicates great confidence in the university accredited. This university was always accredited or was a candidate for accreditation as it was in its first days. The commission is also meticulous in its scrutiny, and observes every aspect of the institutions it accredits.[16] How then, one wonders did it miss all of the violent crimes, the tax evasions, the remarkably poor teaching, the many troubled students that this affidavit reports. Is it possible that these are isolated incidents consistent with all universities, or incidents blown out of proportion for who knows what reasons or ends, or worse are quite simply made up. I am not talking about a murder here. I was here on this campus at that time, knew this student , was close when this happened. This was an unbelievably tragic, heart breaking event that no one could have foreseen and multiplied in terms of its shock value because this is a campus where women walk safely at night, children play safely, there is almost no crime and in many years very little crime that is in any way violent.
• I believe that the records of crime reports on campus are available in University records,[17] and probably in city of Fairfield police records, but perhaps they should have been considered when attempting to find verifiability for this information, and attempting to present a truly neutral viewpoint. My statements above can be corroborated by checking these files.
• I am also reminded that the quote comparing Maharishi Mahesh Yogi to Jones is defamatory, and its use would probably not be considered up to Wikipedia standards.
• The afadavit seems to be considered to be "opinion" by all involved in this discussion , and so why given the Wikipedia standards on opinion one wonders can it be considered at all. Maharishi of course states his position on his knowledge, but we are describing his "body of knowledge", so his points always exist inside this reference. In fact , the material we present on TM and the related programs would lack depth had we not included the words of the man who created this particular knowledge.

I realize that this discussion is not about the university but about the use of certain materials. However I wondered if these points had been really considered as an aid in attempting to create a truly neutral viewpoint. No response necessary or wanted, since I am not an editor originally involved in this dispute. (olive 21:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC))

Thanks, Olive. These are excellent points. Tanaats, the only argument you give RS is that SD is used throughout Wikipedia as a RS. But you don't address the issues regarding this Wikipedia article on Transcendental Meditation and whether SD is a reliable source specifically for this article. I believe it's correct to ask this question. Carroll covers many many topics. I don't think anyone would say he's an expert in all of them. It's not possible. Given that both persons who responded to the RfC felt that SD wasn't adequate in this instance, I'm going to delete this material pending dispute resolution. If you or Sethie revert, I feel you should explain why the article on TM in SD meets the criteria given in WP:RS for a qualfied secondary source and address other points, such as Carroll's admission that SD doesn't intend to be balanced. TimidGuy 12:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You previously implied in the RfC that I should show deference for the opinions of the experienced editors who responded. I will therefore point out that you are questioning the just-as-expert opinion of Dreadlocke on the subject of SkepDic's status as an RS. Actually, I consider this to be quite healthy on your part, but I'd appreciate receiving no further implied suggestions that I should of necessity defer to an RfC responder.

Be that as it may, it's no biggie to me if the DeNaro material comes out for now. Tanaats 20:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I found an RS. Tanaats 21:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tanaats. I wonder if you're referring to Will Beback rather than Dreadlocke. If so, you represented his opinion in your statement. I felt like I didn't ignore it -- I argued against it. I don't think that a book on so many different topics can carte blanche be considered a RS. I feel like it depends on whether that person is an expert on the particular topic and whether the particular material meets the criteria for a secondary source. Hassan, like Carroll, simply presents the document but doesn't offer the sort of corroboration and context that a proper secondary source would. Also, even though there are four images of the original, there's still no page with a signature. TimidGuy 12:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It could easily have been Will.

That's actually my point, that it's ok not to accept the opinions of experienced editors who respond to an RfC. Tanaats 15:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I plead not guilty! :D Dreadlocke ☥ 04:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I respect your intelligence and experience. I don't think you should defer to anyone. My point was that, from my perspective, you didn't seem to be addressing their arguments, nor the specific relevant guidlines regarding primary and secondary sources.

Seems like it's a good time for mediation. I'm starting to feel optimistic about the process. For some reason, I had been thinking of it as sort of a court where I would air my grievances regarding various issues, with judgment to follow. But now I'm realizing that it's not that -- and that it would be an opportunity to figure out a way to work together. I really think that we could. Both you and Sethie have done some good work on the article. You've really helped to clean it up, and have defended the integrity of the article against those who make unwarranted changes. Sethie has sometimes had valuable input, such as the time when I put in some references to CEOs who meditate, and he made an excellent point about why it wasn't an appropriate addition to the article. This RfC took a lot of time and energy, including emotional energy. And given the many disagreements, we face at least a couple dozen RfCs. But maybe mediation would point a way to collaboration. TimidGuy 16:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I would concur with TG...I respect the real efforts of those who have been the consistent editors on this site .... there seems to be intelligence, a truly honest attempt to remain neutral despite personal opinions, and real effort to bring that neutrality to the material.(olive 16:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC))

Thanks TG and Olive. Yes, I think progressing to mediation would be a good thing. And yes, hopefully it will help our collaboration. Tanaats 20:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Will start the process in the coming week. TimidGuy 12:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Found all 5 pages, including signature [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] Tanaats 05:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tanaats, for agreeing to mediation.

Regarding Denaro, I guess in my mind the main issues remain -- that these are controversial claims made in a primary source, that primary sources can't stand alone, and that Carroll is a questionable secondary source that doesn't aspire to being balanced and doesn't corroborate the claims. TimidGuy 16:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Evaluation of German study

I reworded the line about the German government study to reflect what was actually going on. The german government interviewed 27 people who had complaints about TM and (surprise!) more than 75% of them reported adverse effects from TM.

Here's a couple of newsgroup comments by Roger D Nelson of PEAR, who read the study and gave an informal review of it in the sci.skeptics newsgroup just over 11 years ago, wearing the hat of someone who had performed a comprehensive review of the scientific literature on meditation for the NIH. Note that he was talking to John Knapp, whose website was the source for the Skeptic Dictionary entry and that John still hasn't changed his website to reflect their conversation 11 years ago:

[...]

"I not only have read the study, and commented on it subsequently in posts that you apparently have not taken the opportunity to read, I am competent to do so, both by professional training and by experience. The latter includes having reviewed, comprehensively, the scientific literature on meditation, including Trancendental Meditation, for the Office of Alternative Medicine, NIH. The German "study" is not scientific by any reasonable standard, particularly including that of peer review. Had it been available at the time of my review, I would have listed it as a report of negative results. While the study would have merited little attention, I probably would have noted that its sampling procedures and analytic approaches permit no generalization, and I would have indicated that selective reporting occurs, apparently for the specific purpose of providing descriptive anecdotes to therapists. The general conclusions drawn by the study authors are not supportable. "

[23]

[...]

"No, John, I am a greybeard, with a 1972 doctorate in in experimental psychology concentrating on perception, neurophysiology, and cognitive capacities. Of course that includes an excellent classical education in experimental design and statistics. It was, however, my 15 years of experience at Princeton, developing sound research and analytical strategies for the study of anomalies linking consciousness and physical systems that prompted an invitation to participate in the OAM effort to determine what research had been done in its purview, and to attempt a first resolution of the implications thereof, in order to design a useful program of prospective research in alternative medicine.

"I have already posted the relevant information from the resulting review of meditation that bears on an assessment of the merits of the German study. That study is not what you claim and imply it to be, namely a reliable ("prestigious" is a term you have used) source for the generalizations that you specifically make to the effect that trancendental meditation is harmful. At best it is what it was designed to be, namely a recounting of problems suffered by parents, spouses, and a small number -- 27 as I recall -- of meditators. I have no investment in TM, but I do have a strong interest in proper reporting and wise use of science and its authority. To attempt to generalize from a study conducted as this one was, by asking each troubled person to please put us in touch with other similarly troubled people, with implications that meditation, or even TM , is dangerous or harmful, is ludicrous on the face of it."

[24]

    Roger D. Nelson, Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) 
        C-131 E-Quad, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544 
              voice: 609 258-5370      fax: 609 258-1993 
  rdnel...@princeton.edu   http://www.princeton.edu/~rdnelson/index.html

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sparaig (talk • contribs) 13:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

My editing of remakrs on German study was reverted, partly because the citation didn't support the remarks. That's certainly true since the citation no longer mentions that study.Transcendental Meditation, John Carroll, The Skeptic's Dictionary Sparaig 18:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Responses:

• Newsgoups are specifically defined in the guidelines as not being RSs, so any comments in them are irrelevant.
• Good catch regarding Skepdic. I've removed the now irrelevant cite and replaced it with a "fact" tag. If no one comes up with another citation in a reasonable amount of time then IMO we should take the whole subsection out. Tanaats 19:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it time to take this out? Or we could take it out and paste it here on the Talk page until someone finds a citation. TimidGuy 12:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I move we take it out. Tanaats did suggest this three weeks ago and so far no citation....we could also paste it on the talk page if anyone feels that a citation may come up, but I'm not sure that's necessary - either way seems like its time to move it. (olive 17:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC))

I might be responsible for that. A year or so back, another skeptic site sited the German study. I forwarded the complete enlish transcirption to them and they went "oops" and deleted their reference to it. The Skeptics Dictionary guy may have gotten word from the first skeptic I talked to and did the same thing. It's a pretty horrible study. One Jewish psycohologist online called it typical Nazi tactics using the N word.Sparaig 23:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the newsgroup may not be an appropriate cite, but newsgroups CAN be original sources of info. Duffs Device was announced in a newsgroup, for example. The first person to figure out what the cause of the fdiv bug in the Pentium was, announced it in a newsgroup. He got hired by Intel to head up the team to fix the problem. Sparaig 01:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely agree that newsgroups, and blogs for that matter, are very often the best places to get "breaking news". Tanaats 02:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sparaig newsgroups are your thing.... and you have been here long enough, and I doubt Tanaats and I are nowhere near the first to tell you that they don't cut it on wikipedia. Please discuss "news"groups elsewhere. :) If newsgroups were considered a reliable source of information..... well, the TM organization would be in for a WOLRD of hurt. People, including various "reputables" have spoken some hard smack on newsgroups about TM. Sethie 05:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The self-published source thing may apply here, though you'll note that I did NOT attempt to use the newsgroup reference as a citation in the article anyway, but only to support my points in the discussion. If you have any doubts about the validity of what Roger Nelson said or if he really said it, you could contact him via his [rdnelson@princeton.edu email]. Sparaig 07:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree you did not attempt to use a newsgroup as a citation.... however you did make edits to the article based on the newsgroup and then attempt to justify your edits based on a newsgroup. In no way shape or form did you break the letter of the law and you totally did in Spirit. Please don't. This page is big enough without more tangents that don't relate to the article!

WP:RS rule you mentioned, Self published sources applies to websites and blogs.... not newsgroup postings! A newsgroup posting has the reliabity of a personal email.... NONE! :) Sethie 21:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I only used Roger's statements because they explicitly pointed out what is in the original text: The "study" interviewed 27 people who had complaints about TM and a majority of those interviewed reported problems with TM. The SD obviously uses the editorialized webpage found in the trancenet archives anyway, so it is hardly a neutral source in the first place. Careful reading of both online AND peer-reviewed papers on TM reveals that this is often the case. Mistakes found in the original Trancenet website pop up all over, including the Wikipedia article we are discussing here, the SD entry AND peer-reviewed papers that end up quoting various papers such as the German Study or Otis's book. No-one actually reads the original source, they just quote the Trancenet entry on it, and if you read the current anti-TM blog maintained by the original Trancent editor, John Knapp, you find that he very deliberately reports rumors as facts when it suits his agenda.Sparaig 22:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Without a RS saying 27, it is irrelevant to Wikipedia. Also, I take it back, you did try and use the newsgroup to insert a fact, here: [[25]]. Please, leave newsgroups OUT Of wikipedia discussions and articles. Sethie 22:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. The ONLY place YOU know of that has quotes of the German report, or at least large portion thereof, is that newsgroup article. However, if you insist on a more "reliable" source than a newgroup article, then I guess we have to go with the "source" used by the Skeptics Dictionary itself: the trancenet website, which is archved by the rival meditation school mentioned in the main wikipedia article (conflict of interest, anyone?):

3 groups of people were interviewed:

30 parents of meditators were interviewed, including 17 couples and 13 cases where only 1 parent was present;

10 spouses of meditaors were interviewed, of which 40% were evangelical and 60% were Roman Catholic (a non-biased group to be sure);

27 ex-meditators were interviewed;

67 people total were interviewed. Keep this figure in mind because, according to the NEXT section, 67 MEDITATORS were interviewed.

Now, you can be charitable and assume that the translation is bad. On the other hand, you could also assume that the authors of this non-peer-reviewed "study" were trying to double-count their subjects to make the study sound larger than it really is. Sparaig 04:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

actually, both interpretations together make the most sense: 30 *sets* of parents of active meditators were interviewed + 27 former meditators + 10 spouses of active medtators = 67 interviews of former meditators and people concerned about active meditators.Sparaig 05:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Reading through this "German study", it is clear why it was never peer review published. The methodology is not based in any kind of sound science. That is my opinion as a publishing research scientist of 25 years. But as we know, Wikipedia is not the place for editor opinions. The criteria that is significant is that this study was never peer reviewed. Scholarly peer review is the necessary basis of credibility in the field of science, and is the top level of RS on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Aspects_of_reliability . There are over 200 research studies on TM that have been peer review published, and then at least another 400 studies (that I am aware of) that did not meet the peer review criteria. The argument would be that before any non-peer reviewed science is referenced (let alone discussed) in wikipedia (and in respect of RS, I don't believe that it should be), the body of peer-reviewed science should first be included and discussed. Then if editors decide for some reason that including a separate section of questionable reliability (if RS at all) of non-peer reviewed research is warranted (and again I don't think this should be the case, for both RS quality issues as well as for article size constraints), then this study could be cited or discussed in that context, but along with the many other research studies that would also fall into that category.Duedilly 14:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS says that peer-reviewed studies are more reliable, it doesn't say that non-peer-reviewed studies must be excluded. Tanaats 16:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, in science, peer review is an essential basis for credibility, it is not optional. And because this is a scientific study that is being presented, it should adhere to the reliability standards of science. I seriously doubt that there are very many if any scientific studies in wikipedia that are not peer reviewed (and I would be willing to argue to remove them), and certainly none that were given more emphasis than an established body of peer reviewed science. That in itself provides a strong argument for its elimination. Secondly, my point was that if non-peer reviewed studies are suggested to be included, they would only fairly and reliably be included after all 200 peer reviewed studies are first included and discussed, something that you have voiced size concerns about. In other words, in a size constrained article, why should wikipedia settle for a substantially less reliable source (though in science, this is considered un-reliable) over many more reliable sources? Thirdly, if it is agreed that a section of non-peer reviewed studies should be created, then this study would be simply one out of 400+ non-peer reviewed studies that would be included. Without a doubt this would create an article that was both scientifically unreliable and would be significantly too long. I am currently working on organizing a section of the 200 peer review published studies, which again are the only studies that the field of science respects as credible.Duedilly 18:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

My responses:

• We are not "in science". We are in Wikipedia. And nothing in WP:RS excludes material from non-peer-reviewed studies.
• As for "emphasis", as soon as he can Chemprof will embark on a significant expansion of the presentation of scientific studies regarding TM.
• I don't follow your argument that a couple of critical studies cannot be included unless the article is stuffed first with all 200 TM studies. It would be extremely POV not to include some studies critical of TM if they can be sourced, as these are.
• Certainly, go ahead and include some non-peer-reviewed studies if you want.
• You might want to coordinate with Chempro about the expansion of the presentation of peer-reviewed-studies. The current main TM article is already too big. As I mentioned to Chemprof, you will need to put such expanded material into a separate "Research on TM" subarticle. Then we would have a brief summary of the subarticle in the main article, headed by a "see also" pointing to the subarticle. The critical studies can also go into the subarticle, with a one-liner about their existence in the summary in the main article.

I will try to make my point more clear. You are citing a science study. Therefore the standards of the field of science need apply. Peer review is the standard of scientific credibility. Even if there were no other peer reviewed science articles available, it would not be reliable to cite a non-peer reviewed science study. It might well be reliable to cite a non-peer reviewed work of literature, but not of science. But especially when there are 200 peer reviewed studies available, not all of them necessarily showing positive results on TM. Each one of those would warrant discussion before a non-peer reviewed science article would. And if we decide as a group that a non-peer reviewed science section should be included, this "german study" would be just one of ~400. Bottom line is, we can go to RfC or mediation or arbitration or whatever you like on this. In the meantime, I am working on organizing the 200 peer reviewed studies that will be linkable to medline. I make the argument that any scientific article which is not peer reviewed, if it is included, should be only after a more prominent peer reviewed section, and only in a context of all the other non-peer reviewed studies (most of which in fact, of the many I have seen, have better design protocols than this "german study"). But it will take some time for this to be completed. I am just preparing you for the argument. We can take it to RfC now if you like. I don't think I could explain it again any more clearly. It is something that perhaps more familiarity with scientific method could help clarify for you. And yes I'll be happy to work with Chemprof or anyone else on this worthwhile project to increase the SNR here (and any where else this important issue may arise on wikipedia). Duedilly 20:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

My response:

• Re "You are citing a science study. Therefore the standards of the field of science need apply." You appear to be making up a Wikipedia guideline out of thin air. Please cite the guideline that states this.
• Re "Each one of those would warrant discussion before a non-peer reviewed science article would." Ditto.
• Re "And if we decide as a group that a non-peer reviewed science section should be included, this "german study" would be just one of ~400." No. There is no way that you can stuff 400 studies into an article. WP won't allow that huge an article.
• Re "I am working on organizing the 200 peer reviewed studies that will be linkable to medline." You won't be able to get even a mere 200 studies into a WP article. However, I would support stuffing a "TM Research" subarticle as full as you like until it reaches max WP article size. But the summary in the main article must be kept short.
• Re "I make the argument that any scientific article which is not peer reviewed, if it is included, should be only after a more prominent peer reviewed section, and only in a context of all the other non-peer reviewed studies." I understand your argument quite well. Again, you appear to be making up your own guidelines.
• Re "Bottom line is, we can go to RfC or mediation or arbitration or whatever you like on this." Of course. I think we can quite fairly say that we've made a very good effort to resolve this dispute in Talk, which is the only prerequesite to opening DR. Please proceed whenever you wish. As a matter of fact, since we are starting to go in circles, I will refrain from responding to this topic further until/unless you do. Tanaats 21:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines explicity require peer review and publication in an academic journal: WP:RS: "The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals." TimidGuy 12:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Please show me a quote which says "Wikipedia requires/demands/insists/must only use peer reviewed sources."

The guidelines do not REQUIRE peer review. "Wikipedia relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world." Right underneath the section you quoted from is a section on " Non-scholarly sources" which clearly allows them and offers guidelines for their use. Sethie 17:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

And the point will be made, when an abundance of peer reviewed research published in top refereed journals is available, and the article size is already exceeded, why would we clutter an article and waste space limitations referencing and quoting from poorly designed non-peer reviewed research? Duedilly 22:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Duedilly please review previous discussions, we have already been through this. Several significant edits were made to downplay the German study, the main one being that it is no longer listed under "adverse effects of TM."

Well, I personally find lawsuits significant, especially lawsuits between a NRM (New Religious Movement) and the Government! Personally I am surprised pro-TM people want it out, every critical site I have found on TM cites it heavily, I'd think you'd enjoy the chance to let a little light in on it. Sethie 06:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer review & the Journal of Social Behavior and Personality

Peer-reviewed journals are normally RS , unless there is some reason otherwise. In this case there is very good reason otherwise.

1. The title was once in Social Science Citation Index, but has been dropped.
2. The title was once in PsychInfo, but has been dropped
3. There is no home page or web site for the journal
4. The entry for the journal in Ulrichs', the standard periodical directory, says "Researched/Unresolved", meaning they have looked for information but not received any.
5. The journal is not in the collection of the National Library of Medicine
6. PubMed indexes only 8 articles from it. This article is not among them.
7. The publisher, Select Press, is , judging by their website, a publisher of sponsored material for various corporate clients, and does not list this journal on their website. [26]

The actual article can be found in Ebsco Academic Search Premier for those with access. On its first page, it says: Author Affiliation: Maharishi University of Management for all 3 of the authors So it is obvious from its face that this article is most definitely a COI source; based on the info. about the journal, nothing in the journal is a RS. It's a vanity publisher. Any journal can claim to be peer-reviewed.

Any more help you'd like from an objective librarian, let me know. DGG 00:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

In 2002 it was given a grade of D amongst sociology and anthropology journals. On the other hand, Omre-Johnson lists a set of allegedly non-TMing researchers ' comments on the evaluation found in the NRC book. I've read the original evaluation from years earlier. It was quite obviously designed tofind that neitherTM nor any other form of meditation had any useful effect. In order to get an "outside opinion," they chose someone to evalutate their conclusions. His conclusion was that the authors were correct except for his own form of meditation. The author's response was that there was no published research on the reviewer's own form of meditation. IOW, the authors chose someone to review their claims who had never published aything in the field he was supposed to be evaluating a survey article of.Sparaig 02:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, why did you put this in a sub-heading about the German study? No-one is claiming that THAT is peer-reviewed. Sparaig 02:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, for what it is worth, Orme-Johnson gives a pdf link to the article you object to.Sparaig 02:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No, but peer review had been mentioned there.

Whereas I very much agree that only science research studies which have been peer review published should be included in Wikipedia, and at the very least highly prioritized over non-peer reviewed studies, I disagree that a study needs to be found in a particular science database to be considered. However, as you point out, this journal is in fact listed in the pubmed database (one of the the databases within the NCBI http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ [National Center for Biotechnology Information] : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=journals&list_uids=25509&dopt=full, but also contrary to what you say, it apparently is still listed in the National Library of Medicine with NLM ID: 9885445. It also seems to be currently listed in journals indexed within APA's Psycinfo: http://www.apa.org/psycinfo/about/covfullselect.html . Further, a journal's current status within various science databases (even if it happened to no longer be currently included in any) is not as relevant as its status at the time of article publication. And lastly, an article author's affiliation is not at all relevant. If every author with a thesis or perspective to promote/defend was eliminated from being published or cited, science would grind to a screeching halt. That is precisely what the peer review process is for. Duedilly 05:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Further, and even more critical (and perhaps no less poignant) is that apparently the NRC report itself was never peer review published, and so on that basis, should itself not be considered scholarly enough for Wikipedia standards for citing scientific results. At the very least, the critique of the study was of a higher RS (being published in a peer reviewed journal) than the actual study itself. Though this is all just intermediate to when we have a substantial section finished for the peer review published science research and all of these non-peer reviewed references and discussions will be eliminated. (Chemprof, if you are still tuning in here and also intend to work on this research section, I can be reached at duedilly on yahoo email.) Duedilly 05:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

not that this is a major point,but the NLM link you gave goes to the NLM catalog record for the journal--they catalog all medical journals even if they don't keep them, just as LC does in other fields. Now go on the page to the link on the upper left where it say NLM Holdings, and you will get

[27] where it says Location: Not at NLM

You are right that the indexes let you search for the journal name for articles published earlier even if they don't cover the same journal now. And some indexes therefore never remove the name form the journal list. Ulrichs, however, tries to list current coverage. I note again that NLM did index a few articles from that journal , but not this one.

and, while I'm at it, the decisive basis for rejecting anything in that journal is very simple: the publisher is a vanity press--and that is much more important than any claim of "peer-reviewed"it may make-- a vanity press can say whatever it gets paid to say--and this particular one boasts on its home page how well it fill's the client's needs, and gives testimonials to that effect. For such a press. the affiliation of the author very much counts, for its all the authority that there is. (I could guide you to a discussion of how the authority of peer review depends on the standards of the journal, i.e. an article in, say, JAMA has higher authority than one in most other places, but for this journal it's irrelevant. )

As or the authority of the study, that's a question for tomorrow. Technical reports are , as you say, never peer reviewed, so the standards applied are different. DGG 06:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You already said you couldn't find a home page for it. It certainly is the bottom of the heap of reviewed journals, according to those ranking systems I can find, but where do you find that it is a paid-for publication vanity press?. In fact, I would think that that skirts libel if it is not.Sparaig 07:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, DGG, for raising the issue of peer review. There's been some difference of opinion here whether the guidelines stipulate that research that's referenced must be peer reviewed. This has come up on the context of the German study and the Otis study, neither of which were published in an academic journal or peer reviewed. I'll be eager to hear your reading of the guidelines regarding the requirement for peer review.

The front matter of JSBP lists the peer reviewers for each of the articles in this particular issue.TimidGuy 16:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Thought peer-review was usually anonymous? Sparaig 17:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Some response points to DGG

- a journal's database inclusion status may change over time - all journals are subject to various financial realities and may change from monthly to quarterly or yearly to even suspension of publication for periods of time - i have seen this many times in 25 years of authoring and referencing articles in science - the salient point is whether a journal was peer reviewed, and then perhaps also was included in any of the standard databases, at the time of publication

- this journal is currently indexed in NLM's pubmed and has an NLM ID - it's status as not being held by NLM means nothing editorially - this journal happens to be held at the UC Berkeley library, which is where NLM holds many of its west coast 'regionally catalogued' items (which is how this catalogued journal is described as being held at the NLM locator link) - for your reference, NLM does not physically hold anywhere near all of their indexed journals - they also make use of 8 other very large university libraries (such as NYU, Univ of Chicago and UC Berkeley) to be repositories for their extensive catalogue index of journals and books in all of their databases

- JSBP is also currently listed in the Psycinfo database (which is maintained by the APA - American Psychological Association)

- as far as your claim that JSBP is a vanity press, please give a reference for that - that is both OR and also seems to be incorrect

- i'm not sure what you meant when you attributed to me a comment on technical reports not being peer reviewed. if by technical reports you mean technical/physical science research results, the ones with scientific credibility are indeed all peer reviewed

- i am not sure what exactly the implication was, but for clarification, the NRC paper was neither a technical research report nor was it peer review published, and as such should not be included for reference and discussion on wikipedia, at least not ahead of papers that have been

- this JSBP paper which critiqued the NRC paper however, was peer review published, and could conceivably be included as relevant (though with the intended removal of the NRC paper reference and discussion, is likely not necessary)

- and where certain peer review journals may be listed in more databases and/or may be considered to be more authoritive in a given field than others in that field, for scientific credibility, in all cases being published in a peer reviewed journal is significantly preferred to not being peer reviewed (as is the case with the NRC paper and the so-called German study, neither of which were nor likely would have been peer review published, due to substantial flaws and omissions) Duedilly 21:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The JSBP paper, on the other hand, while hardly earth-shattering, is quite straightfoward in what it claims Unless the authors are out and out lying, or skewing their selected data to thepoint of the moral equivalent of that, a simple read of the paper suffices to show its relevance as a response to the NRC works. My impression of the original Army paper was that it was written by people who were told to make sure that meditation was NOT found to be a suitable addtion to military life. People should recall that the conclusion is that NO meditation works, period. At all. Nada. None of them. Ever... Not just TM. Sparaig 23:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Carroll's use of term "occult"

Sethie, I feel your comment in your statement is deceptive. Carroll clearly explains that "occult" is his umbrella term to refer to the topics in his dictionary. And in his intro he is clearly stating that he doesn't intend to present a balanced view in the book. My use of an ellipsis was appropriate, rather than taking space in my Statement to explain Carroll's use of the term "occult." TimidGuy 13:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I feel it provides an interesting context that your quote left out. How does including the full quote require an explination? If you also read the entire introduction, you'll see that Carrol sees his dictionary as a COUNTER-balance to excessive POV pushing by occult and pseduoscience, something else you neglected to mention. Regardless, you arguement that having a POV rules out a source is bunk. If it were the case, we would need to remove EVERY TM Organization citation. Sethie 16:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion about edit comments here in Talk

I have rarely been bothering to make edit comments when posting here in Talk. I didn't think it necessary since we were always either making a new comment or replying to someone else's comment, and we didn't need an edit comment to tell us which it was.

However TimidGuy makes edit comments as a regular practice. I have come to realize that TimidGuy's edit comments are actually very helpful. When I look in History, by seeing his edit comments I am often reminded that I have already read that diff. This is especially helpful when his edit is the first one in History but I can't remember whether or not I've already read the diff. Because of his edit comments I can often remember that I've already read the diff and therefore I don't have to waste even a little bit of time by looking at it again.

May I suggest that we all start making edit comments here? They wouldn't have to be very long. Thanks. Tanaats 20:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Naming Convention

I see the founder of TM is named as "Maharishi" numerous times in this article. The first time I saw it, I thought "Hm; 'Maharishi' is a title. I should change that to 'the Maharishi.'" Before I did, though, I noticed the multiple uses of "Maharishi" as though it was his first name.
Now, I know it's not uncommon for people to think titles with which they're not familar are names ("Mahatma", for example, or "Buddha"), but is that correct here? Shouldn't he be referred to either by name or by the title as a title?
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 18:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's as much a nickname as a title. No-one knows him as Mr. Mahesh Varma. Sparaig 18:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Septegram. We shouldn't use "nicknames" in an encyclopedia article.

As far as "No-one knows him as Mr. Mahesh Varma", it is also true that no one knows him as simply "Maharishi" outside of the TMO. To the entire rest of the world, he is "the Maharishi." Tanaats 18:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

We've been through this before. Even Andrew Skolinick disagreed with you back then. Why bring this up again?Sparaig 02:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't here then. But on further thought it would make the prose a bit tortuous. Tanaats 06:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I likewise wasn't here before, so I missed the discussion. I'm curious as to what rationale was used for not changing the article to include "the" before "Maharishi." I can't see how that would be incorrect.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 15:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think one would need to take usage into account. If you Google the various forms, you'll see that "Maharishi" is much more common than "the Maharishi." TimidGuy 16:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see your point, but people also say "Feb-yoo-ary," "nucular," and "I could care less;" that doesn't mean we'd want Wikipedia to follow those usages. However, it's not a particularly great issue for me, so I'll just let it stand.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 18:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

And to throw in my two cents.... sometimes we forget at least I do that we are dealing with a different culture.Maharishi is used rather more freely in the same way we might say Doctor, or when I was in high school in Canada we called all male teachers, sir .... to their faces at least :) (olive 16:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC))

Extension and reorganization of MVS and MVS material as per discussion

Please refer to Maharishi Vedic Science site/article for viewing, comments, etc.(olive 18:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC))

Nice work, Olive. TimidGuy 20:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Tanaats 21:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Apology re "vandalism"

I had fallen under a bad influence awhile back when I was led to believe that deletion of well-sourced material was ipso facto "vandalism". I have somewhat recently been advised by Bishonen that content edits that are not blatent obvious deliberate destruction are not considered to be "vandalism." I apologize to Roseapple and the other editor (I have forgotten exactly who it was) who I threatened with the "vandalism" stick. Tanaats 16:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, heck. Then I guess I ought to apologize to you for suggesting your edits were tantamount to vandalism the first time you appeared in the article. : ) TimidGuy 18:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Thanks. :) Tanaats 19:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I felt no resentment; it was a good learning experience for me! But I appreciate your apology. Roseapple 19:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

I wanted to make sure that everyone saw the information under discussion on the MVS site. I had said that if there were no objections by Friday I would go ahead and delete the old material off of the TM site. I realized that some of you may not have seen that discussion so, I'll wait until Monday and then delete if there are no objections.(63.162.81.220 18:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC))

sorry forgot to log in above is my statement(olive 18:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC))

You'll want to leave a brief summary of the MVS article in the TM article. Tanaats 19:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, another thought,in the interest of brevity.... MVS is wiki-linked in the TM article, and the MVS article links back to the TM article isn't that enough. I feel as if another summary will be redundant and overkill .... what say you all. (olive 16:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC))

Thanks, Olive, for doing this. The MVS article is looking good. I agree that the Other Programs section could be greatly condensed. If others don't agree to deletion, seems like you could again put TM in the context of Maharishi Vedic Science, and then list the facets, but leave out the brief explanations of each. If readers want to know more, they can go the the MVS page. TimidGuy 17:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind, Olive. Tanaats 05:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted the "Related Programs" on the TM site. I see extending the MVS site more as an organizational move. Hopefully the site will be easily accessible in terms of what goes where , and will be organic in nature so material can be added quickly and easily in its appropriate slot. I am still thinking about adding something more on the TM site about MVS but it does feel as if its not needed, so will leave that for now. (olive 16:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC))

NRC report

Hi, Betty. I reverted the comments you inserted into the aricle. Note that we've already discussed at length on this page whether it's appropriate or necessary to identify the affiliation of David Orme-Johnson and the other authors of the JSBP article with the TM organization. Generally, Tanaats, Duedilly, and I feel that it's Original Research to do so. And the discussion has also suggested that it shows a misunderstanding of the scientific process.

If you'd like to improve the article, it would be great if you could write a citation for the NRC report. It's been tagged "citation needed" for months. Also, we need to address the fact that the 1991 report was about meditation in general. It's not clear what implications it has regarding the research specifically on Transcendental Meditation. TimidGuy 20:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Can someone who is familiar with past discussions tell me why the NRC paragraph should be in this article? There is no citation so I can't read the report myself; if it truly is about meditation in general rather than TM then it seems it shouldn't be under a heading called "Validity of TM Research" and would be more appropriately located in the wiki article about meditation. Thank you. Roseapple 15:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, it discredits all meditation research.Sparaig 19:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

According to David Orme-Johnson, the 1991 NRC report was a review on meditation in general and failed to examine over 500 studies on the Transcendental Meditation technique. The report was in the form of a book evaluating research on human potential. A 13-page chapter dealt with research on meditation. Seems like this paragraph could be deleted until someone finds a citation -- and offers a rationale for mentioning this report. TimidGuy 02:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No one has responded with a citation or rationale for this study so I am going to delete it as per discussion above. (Hope nobody minds.) Roseapple 15:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally think its fine, and as you mentioned should probably not have been on the TM pages but on a site devoted to more general material on meditation.(olive 16:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

Otis study never published save in his book

Otis study never published save in his book

Not sure the citation of Otis is accurate. Otis never published a single study on TM in any peer-reviewed journal. The link is to a reprint of section of his book:

"Reprinted with permission from Deane H. Shapiro and Roger N. Walsh, editors, Meditation: Classic and Contemporary Perspectives (New York: Aldine Publishing Co.), copyright 1984 by Deane H. Shapiro and Roger N. Walsh."

As the mediator here I must admit that I tend to give less credence to people who dont sign their posts. Not doing so indicates at the very least an unfamiliarity with our customs of editing here -- something all parties in any legitimate dispute should be familiar with before getting into various arguments. -Ste|vertigo 01:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC) PS: Ive subordinated your title because we are in mediation, and all involved parties should participate in the mediation program. -Ste|vertigo 01:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

My bad. ADHD marches on (seriously). Sparaig 04:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well just keep it in check, OK? :) -Ste|vertigo 11:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Notice that there are two citations. The second one, which I put in, I can affirm to be correct and is the one that maybe should be used rather than the convenience link to the POV site. The book contains 60 articles, 45 of them previously published in academic journals. The study by Otis is one of 15 that are included that weren't previously published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. About 15 of ths studies collected in the book are about Transcendental Meditation, mostly previously published, and generally reporting benefits and not indicating any side effects. Whether or not Otis merits inclusion in the article, it certainly seems undue weight to give it an entire section and to quote extensively from the study. If it's included, it should be one sentence in the research section, in my humble opinion.

Otis may be most well known for doing tests to debunk psychic Uri Geller -- about the same period he was doing his TM research. TimidGuy 02:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

pubmed doesn't have ANY studies by Otis on the topic of meditation:

search string (otis[All Fields] AND {auth[All Fields]) AND ("meditation"[MeSH Terms] OR meditation[Text Word])

If Otis's self-published study can be included, then any and all in-house studies by the TM organization should be fair game, as should anything that has only been presented at a conference. I believe that that is against the wikipedia guidelines however... -Sparaig 23:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Ive taken this case to mediate. Ive familiarised myself with the basics. Whats the greatest issue of dispute at the moment? Here are my basic thoughts for the issues listed. For these problems:

• edit warring
  • civility on the part of one editor
  • perceived conflicts of interest
• undue weight to critical position
  • whether specific Criticism sections violate WP:NOR#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position
• apply WP:RS
  • excessive quotations?
  • citing opinion in the article

We will:

• identify problematic examples of writing (pov writing, etc)
• identify problematic modes of working (incivility, pov pushing)

-Ste|vertigo 08:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much, Stevertigo. We're fortunate to have the help of the most experienced mediator. Your approach sounds good.

Things have been unusually quiescent since we decided to opt for mediation on the heels of our most recent dispute. We ended up temporarily deleting the material in question following our RfC[28], but didn't really come to a consensus. It seems like it's a good example of a central dispute -- we just can't seem to get on the same page regarding RS. In this particular case, the article quoted from an affidavit that alleged Maharishi University of Management is characterized by crime, suicide attempts, nervous breakdowns, etc. as a result of the students' practice of Transcendental Meditation. The secondary source for these quotes is The Skeptic's Dictionary[29]. The RfC states our various positions. So to answer your question, I'd say that this is our greatest issue of dispute at the moment. TimidGuy 12:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much for your attention and participation here. I won't be available to further interact until next week, but I look forward to reading your comments and participating when I return. In the meantime, I noted the core of my concern in my accpetance to meditation, which I will just link to here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADuedilly&diff=107246213&oldid=105845646 Duedilly 19:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment

I have a question: is it appropriate to use "Maharishi" as the referred name in the article? -Ste|vertigo 01:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on Stevertigo. I believe that using Maharishi is appropriate in a few places as long as Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is used in an introductory way, for example, when an article or topic is first introduced. The name Maharishi, is a term of respect although outside of Western culture, for someone who is considered by some to be a particularly excellent teacher or a teacher of teachers. The use of Varma or Mahesh is probably not appropriate. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi no longer uses these family names, so we show appropriate respect when we use Maharishi, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi but not family names. I believe it is also appropriate to respect the traditions outside of our own even if they seem unusual to us.Once again many thanks for taking us on. (olive 04:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC))

"The name Maharishi, is a term of respect"..."for someone who is considered by some to be a particularly excellent teacher or a teacher of teachers." Thats the point of my question. Its an honorific, rather than his name, isnt it? Its like calling Benedict XVI "the Pope" instead of by his name, isnt it? -Ste|vertigo 06:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that in a sense it's a title rather than a name. But then, like the Pope, it becomes a sort of new name (Benedict rather than Ratzinger). We had some discussion earlier whether to use "Maharishi" or "the Maharishi" on subsequent references.[30] Even though usage is often "Maharishi", maybe that gives the article a sort of insider feeling rather than sounding objective. TimidGuy 12:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

True enough that using "Maharishi" gives a sense of insider information and less objective , but then again using "the Maharishi" does sound as if this is "THE Maharishi" - the only one ....has presented an interesting dilemma.(olive 15:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC))

Here is what the Allahabad alumnus entry on the guy says:

Sri M.C. Srivastava (Universally known as Maharishi Mahesh Yogi) Sparaig 19:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Its not a major sticking point as long as we indicate in a footnote that the decision to use Maharishi is based on familiarity and uniqueness of the name (and relatively speaking, the culture). Otherwise It would be preferable to use Sri M.C. Srivastava. -Ste|vertigo 01:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: confused: Mahesh Prasad Varma or Sri M.C. Srivastava - Sri is also an honorific isnt it? -Ste|vertigo 01:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, on the subject of name, Dr. Coplin sez:

73. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's caste background is a matter of some uncertainty because it is the tradition of yogis, ascetics, and renunciants to relinquish their family ties. His education and family status are known by many long-time movement members, however. Shrivastava is the family name of his cousins and nephews, and that name can be traced to the Hindu Kayasthas.

My own OR on the topic uncovered a couple of relatively obscure court rulings concerning the scribe caste, family names, and the region of India that they are found in. In one case, a court in one district ruled that scribes of a certain family name qualified as being of the Kayastha cast. In another case, in another district, a court ruled that scribes with a different family name were really untouchables, not Kayasthas. It is plausible that the family name was changed at some point to avoid the stigma. This issue could certainly explain the uncertainty of names, given that for the literally ultimate-high brahmin-the Shankaracharya--, personal service by an Untouchable was, well, Unthinkable. It seems to me that the best bet is simply to mention that either name has been identified with him, as well as each birthdate, and give sources for each, possibly with a mention of the Coplin footnote on the subject.Sparaig 05:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I take it this doctor Coplin is notable - such that he might have an article? -Ste|vertigo 11:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

He did his PhD thesis in Sociology examining the history and historical context of the origins of the TM organization. He also teaches at the TM university, so his material is obviously sympathetic, but at least he documents his sources, unlike many who are cited in this wiki article. Sparaig 18:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Coplin has recently been a student at Maharishi University of Management, but I don't think he's ever taught here.

Stevertigo, I think your suggestion is excellent to add a footnote explaining usage regarding how to reference Maharishi, especially given the uncertainty about his original name. How should we keep track of the ideas that come out of the discussion that we want to implement? Should we create a subpage of this Talk page and keep a running list? TimidGuy 21:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You're correct about Dr. Coplin. He was a "post-doctoral fellow at the Institute of World Peace" at MUM for a short while after he got his PhD from UC San Diego. Sparaig 22:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation issues

Id like people to participate in a vote to help me identify which problem areas need to be taken care of. These are the material issues:

• undue weight to critical position
  • whether specific criticism sections violate WP:NOR#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position
• apply WP:RS
  • excessive quotations?
  • citing opinion in the article

Id like each of you to state your position in a sentence or two, in voting format. -Ste|vertigo 01:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

SOOOO grateful to have a third party!!! Stevertigo would you elaborate what you mean by "voting format?" Also, please note, as I work on new habits, I will be communicating VERY slowly, please expect a couple of days in between responses. Sethie 00:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation comments - olive

Mediation issues: In regards to Denaro affidavit

• Violation of “NOR”.

The Denaro affidavit is a primary source, the opinion of its author, whose credibility is disputed by the legal council of the university in question. These are unproven and questionable allegations, are serious, are defamatory, and may impact a functioning university.

• Violation of “RS”:

See above. In addition, the presented secondary source is The Skeptic’s Dictionary. For the kinds of serious allegations reported, a highly reliable secondary source seems a minimum requirement. Carroll reports that the dictionary does: “not try to present a balanced account”, and that there is “no peer or professional review process”. [31]. These seem unlikely attributes for a “Reliable Source”

• Neutrality questioned - Opinion

Research on the university indicates its status with Higher Learning Commission and its, required by law, accounts of crime on campus. These points seem to have not been taken into account especially when presenting defamatory information.

Am not sure what voting format is .... hope this is appropriate. Thanks.(olive 03:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC))

The Denaro affidavit: nevertheless an affidavit filed in a public court under oath is valid to cite, albeit with limits. A quick reference to the claims within it is not improper. Basing a large section or a general thread of criticism on it is of course improper. Naturally the disputed credibility bears mentioning.

We are not so much interested in the "defamatory information" problem here. This is not a biographical article, and even if it were it is quite proper to reference legal accusations made in a public court. If these are defamations, no doubt the target can sue and win libel, in which case the article would note that too.

We are of course interested in the balance given to facts in writing a summary about some dispute. "Just report the facts" is a good way to go. Unfortunately for your position, facts include claims made in affidavits. Fortunately for your position, we will most certainly work on particular sections which are written with an obvious or apparent slant. -Ste|vertigo 11:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: Question: How do people feel about an article split? -Ste|vertigo 11:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation comments - TimidGuy

I feel like RS is the area of greatest concern -- POV book (Skeptic), POV web sites (Trancenet, etc.), non-peer-reviewed study (Otis), self-published book (Mason biography), primary sources with no proper secondary source context (Denaro affidavit, etc.)

Next would be undue weight (which you address very clearly in your comments above) -- undue emphasis on a couple studies compared to hundreds of peer-reviewd studies that suggest benefits, and undue emphasis on criticism (which until a few weeks ago constituted almost exactly two-thirds of the article as measured by word count).

Third would be OR -- the collection of primary sources and quotations in order to draw a conclusion, such as the section that argues that Transcendental Meditation is a religion.

By the way, as I understand it, an affidavit is simply a notarized statement. Also, Denaro's affidavit isn't part of the court record in Kropinski vs. WPEC. If the affidavit were referenced, how would then one reference an affidavit that's been written by the Maharishi University of Management legal counsel that says that Denaro misrepresented his relationship to the university and that makes statements that reflect on Denaro's credibility? (Note that both the legal counsel's affidavit and Denaro's aren't technically affidavits but are attorney's statements which they certify to be true -- apparently considered to be the equivalent of an affidavit.) TimidGuy 13:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess that I was referring to "all contributors should recognize that it is their responsibility to ensure material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory."[32]. Defamatory is Wiki-linked to "communication of a statement...that... "may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product,group, government, or nation." There seemed to be reasonable doubt given the letter of the legal council at this university concerning the credibility of Denarao, the crime reports at the university, and the ongoing great scrutiny any university must undergo to receive accreditation through the Higher Learning Commission, that this affidavit is not up to Wikipedia standards as a reliable source. I certainly may have misunderstood the material, but thought I'd mention this anyway.(olive 19:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)).

Yes but the claim of "defamation" is tantamout to censorship in certain cases where the plain encyclopedic thing to do is to simply report the debate. In this case the Denaro issue is a separate one in which his claims are countered by TM claims. Fine. Report on the situation, just as here. Do not worry about defamation - it is not an issue if we are reporting on litigation and sourced claims. The defamation (if this is the case) is on Denaro.

Im a little dissappointed that neither of you answered the question about the split. All the material under controversies would be summarised here and moved to their own article. Separating controversies give this article room to breathe - to be just about TM - while giving appropriate space to the substantial controversial aspects. -Ste|vertigo 00:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't respond to that point. I guess I'd be reluctant to see that happen because it de facto gives equal weight to the controversies -- more weight if you add in the summary in the article. To my mind, we first need to decide on the issue of undue weight. And we can't do that until we've come to some agreement on RS. So much that's there seems weakly sourced or original research. Of course, that's based on my understanding of the policies and guidelines, which may or may not be valid -- hence this dispute procedure. : ) TimidGuy 01:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

But undue weight is a matter of proportion. If the controversies are moved, that would give this article room to grow. Doing so would allow for the TM to gain some proportion relative to the controversies would it not? It would separate development of the TM article from development of the controversies aspects. This would allow us to focus on those controversies wholistically and deal with RS in particular, as the sources there would naturally be the particular sources in dispute. -Ste|vertigo 02:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess this point is something I felt I wanted to think about- see what happens with the mediation-apology for not responding sooner. I also feel some concern about moving controversial material before a decision is made on OR/RS. In my initial response I responded to the Denaro affidavit believing that to be the point of the mediation, but there are some other areas of concern especially the religion /cult material that seems OR, and that includes what seems to be very selected parts of longer articles giving a strong slant and lack of neutrality.I from my rather limited experience am not comfortable with the way these articles are written ,and do not want to endorse them in any way at this point.I may be not understanding here so I am very willing to accept any guidance available.Thanks for info on defamation,as well.(olive 02:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC))

we were probably editing at the same time so the above comment won't make sense now. You make some good points. Let me think on them for a bit. Thanks(olive 03:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC))

Thanks, Stevertigo. Excellent points. I'm starting to like the idea. TimidGuy 11:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, keeping things contained isnt something we do well, what with 6,824,117 articles and growing. I think the split is due due just to the to large amount of content - to say nothing of its validity or otherwise. Indeed I am aware of the tendency for participants of any belief system to want to minimise the critical aspects, but the truth is that these do have a life of their own, and the only thing that we can really do is put them in context. -Ste|vertigo 23:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I would whole heartidly support the split, so long as there is a summary of it in this article. Your sentence "It would separate development of the TM article from development of the controversies aspects" speaks volumes. I know Timidguy has wished he had more time to focus on the non controversial aspects of TM and this might allow him to do so, and I for one have struggled with the question of how to write an article which includes all of the TM organizations claims about about positive benefits AND as you noted the numerous controversies associated with TM. Maybe there isn't a way to do so, inside one article. Sethie 00:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like theres some consensus for a split. Olive says shes meditating on it, so I dont know when she will be back. I would say go ahead and split, leaving of course a couple paragraphs of overview here. -Ste|vertigo 09:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there any chance we could table the discussion of the article split? We have fundamental disagreements about RS, OR, NPOV, and WP:V. It seems like we need to deal with this and try to sort it out. If the contributors to this article can't get on the same page regarding these policies and guidelines, then it seems like adding another article to Wikipedia only compounds the problem. From my perspective, there's simply a lot of material here that doesn't conform to the principles and guidelines. One reason I suggested mediation is that our first RfC was such a battle, and it was evident that it would take months to resolve all the disagreements we have about specific things. I hoped that mediation would help us begin to interpret the policies and guidelines in the same way and facilitate coming to agreement on various matters. Seems like we want to try to achieve that first. TimidGuy 12:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Had to take care of a big teaching project but also have been ruminating on the "split"idea. Although I like the idea on some levels, I think at this point I had better go with a more cautious move, and vote to "take care of business first" - the concerns that were the original concerns in this mediation,and so brought this mediation about. I think, as I originally said, there are great differences of opinion on what is OR,RS, and my concern would be that we would be ignoring the more immediate problems we have that have more to do with whether material, that in my mind is questionable in terms of reliability, should be in the articles in the first place.I respect your experience in dealing with groups that want as little critical material in the article as possible, and of course, if I believe in something I would like that to viewed positively. I more than that, though feel a critic's desire to be as fair as I can be. Acknowledging a problem is a growth experience, if viewed that way. I really would like to create a more neutral playground, so that there is a rational weight of critical material to non-critical. I guess if there is a huge amount of negative, reliable material well, we should see that right away, and if the opposite is true that also should be available in a kind of "fly over" of the article.Right now I am not sure that that is the case, in part because we haven't been able to agree on the material that is actually there. Do we have to include something just because it exists, and counter that with other material, rather than ask whether the material by Wikipedia standards, and not any other standards, should be to be there in the first place.Just some thoughts. (olive 03:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC))

I dont see how dealing with that aspect would be changed by the split. We can always re-merge if necessary, but Id like to go ahead with that. RS is an issue certainly, and its difficult for a neutral person such as myself to make judgements about the value of particular claims and so forth. The solution for this has been to write the article in a neutral way, paraphrasing these claims. The result is that each criticism gets mentioned and it gets entertained by the reader. From that point the reader is given a simple point-counterpoint about the value of the sources: " these critics claim to be researchers, but TM proponents claim these researchers are simply a defunct cheezy website on a free hosting service posted by underqualified cranks with a POV grudge against anything Eastern." In essence the debate over "reliable sources" must be built into the sections themselves. The facts about who particular sources are should typically speak for itself. But for us to simply make editorial judgements about how RS is to be applied is often simply an exercise in extreme prejudice. Im not interested in seeing particular claims, "defaming" as they may be, removed. Im interested in seeing each particular point dealt with in a neutral way. That way I can, for example, scan the Barack Obama article and find the info about his Arab heritage rather than (as the article is now) find its been removed by people interesting in simply removing any mention of the issue. Again, I suggest we proceed with the split, even if for a short time. In my experience its much easier to deal with RS that way. -Ste|vertigo 22:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well- Feeling very insulted here. I did not feel that I was making editorial judgments about how RS is applied but am rather trying to understand, as are the other editors on this site what material violates the Wikipedia standards for RS, OR and other issues . I understood that to be the reason for the mediation. Nor am I trying to remove something that is defamatory. My experience has been that on this project no one removes anything without a long discussion and consensus , and that I think is one strengths of this group of people. Even if someone gets heated up there is a general respect I think for the opinions of the others. I was expressing an opinion and looking for some understanding into what has become complex issues for us. Despite our opinions, we all, I believe are trying to create a neutral site.We have been posting back and forth and that in my understanding has become a standard for understanding and for subsequently making decisions. I feel that you have suggested that I am making editorial judgments and exercising extreme prejudice. Please do not think that just because I am someone who feels TM to be a positive technique, that I am not able to think for myself or that I cannot, and am not interested in creating a neutral site. Please note that I asked that both side of the "cult" controversy be a possibility.I also am not convinced that a revert after a split will be a simple affair. We have discussed even small phrases for days . If we can come to a general understanding of what OR and RS is then perhaps we would agree quickly to move material back and forth. These are my concerns. If voicing these shows a lack of respect I apologize. As for a split I was voicing again an opinion believing that that was the approved method for coming to an agreement on this issue. I will certainly withdraw if I am out of line. But please do not suggest that I am even capable of "editorial judgment" in such a situation as this, or worse, "extreme prejudice".(olive 04:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC))

Im sorry if you feel insulted. In no way was I making a personal comment about you or your ability to be rational and neutral. (The Wikipedian lifestyle may in fact require being zealous about NPOV, but I often also chastise the science set for confusing science point of view with neutral point of view. "I was expressing an opinion and looking for some understanding into what has become complex issues for us." I don't understand what you're meaning is here. You mention "us." I didn't realise I was mediating with an organization. Such an organisation - one which pursues people in court over defamation and so forth - no doubt has an agenda which is to protect its image. On that basis I may have made a personal assumption that you were operating somewhat from that camp, with that stance. Certainly you are someone who is more reasonable than I may have assumed, and perhaps, consider the possibility that you are more reasonable than some of your associated peers.

It is easy for me to think as that you are having some difficulty reconciling your practice and the statements surrounding it with external values such as NPOV - or at least my presented interpretation of it. I glad that you corrected me on that. But when you use the word "complex" - I cant help but point out the distinction between you and the organization itself: you may have complex issues which I can offer understanding and respect to. The organization you are associated with has a somewhat different set of "complex issues" - trying to get published in JAMA for example. I think what it comes down to is the question of what complex issues are the organizations? Would it be neutral and encyclopedic to simply state that TM has some "complex" (sic) relationship with different particular sets of beliefs, values, and principles? -Ste|vertigo 11:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that when Olive said "what has become complex issue for us," she was referring to the editors involved in this article and the complex challenge of trying to apply Wikipedia policies and guidelines. That's why we opted for mediation. It's not just those who are pro-TM who felt the need for help. Both Sethie and Tanaats said a number of times that we could use some help. In discussions of about a half dozen issues, Tanaats closed the discussion by saying the would should just wait and deal with it in the context of dispute resolution.

On a couple occasions we've sought outside help. In one instance I posted a question about a weak source on RS Talk and two members of Arbcom replied, including Fred Bauder, and agreed it was a problematic source and that it shouldn't be cited in the article without corroboration from a qualified secondary source. I think that's a confirmation that one can discriminate in regard to the acceptability of sources. When we did our RfC, two very prominent contributors to shaping policies and guidelines, ALR and Jossi, responded and supported the view that the material in question was a primary source and that it needed to be presented in the contenxt of a reliable secondary source and that the source that the TM article cited was questionable. They both felt that in order for this material to be presented, a better source for it should be found.

It seems necessary to apply discrimination. And from my point of view, that's why the policies and guidelines exist -- to encourage the use of discrimination. Just recently in the e-mail discussion list, Jimmy Wales said that applying editorial judgment is what we do. And the editors on both sides of the issue in this article are seeking help in this regard by requesting mediation.

That said, you've done an excellent job of clearly stating the point that one way of proceeding is to achieve NPOV by stating both sides of an issue. I understand and accept that point. TimidGuy 12:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel very sorry that you have come with the assumption that I cannot "reconcile my practice with the statements surrounding it". Perhaps I have not explained myself very well.The "us" I was referring to was in reference to the team that has been editing on this site,and who agreed that we needed to go to mediation. The issues that have become complex are in regards to establishing what OR and RS is,what neutrality is, and which surround the viewpoints of all of those editors. I am rather shocked that anything else was inferred. I obviously did not explain very well, and I apologize.My concern with this mediation has been to clarify what RS and OR are in terms of the Wikipedia standards, and for us, the editors, as a team, to agree on those standards, and then to apply that newly clarified information to the material on that site so that neutrality is achieved, as quickly as possible . I suspect we all felt that the endless rounds of discussion were a waste of everyone's time , and felt that there could and should be a faster way for the editing team to deal with this material- to create neutrality and a well-written article whatever the material happened to be. Thats all. Thank you for your solution to this. I believe I understand your points.(olive 14:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC))

Thanks, Stevertigo, for hanging with us. We are grateful to all those Wikipedians like yourself who selflessly volunteer so much time -- even to the point of immersing yourself in the midst of difficult situations. I feel like this open discussion is helpful and that we are progressing in our understanding. I keep thinking you can help us work together on resolving the issues we brought to mediation, and that a next step might be to look at a couple simple cases. TimidGuy 16:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Im grateful to you both for your countenance and you patience. To get right down to my job of meditating, Im simply going to ask that you two trust me on the matter of the split. My experience tells me that this will go some distance towards making everyone happy. Regards. -Ste|vertigo 06:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. : )

Your comments in the Otis thread regarding NPOV relative to RS led to a real aha experience for me. They helped me realize that the weaknesses in this article have more to do with NPOV and OR. How about if we drop for now any discussion of RS and proceed with NPOV? (And, please be patient with me, I'd still like to table the discussion of the split. I have a simple and specific reason for not liking that idea that I'd rather not mention here.)

How about if we continue with mediation by focusing on NPOV, as you're suggesting, and start by looking at Otis in terms of NPOV? Sparaig and Duedilly, and other editors, object to including research that's not peer reviewed. But given lack of clarity of the guidelines, and the uncertain status of RS, let's say we leave it in. My concern is that it's not in accord with the NPOV stipulation regarding undue weight. It's one of 600-700 studies on Transcendental Meditation, and it's the only controlled trial that found adverse effects. Otis wasn't an expert in this area, and his study is rarely cited in the scientific literature. It seems odd that it has its own major section and that the article quotes extensively from the study. It seems that, like the other studies mentioned in the research section in the article, it should be a couple sentences and paraphrased, and that it should be integrated into the research section. To my mind, this is a more appropriate treatment of it in terms of NPOV, and more in the style of an encyclopedia. TimidGuy 16:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I am uneasy about including anything that does not have a reliable source,in part because I do not like setting a precedent in loosening standards, the result of which can come back to bite all of us . However I would agree to include the Otis study if we look at it in terms of NPOV. I do think its fair to include reliable studies on either side of the discussion.I do agree with TG about making the study a few short sentences, paraphrased, and then integrating it into the research section.This seems a good compromise, and gives the study its appropriate weight. (olive 20:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

Thanks TG - I appreciate your perspective on the value of NPOV. I do want to say though, in defense of RS (and I suspect that you and many others here agree with this as well) that it is obviously not as though consideration of RS is in any way being abandoned. Verifiability is still a basis of wikipedia, and a qualitative determination of what justifies inclusion in wikipedia is essential. And while there may be contention within the wide range of purported RS, I don't think there is much professional or wikipedian disagreement that peer review published research is (and should be) considered much higher quality than non-peer review published scholarship. I think most wikipedians would agree that any idea of the elimination of RS filtering in favor of some unfiltered all inclusive approach would significantly increase the noise in wikipedia and render all articles pretty much unusable (from their size alone) as well as unreliable.

As you point out, there are well over 600 studies on the effects of TM, with over 200 of those being peer review published. As has been noted here, we would have an overwhelming and unwieldy article (or even group of articles) if we included discussion of each of these studies. Therefore we need (and as you note, its actually part of an editor's job) to be selective of what is included, while following a policy of NPOV. So for instance, RS would guide us to use peer review published (PRP) studies whenever available over non-PRP studies. Further, NPOV policy then requires that the wikipedia article fairly represent those results in like proportion to that found in the reputable scientific literature. And if we were to include a much larger sample of non-PRP scholarship, then that research should be subordinate to the PRP studies, and should also maintain NPOV by being represented proportionally to that results in this (lower RS) body of scholarship. Duedilly 21:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to add that I am not convinced that splitting the article in the manner that has been suggested is an optimum solution to the issues which we have sought clarification and mediation on here. Duedilly 21:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that simply reducing the non-PRP Otis study to a few sentences and putting it into the research section would be in keeping with NPOV proportionality ("appropriate weight"). Before we include any discussion or reference of a non-PRP study (such as Otis), there are hundreds of much more reliable PRP studies which should first be referenced and discussed here. I can't imagine the article (or even a purported separate article) would have room for all the higher quality research first, as well as then non-PRP studies, themselves also represented in NPOV proportionality. Duedilly 21:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to clarify my understanding of what TG is saying here.

• I think there is agreement and general awareness that there are hundreds of peer-reviewed studies on positive aspects of the Transcendental Meditation technique.
• In allowing NPOV to trump RS, we are allowing, on an individual basis, at this time, in this one article,although poor in terms of RS, and if reduced in keeping with principles on proportionality,the Otis study, to appear opposite those many positive studies to provide as much as possible a neutral viewpoint. That is, to show both sides of the coin.
• At the same time, Verifiability and RS cannot be separated from NPOV according to Wikipedia guidelines, so that it is important that this be an individual case, for this particular study, and does not open the door for a general acceptance of other poor RS material.

Is it possible that given the amount of positive-outcome research on TM and the very small amount of peer-reviewed negative material (and I am not an expert in this area as Duedilly seems to be,so maybe there is no good RS research on negative outcomes in TM )that the neutrality is reached without this somewhat dubiously researched study.(olive 23:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

I realize that last statement is less than clear and hard to explain.... and this a very real question? Is there any RS material on negative -outcome TM and if not and until there is,is neutrality defined by the positive research only....(olive 23:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

I apologize to anyone who tried to read this before clean up-badly written(olive 02:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC))

Mediation proposal

I'll be bold and propose a solution. This represents how I would like to see the article. My goal isn't to remove all critical material, but to conform to the standards of Wikipedia and to proper encyclopedia style.

• delete all of the critical material in the cult section, because it's poorly sourced and weakly written and replace it with a summary of the points made in Persinger's book, which I view as a proper secondary source. This would entail briefly defining a cult (whatever that is, e.g., charismatic leader, millenarian vision) and giving examples related to Transcendental Meditation. And then balancing that with the current David OJ section.
• delete the current religion section, which I feel is weak OR based on primary sources and replace it with arguments on both sides of the issue from proper scholarly sources. We could expedite the research of this by talking to someone such as a professor of religious studies at Yale who does TM and who could likely point us to scholarly sources on both sides of the issue and who could maybe even help us summarize them.
• combine all of the court cases into one heading and shorten them, giving each one its own subheading.
• move the science references from the criticism section to the research section above and shorten them so that they don't violate undue weight (as I feel as is currently the case by giving them their own section and quoting extensively from them). We could delete the questionable 1991 NRC report but add a reference to the 1994 report (which isn't currently in the article) and balance it by noting that it contradicts the metaanalysis done by a professor at Stanford.
• leave the section on Tm teacher grievances.
• figure out what to do with Pagels. Right now there's no source given. It seems inapppriate to use this material. According to the letter on Trancenet[33], Pagels says, "My comments here are intended to serve as an affidavit in the civil action No. 85-2849, United States District Court for the District of Columbia. They may not be used or published for any other purpose without my written permission." He died in 1988, so it's unlikely that he gave permission to use these comments in Wikipedia.

Anyway, just tossing out this proposal. TimidGuy 16:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to think about this more TG , but I wanted to mention I have done a fair amount of research on the religion spirituality area, that I had thought about showing everyone when finished, and asking for comments and consensus. I could continue with that. I also felt the cult material was poorly written and used the material from France in an overly extended and slanted way.I wonder if we can define cult ourselves but need to find a reliable source or sources that do define it ....My inexperience showing up here. I like the idea of presenting both sides of the cult situation. So I would love to look at this proposal more closely - rushing now .(olive 17:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC))

On behalf of those who are trying to learn from these discussions, may I ask for more comments on TimidGuy's proposals above? (Especially -Ste|vertigo) Thank you Roseapple 02:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if the mediation has become very dilute because many other discussions are also going on.Any chance of taking a look at TimidGuy's points/proposals and focusing attention there and on the mediation. Many of the other discussions might reach a state of resolution if we do this.(olive 20:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC))

Refactoring discussion of temporarily removing German study/court case

We probably want to postpone this discussion while mediation is going on, but I didn't want to lose the thread:

My editing of remakrs on German study was reverted, partly because the citation didn't support the remarks. That's certainly true since the citation no longer mentions that study.Transcendental Meditation, John Carroll, The Skeptic's Dictionary Sparaig 18:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Good catch regarding Skepdic. I've removed the now irrelevant cite and replaced it with a "fact" tag. If no one comes up with another citation in a reasonable amount of time then IMO we should take the whole subsection out. Tanaats 19:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it time to take this out? Or we could take it out and paste it here on the Talk page until someone finds a citation. TimidGuy 12:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I move we take it out. Tanaats did suggest this three weeks ago and so far no citation....we could also paste it on the talk page if anyone feels that a citation may come up, but I'm not sure that's necessary - either way seems like its time to move it. (olive 17:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC))

If it stays in, the section heading should reflect the main idea of the paragraph, which is that a study was deemed inconclusive and biased. IMO the section should just be removed. Roseapple 15:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Settled out of Court?

As I was looking through the criticism section, I noticed the claim that the court case was settled out of court. I previously had asked for a citation, however, I do not believe listing the court case court documents counts, unless the documents clearly state "case settled out of court." Is that the case?

I had provided a refference to Andrew Sckolnick's (one of the people who was sued) personal website in which he states the case was dismissed.

These are the facts I am aware of. Sethie 04:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

To my mind, Skolnick's statement that the suit was dismissed without prejudice is a good example of the sort of misleading half-truth common among critics of Transcendetal Meditation and their web sites. Most readers would assume, as you did, that the suit was dismissed for one of three reasons that courts are allowed to dismiss lawsuits: lack of evidence, lack of credible evidence, and failure to state a valid claim. In every case, it signals that the suit was without merit.

And I believe that most readers aren't aware that when a suit is settled out of court, according to the settlement agreement the plaintiff either requests that the suit be "dismissed with prejudice," which means that the plaintiff forgoes the right to sue again on the same issue, or that it be "dismissed without prejudice," which means that the plaintiff retains the right to sue again on the same issue.

The parties to the suit agreed to a confidential settlement, and per that agreement, the plaintiff requested that the suit be dismissed without prejudice. I have in hand the order that Judge Charles P. Korcoras issued in response to the rquest. Here is the text in full: "This cause of action is hereby dismissed without prejudice and with leave to reinstate if settlement is not effectuated. All pending motions are hereby moot." This meant that if the defendents didn't follow through on their part of the settlement agreement, the plaintiffs could reinstate the suit.

Of course, in my opinion, when Skolnick writes, as he has often done, that the suit was dismissed without prejudice and doesn't mention the settlement, he is intentionally misleading readers. He is technically correct, but most readers don't understand that this sort of dismissal typically indicates that the suit was settled, and most readers would be confused by the counterintuitive phrase "dismissed without prejudice," assuming it means the opposite of what it is actually saying.

The information I gave in my citation is exactly what a reader needs in order to call a courthouse and request a Docket Entries List or any particular document, such as the judge's order. The clerks are always very helpful and eager to provide whatever you request, via fax and also, I believe, via e-mail. There is typically a small fee. TimidGuy 12:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I would just add that I feel that the court citation may be a better reference than the personal web site of person who was a defendent in a $194 million libel suit, who has been an opponent Transcendental Meditation for 25 years, and who heads an association that opposes alternative medicine. TimidGuy 12:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, at least he is consistent in his biases and is willing to be upfront about how he feels about those he debates. In case anyone missed it, he's ASkolnick, who USED TO contribute to this page, but ceased doing so after the mediation process started. -Sparaig 20:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm Lawson English, the dormouse. -Sparaig 21:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL Andrew Skolnick flounced out of participating in this discussion. -Sparaig 22:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Im of course quite impressed with Timidguy's explanation. As I said above, the issue of RS is really about explaining the nature of the debate between critics and proponents. It really helps when we can boil things down to explanations of how one or the other presented view is misleading: "TM opponent X claims that the case was dismissed without prejudice." (Naturally there must be an article about such confusing usage of language in law. :). "TM proponents claim that the designation "dismissed without prejudice" is misleading in that while it was settled out of court, TM may file again if the agreed clauses are not met." -Ste|vertigo 22:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

In fact, there is such a wikipedia article but the term is "Dismissal without prejudice" rather than "Dismissed without prejudice." -Sparaig 23:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that a scan of the copy that TimidGuy has should be put in the wiki commons area and the reference should read something like "the case was dismissed without prejudice" by request of the plaintiff due to an 'out of court settlement'" with a link to the scanned copy of the dismissal. =Sparaig 23:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... Perhaps it would be good to ask ASkolnick what he meant by this:

The only twisting being done here, Lawson, is yours. You can offer no evidence of any settlement, because there was none. So your play your TM word games for some bizarre purpose I cannot fathom. They are fooling no one.

No agreement settling the case was reached. There was no settlement. The case was not settled. There was no agreement that settled the case. No settlement was reached. There was no formal settlement. There was no informal settlement. The case was never settled. No agreement settling the case was reached. The TM plaintiffs did not get what they demanded. They did not agree to dismiss the case with prejudice. The case was not settled. There was no formal settlement. There was no informal settlement.

I don't know how else to say it. But I'm sure there is no way I can to get Lawson to stop playing his word games. His agenda to defend TM demands that the JAMA's editor, the AMA and I secretly settled the suit. To Lawson, the needs of the TM movement are the ultimate truth.

-Sparaig 23:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Damn! I had all but forgotten about THIS newsgroup article from Andrew. Note the relevant statement:

For years, Judy Stein, Lawson English, and other TM propagandists have been claiming that TM's suit was "secretly settled." There was a secret, but it wasn't a settlement. The secret was an agreement made by TM plaintiffs not to refile the suit if JAMA published an article submitted by TM authors.

In July 1993, TM authors submitted an article to JAMA. It was sent out for review, considered, and rejected. The article was rewritten and resubmitted to JAMA in Dec. 1993. It was similarly peer reviewed, considered, and rejected. The TM plaintiffs did not refile their suit. The suit was never settled.

TM propagandists got away with this deceit for so long because I was not free to discuss the AMA's actions as long as I worked for JAMA. Hell, Chopra's attorney even lied to Newsweek that we had settled with Chopra and the other plaintiffs for an undisclosed amount (Oct. 30, 1997, page 57).

Nothing in my article had to be retracted. No apology had to be given. None of us had to give the TM plaintiffs a dime (although we paid a lot to our own lawyers -- no doubt one of the intentions of the TM plaintiffs). Yet for years, TM propagandists have been claiming they won a settlement. Even in defeat the TM movement claims victory. Reminds me of Milosevik's recent claims of victory over NATO.

-Sparaig 00:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I think we can close the case on that one. -Ste|vertigo 01:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

True, but now we have to decide what wording to use, if any, in reference to whatever the heck Andrew said means....-Sparaig 01:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess "the case was dismissed without prejudice by request of the plaintiffs in anticipation of an out-of-court settlement and was never re-filed."? How does one avoid OR issues in a case like this? -Sparaig 01:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Heres how to handle it. "TM claims... JAMA claims..." You have linked citations for the quotes above. -Ste|vertigo 03:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

But those are from newsgroups discussions which I'm told aren't to be used. -Sparaig 04:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting developments. I wonder why Skolnick wasn't free to discuss the AMA's actions, if there wasn't some sort of confidentiality. Certainly the campus legal counsel wouldn't let me see the agreement, nor would he say anything about it, out of respect to confidentiality. All I have is the judge's order. It may be that if there's still binding confidentiality, that we can't say anything other than that, or risk liability. I guess it's a matter of consulting an attorney familiar with the agreement. TimidGuy 12:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

As I have said before, WP doesn't count newsgroups as RS and I personally feel that they have absolutely NO place on a wikipedia talk page. I would ask you Sparaig to not post them here, however given my previous requests to do so and your response, I am doubtful that is gonna happen!

On the other hand, TG you went above and beyond the call of duty and got the actual court documents, which clearly show that there was an out of court settlement. I remove my concern about this section. Sethie 15:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Sethie. Having the documents in hand does indeed help. We are faced with paraphrasing the judge's order in a way that's fair to both sides, and doing it in a way that's not misleading. Here's a suggestion: "Pursuant to a settlement agreement, the suit was dimissed by the judge at the request of the plaintiffs, with the option of reinstating pending completion of the settlement." Or something like that. TimidGuy 16:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL, Seithie, the MEDIATOR isn't that worried about it. What is your thing about newsgroups? If ASkolnick wants to denounce my selective quoting of our online discussion that we had 7-10 years ago he can come back and say "that wasn't really me." I'm telling you outright, that I know for a fact that the posts by "Lawson English" ARE by Lawson English (me) and by extension, since Andrew (ASkolnick) Skolnick's own website selectively quotes me from those same discussions and never says "I didn't say this particular article, XYZ," that the entire series of articles attributed to him in the newsheaders from the Google newsgroup archive IS by him. Since I'm not proposing to include any aspect of the material as source material in the article, what can possibly be the point of your objection? They are the record of a public argument explicitly acknowledged by me and tacitly acknowledged by ASkolncik. I stand by all that I said, allowing for inadvertent factual and grammatical errors on my part, and I'm pretty sure that Andrew does as well. -Sparaig 19:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ive got no problem linking to newsgroup postings of by the relevant individuals. Nowhere in the concept of RS is the view that cited material must be commercial in nature - a published book or a peer reviewed journal. Certainly if a noted academic say something on their blog its fair to quote it to them. -Ste|vertigo 06:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet specifically disallows Usenet newsgroup postings as sources: "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or comments on blogs, should not be used as sources." TimidGuy 12:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I am extremely reluctant to loosen the interpretation of:Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet. There are numerous comments from experts in their fields , doctors, judges, teachers ,actors, on the positive effects of TM in what we would have considered to be non-reliable sources such as blogs. If we set a precedent here of interpreting the Wikipedia guidelines to allow this kind of material we open the door to a flood of material from both sides. I have been quite proud of the work of all the editors in slowly bringing these articles towards a neutral ground. We could easily undo that, and clog the articles with less than reliable material and sources.We may not always be the editors on this site so we also open the doors for possibly, overly zealous,innocent new editors who can legitimately operate using this looser interpretation of these guidelines . Although this interpretation might be possible on articles that are less controversial , I think we will open a big bag of snakes here.Just some thoughts.(olive 16:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

I think I can hear Stevertigo suggesting a split would take care of this :), but I wonder if we should exercise some discriminating powers. We could have lots of blog material countered by other blog material , that could go on forever. Again some thoughts.(olive 16:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

Otis revisited

In keeping with my understanding of wikipedia citation guidelines, here is how I believe Otis should be referenced:

"Dr. Leon Otis, who was a scientist at the Stanford Research Institute, published a book in 1984 that contained a section about an unpublished study on TM titled... "

Should Otis even be mentioned? -Sparaig 00:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Its a book by a doctor. Often we simply have to use sources which reference other sources - there are works in antiquity for instance that did not survive, and yet are referenced by way of references to them. We dont need to keep to legalistic standards here. Quote the book, quoting the paper. The onus is on Otis. :) -Ste|vertigo 03:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thing is, it is his OWN unpublished study. Does that make a difference? Seems to me that that goes back to the pandora's box of unpublished pro-TM studies and presentations made at conferences. When he was posting here, Andrew said that any such stuff as sources was a no-no. -Sparaig 05:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The book is the publication. It is fair to mention that its not a peer reviewed study.-Ste|vertigo 10:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Steve... :) If it was actually unpublished we wouldn't be discussing it here.

Correct me if I am wrong and it appears you are stating that via Wiki guidelines, a study does not have to be in a peer reviewed journal to be cited?Sethie 15:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I can answer this. And that answer is -- the most edit warring I've seen on Wikipedia is among the writers of the policies and guidelines. And one of the things they can't agree on is peer review. This subpage of WP:RS suggests that research should be peer reviewed [[34]], yet a recent edit war dealt with whether this page is a guideline or not. Blueboar said that it was intended to be a part of WP:RS. SlimVirgin marked it as inactive and removed the link from WP:RS. Blueboar removed the inactive tag. Currently it's not linked from WP:RS, yet at the top of the page there's a pointer back to WP:RS, suggesting that it's a subpage of WP:RS. You decide. : )

The standard of peer review seems to be widely applied in Wikipedia. Editors such as Jefffire and DGG and Askolnick, who've sometimes come here, insist on peer review. I think I'll post a poll on the very active Talk page of the new WP:ATT. We'll see what people say. For now, though, I think that if we were to include Otis, it's a violation of undue weight to have it so prominently featured in the article. My feeling is that it should be one or two sentences, integrated into the research section, and paraphrased in proper encyclopedia style. TimidGuy 16:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This is one place where TG and I do not see eye to he. His belief (and correct me if I am Timidguy) is that wikipedia policy says that scientific studies MUST be published in a peer-reviewed journal to be mentionable, that a reputable publisher or a reputable author is not sufficient. Sethie 04:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sethie, you may not have understood what I wrote immediately above. I was suggesting that it's ambiguous. And you may not have read my most recent proposal regarding Otis in the mediation thread. TimidGuy 16:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I was not even remotely focused on what you wrote above. I was stating my understanding of one way you and I have not seen eye to eye for the last couple of months. My memory is that you I have disagreed over this exact issue at least 5 times. And reading "I was suggesting that it's ambiguous." I feel a deep sense of encouragement and relaxation, this is the first time in dialogueing with you over this specific issue that your stated understanding of a wiki policy now feels somewhat in harmony with my own understanding of it. Sethie 18:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Its not that science articles must be peer review published (PRP) to be referenced or discussed on wikipedia. Its that when there is PRP research available, then that scholarship is prioritized as a much higher level of RS (WP:Reliable_source#Aspects_of_reliability). If after referencing and/or discussing scholarship of the highest level available (while abiding NPOV to be in due weight and proportion to that found in the academic literature), there is room in an article entry for discussing or referencing scholarship of lesser RS, then non-PRP scholarship could be included (which would also need to abide by NPOV's requirement of duly weighted proportion from studies of that lesser class of scholarship). Duedilly 06:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with TG about RS. RS is more than anything based in an idea of source exclusion. Fortunately NPOV trumps all and in that policy we see a reasonable way to handle RS. According to NPOV, the back and forth bickering, while not apparently peer reviewed discussion, is nevertheless part of the story of any controversial subject. Rather than hide away from presenting the any facts whatsoever, its best to simply present everything. This is why I think the split will help, as it will provide room for explanations. These are infinitely more valuable than our attempts to cut out particular points of view. -Ste|vertigo 06:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

"...its best to simply present everything..." I understand the principle, but in practice, a wikipedia entry could not begin to present "everything". There are close to 700 scientific research studies that have been done on TM, each with their own unique set of results. If we were to simply post the abstract of each study, let alone discuss the results of each one, this could easily fill (the size constraints of) a hundred wikipedia entries. The kitchen sink approach is usually just not feasible. However honoring and abiding the spirit of NPOV is certainly feasible in abiding the NPOV#Undue_weight policy. And this is where we as wikipedia editors (and not simply writers) can be further helped and guided by WP:RS (WP:Reliable_source#Aspects_of_reliability). Duedilly 06:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess my objection to Otis is two-fold: it's otherwise unpublished, and it singles out for TM a phenomenon that is widely known in Psychological literature anyway: "relaxation-induced anxiety," which even has its own DSM-IV entry, IIRC. Also, there are strategies taught to TMers in how to deal with it that Otis never mentions. -Sparaig 07:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

State both sides. -Ste|vertigo 07:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

And I would love to see a WP:RS that mentions these TM strategies? Sethie 04:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well anything dealing with an metaphysical or non-scientific system is going to have a problem with RS. Naturally the topic requires we suspend RS to give TM proponents some space to speak their peace, explain their view. Where TM falters is when it attempts to associate itself with science, rather than just accept its place within the context of religion, alt med, whatever. Science naturally will push back, and that opens the door to all sorts of skeptical commentary that may or may not be based in good science, but nevertheless is easy to promote because it has an easy target.

Based on your above comment, I suspect that you may have missed the many comments made here in the talk pages, and even those recently made specifically in the mediation sections, which address this very topic. There are are several hundred peer review published (PRP) scientific studies on TM in the academic literature. There are then another 400+ science studies on TM which have not been PRP. These provide ample high RS to draw from (in fact, far more than most wikipedia articles). There is absolutely no need or justification whatsoever to suspend RS here for any reason (let alone for a misperception of available scientific sourced content). We as editors and writers simply need to create an article that honors NPOV and ATT while being guided by other relevant policies such as RS. To make the statement above as you did that 'TM falters when it attempts to associate itself with science' is both completely erroneous and is rather egregious OR. We have have made clear arguments on how this article should proceed based firmly within NPOV and RS. I suggest that you consider re-reading some of the mediation section and talk pages here to get more up to speed on the salient issues before making erroneous comments such as you have above. Duedilly 05:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I recall reading above that TG saw the light about my idea to split. I hope that still remains true. I promote that strategy because its structural, and its a basic requirement for controversial topics. -Ste|vertigo 01:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Before continuing to arguing for an article split as a solution to our mediation request, I suggest that you first consider that consensus here seems to be to not split the article, at least at this point, but to continue to address the issues within the context of wikipedia policy, guided by established wikipedia guidelines. Further, you might also appreciate a review of the following: Wikipedia:Content_forking. Duedilly 05:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Wowsa! Words! Can be hard to get ones meaning across. :) My request for a WP:RS was that I was skeptical that an official TM technique to counter "relaxation-induced anxiety" is written anywhere in print. And I would truly enjoy it if I was wrong on this issue. Sethie 02:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that we not suspend RS for any reason.TM proponents should expect to support their material in respect to NPOV and WP:ATT, as per the Wikipedia guidelines . I would like to suggest that 6O0 studies or so, many peer-reviewed indicate that TM has clearly established itself in the Scientific community. Alternative medicine can and also has been researched in the appropriate Scientific formats. No official TM website ever identifies TM as a religion but describe it as a mechanical technique,compatible with religious practices of many kinds. Many clergy from diverse religious backgrounds support this. (olive 04:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC))

I am still uneasy about a split until we deal with more basic issues like NPOV and ATT. Also Tanaats a major editor on these talk pages, and named in the mediation has not shown up yet. I am reluctant to make a major structural move until he has input. Perhaps we could dig into these fundamental issues soon . Many thanks for your effortsin this mediation(olive 14:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)) .

Extremely simple, but generally quite effective, strategies to handle problems are taught when they arise, if they arise, as part of the TM checking procedure. I can tell you from first-hand observation that these strategies can work quite well, even in the case of someone whose anxiety attacks prior to learning TM were QUITE extreme. -Sparaig 05:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The recommended followup for checking is more structured these days than it was when Otis conducted his survey about 30 years ago. Newly trained meditators are encouraged to return for checking once-a-week for the first month and once-a-month for the first year and thereafter as needed. 30 years ago, there was no schedule for followup checking--it was on an "as needed" basis from the start. -Sparaig 09:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you able to provide any sources which document your claims about the relaxation induced anxiety reduction compoments of checking? Sethie 17:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Stevertigo, I do hope you'll read my comments in the "Mediation issues" thread in which I say again that I'd prefer not to split and suggest an alternate way of proceeding, starting with Otis. TimidGuy 17:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

TG I really do seek to AGF and feel like I have been with you lately And, I was really disapointed to notice that you were completely in favor of the split until I voiced I was in favor of it. I am doing my best to not draw conslusions around the timing of your change of heart and I am sad to notice that you were in favor of it, until I said I was. Sethie 17:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sethie, no TMer who believes in keeping a promise, will provide you with "sources" for that kind of thing. You'll have to take my word for it as someone who trained in how to check people over 30 years ago that the checking procedure addresses problems, at least when they arise during, or immediately after, meditation. -Sparaig 18:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sethie, I wasn't "completely in favor" of it. At first I objected, then after Stevertigo explained more, I said I was "starting to like the idea." Then after thinking about it, I decided it wasn't a good idea, something I've now said several times. I've given two very specific options for proceeding that don't entail splitting. In one, (see "mediation proposal" thread) I explicitly stated that my goal isn't to remove negative material from the article, and I proposed a comprehensive strategy to fix the weaknesses in the article. In the other instance, in the "Mediation issues" thread, I proposed focusing on NPOV and OR, and suggested a very simple next step regarding NPOV that involvles resolving Otis. TimidGuy 12:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Revert of mantra removal

You know there are like, I don't know, 10,000 discussions going on right now! :) If someone wants to open up another one about the mantra refference, feel free. I am reverting that removal for now. Sethie 17:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Why did you do so? Posting mantra references of that kind does 3 things: it interferes with the normal business practices of the TMO, and, according to theory, it concretizes the mantra in a persons's mind and helps "destroy the innocence" of someone who is about to learn TM. -Sparaig 18:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Eh. Nevermind. They've ben part of the article forever. There's no legal basis for their removal. -Sparaig 18:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

See WP:V, as it pertains to self-published sources, personal pages, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that WP:V and WP:RS would easily rule this site out as a source, except that it was cited to merely point out the fact that versions of the TM mantras have been published.

I would like our mediator to weigh in on this- if all we are trying to establish is that they have been published, doesn't that easily fall under "Verifiability?"

Regardless, I will find some better sources. Sethie 13:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sethie, I feel like in general you have relied on weak sources and that that's made the article weak. I had hoped that mediation would bring us closer together in our understanding of this, but our mediator seems to have his own view of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. And understandably, these differences of opinions are difficult to resolve. Note that WP:ATT says in bold: "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible." There are almost no such sources in the criticism section. There are lot of web sites, primary sources, self-published sources, etc. But almost nothing in the way of reliable, published secondary sources. And the one or two that exist aren't used effectively. I feel like we could do better. I'd like to get away from battling and move toward improving the article. I feel like we could find qualified secondary sources that clearly explain the issues in regard to religion -- and that this would be better than tossing in a bunch of weakly sourced items to make an original point. A quality secondary source would define religion, givei its characteristics, say why facets of TM are religious. You wouldn't need to rely on POV sites or commercial sites. And then we would balance that with a religious scholar who has a different perspective. Olive has said that she's found some sources. If we spend our time edit warring, we'll never create a better article. End of plea. TimidGuy 16:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not always satisfied with my sources either. In this case however I am. We have a former TM teacher who has now started their own form of meditation. I believe this qualifies them as an expert, please see the exceptions listed in [[35]]. He is also certainly an expert at TM tradmark law, please see the page you removed!

I am noticing you took out my changes with out discussing them first. For me this is edit warring, and I would ask all people who are editing warring to stop, and that would include me when I engage in such behavior. Sethie 17:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I am unclear as to how this person could be an expert unless he is, as stated in the Wikipedia policy on Attribution a "well known, professional researcher". TM teachers have recently been retrained, so only those retrained teachers have accurate information as far as we know. This information cannot be verified by anyone else.Even if one of these people chose to disclose proprietary information - unlikely, unless that person was a "well known professional researcher" we are dealing with an unacceptable primary source.(olive 22:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to mention concerns in the disclosing of mantras supposedly used in teaching TM

• The use of the mantras, what they are, and how used is proprietary knowledge.

Wikipedia policy stipulates a reliable source is "absolute and non-negotiable", and goes hand in hand with verifiable, now under the topic W:ATT., and also states that authors must be regarded as "trustworthy or authoritative". What level of trust we can place on information given by someone who publishes in any format proprietary knowledge?

• Stating that the Mantras are of a particular kind or from a particular tradition and then concluding that these same mantras are used in TM is OR I believe - a synthesis of two different pieces of material to attempt to introduce a new idea or fact.
• This may be highly unreliable information at that, given that it is unlikely that anyone who has been taught TM and who understands the value the TM teacher at least, places on keeping this information proprietary would disclose or verify this information. If this kind of person feels its appropriate to disclose information they have been trusted with, can they be trusted to honestly or at least objectively disclose accurate information? These may be people who do not feel that it is important to abide by the requests made on them as they learn TM , and this may translate to a lack of understanding concerning the accuracy of the information or a lack of understanding of the material itself. We have no way of knowing, but the aspect of the policy that states, "authors regarded as trustworthy or authoritative" must be considered here
• We also have no guarantee that any information published by TM teachers who have not undergone the new recertification process is accurate any longer, and it is highly unlikely that any of these people, the only ones who would be able to verify this information would do so or have done so. Again the only "authoritative" persons in terms of this material must be recertified teachers and Maharishi himself. The rest of us just cannot in any way verify this material.

I really feel we have made a lot of very good progress in creating a neutral site. This may not be up to the standards we have all worked towards. This information seems to violate OR and W: ATT - Verifiable and RS. I'd like to suggest we not use this material given these violations of Wikipedia policies. (olive 17:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC))

Wanted to apologize to Sethie and Timidguy if my last entry seems redundant. Did not mean to beat anyone over the head with this. I think TG and I were editing at the same time .(olive 17:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC))

Thanks, Olive. Good points. Also, the problem with a promotional, commercial site like this is that he has a vested interest in saying whatever necessary to sell his product. That's why promotional sites aren't allowed under the policy. (Unless, of course it were an article on David Spector.)

I do hope we can work together, Sethie, and find solid sources. As noted above, maybe we could start with the religion section. Find some articles by religion scholars and then present both sides of the issue. We could work together in examining and summarizing these sources. Also, how about changing that subhead to "Possibile religious aspects"? TimidGuy 16:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)