Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 39

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

→

Archive 43

Proposals by David Spector

Hi David, Thanks for your proposals. I have a couple of points I'd like to make in response:

• WP:Talk says: "Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor." So please restrict your talk page comments to the discussion of content and refrain from making comments about editors. Thank you.
• This page is for discussion of content contained in this article. If you are making a proposal that concerns changes for multiple articles than the appropriate place for such a discussion would be the TMM project page.
• WP:CRITICISM says: "Sections and articles dedicated to controversies about a topic are generally discouraged, for many of the same reasons discussed above for criticism-related material". Its an essay, but it happens to be one I agree with. So as a general principle I would not be in favor of isolating criticism in a special section or in a special article. However, if you bring the discussion to the TMM project page you may be able to get input from other editors there. Best wishes,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I feel uncomfortable having to be defensive, instead of being able to discuss my rewriting proposal itself (I thought everyone here would love it), but here goes:

• I have expressed no personal opinions on the subject of Transcendental Meditation or on any specific WP editor. My topic was proposing that we rewrite all the TM articles--this is a proposal for improving the encyclopedia. For these reasons, your first point does not apply. You go on to ask me to restrict my discussion to content. This I cannot do, for the dysfunctional editing environment here is precisely the reason why the content is so nearly unreadable. The truth should be told because it is relevant to improving these articles.

• Yes, my proposal is for all the allied TM articles. I posted it here because I thought this was the main article. I will move this discussion to the page you recommend soon. Thank you for that recommendation.

• I will re-read that essay, thanks. It does sound relevant, and I haven't read it for quite some time. While I have read many WP articles in which the intermingling of controversial material was done nicely, those were articles in which the controversy was not quite so sharp as it is here, with mostly POV editors participating in the editing. The quantity of material cherry-picked to reveal controversy here is enormous. In such a situation, my proposal of separating the points of view makes sense, because it will result in much more readable articles. Both the pro- and anti- TM editors will enjoy the freedom to express their point of view clearly, without having to make the article pretend to be neutral.

I'll come back soon and move these sections. Thanks for you help. David Spector (user/talk) 13:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

TM Project page

I encourage editors who are active on, or interested in the TM related articles to participate in ongoing discussions on the Project talk page. Cheers.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit to the Lead

Today I added info from this quote "“While adherents of some groups are content to be regarded as members of a new religion, others, such as practitioners of Transcendental Meditation, contend that theirs is not a religious movement at all.” which is found in the same source that is cited 3 times in that same section of the lead, Cults and New Religion page 6 If this is an issue for anyone, we can discuss it and come to a consensus.Cheers, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Unilateral change

The change to the content Fladrif reverted was made in the TM research article, the mother article for this section, by an uninvolved editor Jayen466. There was consensus led by Will Beback to use the leads from mother articles to create the sections of this article as noted above. I will only revert once and would suggest discussion rather than unilateral changes.(olive (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC))

Prior consensus on the Content of this article

There was a prior consensus that this "parent" article should serve as a portal for the "child" articles (43 articles in the TM navigation template and 80+ in the TM category template) and that each section in this article should consist solely of the lead paragraphs from the most important 'child' articles in this topic area. Here are the comments from the prior consensus:

• That means we have one summary of the TMM, instead of two different ones. the same for the other child articles. Doing so minimizes the editing of the most contentious sections of articles on a contentious topic. If we have two separate summaries, then we need to have two separate discussions, doubling the effort for no reason. Is there a good reason why the summary here should be substantially different from the intro of the artuicle itself, other than a little redundant context info? Will Beback talk 09:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• No the intros should be ostensibly the same. --BwB (talk) 09:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• The two should be synchronized, but I don't think it matters how that's done. To start it would be fine to create one summary/lead and add it to both the lead of the daughter article and the summary article of the parent article, then allow it to expand from there as needed.(olive (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC))

Over time discrepancies have developed and the current article does not comply with that consensus. I have done this already with the TM Research section and unless there are any objections, I am going to begin bringing the other sections of this article into compliance by replacing the current content with an accurate copy of the lead from each of the other 'child' articles. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Since, after 5 days there are no objections, I am continuing with the process of updating the current text in this 'parent' article with the corresponding lead section from each 'child' article as described in the consensus above.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Kbob you seem to have consensus so I would say you are probably with in your rights to make the edits you made, but could you go into more detail on what you're doing here. A lot of content was removed and I think at the least you should log in some information here. Thanks.(olive (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC))

The process of updating the article per the consensus (of which you were a part) that I have cited above was long overdue and is something that may need to be done periodically (or discontinued if consensus changes). In making the update, there was some significant content changes. The History and TM technique sections were reduced while the TM movement and TM research sections became longer. The reason for this is that after each section was established as a copy of the lead of their respective 'child' articles, some editors cut back on content in some sections, reordered paragraphs in others, and added cherry picked sentences and paragraphs from the child articles to significantly expand some sections. This created imbalance and POV and cause the article to lose its original intended purpose (ie being a 'parent' article to the broad topic, consisting of the leads of the 'child' articles).-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I have recently noticed that the History section is not sourced, so I will work on locating sources from the body of that article and bringing them over to this one.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Olive, I wanted to follow up on your concern about not losing content in the transition of this article from random content to the agreed upon method of having this parent article consist of the leads of the child articles. Just to be sure that no content was lost in the switch I have compared both the before and after versions and noted any discrepancies. In a few cases, there was some content that had gotten thrown out with the bathwater, so to speak, and so I have added it back into the corresponding child article. You can see a full analysis of the content change here in my sandbox. Let me know if you have any questions. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm impressed Kbob, and what a lot of work! Thanks, it looks good to me.(olive (talk) 03:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC))

Thanks, I've also added citations to the History section of this article as I stated above.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

main problems with this whole affair

The main issue with this article is one of reliability, coupled with defendability.
At present in India there is a major campaign to track and arrest spiritual practitioners that are engaged in trickery and hoax-like behavior.
There is no dispute that Maharishi developed this technique (TM) but he was a fraud, and had he attempted to do today what he did in the 1950's he would have been arrested and charged with conspiracy to pervert the Hindu faith. As is clearly stated at the top of this talk page. ("Maharishi belonged to the clerk caste")

Ironically it seams, haven chosen this path and become a world leader in this technique he has, as a result, become spiritually awakened, if only partially.
So, the validity of the Technique is hard to dispute and should be considered of great value to spiritual development, along side a varied and staple diet of other meditation techniques and forms of contemplation. However;
Any organisation that promotes transcendental enlightenment, by default also promotes detachment from worldly things.

Which begs the question, why did Maharishi feel it necessary to trade mark his technique? Surly this is a contradiction in terms. Benjaminw w (talk) 05:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The main issue with BenjaminW's opinion is the reliability of his statements that are easily shown to be false with publicly available evidence. Wikipedia is not a place for undefendable accusations. How does he possibly conclude he would be "arrested" when you can simply Google "Maharishi funeral" and see that many spiritual leaders, plus the Indian Government and Military paid tribute to him?
"An Indian military unit honored the holy man, but out of deference to his pacifist views, the soldiers lowered their weapons to the ground instead of firing a traditional salute." http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-02-11-1016531307_x.htm

There are over 600 scientific research studies, by over 250 independent research institutions in 33 countries. The United States National Institutes of Health (NIH), a very conservative and scientific organization, has given over $20 million in research grants. They would not do that, unless there were measurable, proven, benefits. www.TM.org/research

Trade marking the TM technique prevents other techniques from claiming that they are TM. No other technique has such scientific research, which takes many years of dedicated effort and funding for studies. TM is non-profit, but there are expenses to bring it to the public. The Red Cross, Bill Gates Foundation, and other charities also protect their trade marks. MarieT 04:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

This page is not to debate the merits of TM. This is the place to discuss changes to the article. 50.131.220.134 (talk) 05:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

David Lynch

There seems to be some minor edit warring over whether or not Lynch should be added to the sentence listing notable TM practitioners. Although I agree that the number of names should be limited to the most notable and I respect the prior consensus about limiting the number of people in the sentence I think the addition of David Lynch is reasonable since he has received a huge amount of media recognition for his involvement in TM. Comments from others? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't care one way or the other, just that all additions and removals be discussed first. To do otherwise violates the existing consensus. 50.131.220.134 (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The problem in the past has been that drive-by editors add their favorite TM celebrity, the list gets long, and then the article starts to sound promotional. TimidGuy (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Questionable source

This text was just added:

Drawing from 340 peer-reviewed research articles, Norman E. Rosenthal, M.D., formerly a senior researcher with the NIH and currently a Professor of Psychiatry at Georgetown Medical School, and author of a book about TM, states that the technique reduces the incidence of cardiovascular disease, assists in treating addiction, post-traumatic stress disorder, ADHD and depression, and helps high-functioning individuals achieve greater 'self-actualisation'".]

The source is Rosenthal's book published last year by a popular press. I feel that this source doesn't comply with the proscription against popular media in WP:MEDRS and the requirement that assertions regarding health benefits be based on literature reviews in peer-reviewed journals. Given that, I will go ahead and delete, if there are no objections. (There has also been consensus that the paragraphs in this article be based on the leads in the daughter articles. Any change to the research section in this article should therefore reflect a consensus change to the lead in the TM research article.) TimidGuy (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed from the article. TimidGuy (talk) 09:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Got it! I didn't remember about WP:MEDRS. If there are suggestions for acceptable changes to the research section let me know what I can do to improve the article.Octopet (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer. My impression is that that section doesn't accurately reflect the state of the research or the sources. Several editors have been banned for trying to change it, though. But at some point we're going to have to deal with it. Perhaps begin by becoming familiar with the article Transcendental Meditation research. You'll see there are findings in recent research reviews that aren't represented in the lead in that article nor in this research section of this article. And if you look at the Talk page, you'll see that this has been discussed at length in the past. I think that we may want to first address the issues in that article, and then once consensus is achieved, revise the research section in this article. TimidGuy (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Further reading section

The Further Reading section of this article may need editing to become compliant with the proposed policy/guideline WP:Further reading which says:

• FR list is "usually alphabetized"
• FR list is "primarily intended for publications that were not used by editors to build the current article content"
• ”Preference is normally given to works that cover the whole subject of the article rather than a specific aspect of the subject, and to works whose contents are entirely about the subject of the article, rather than only partly."
• "Works named in this section should present a neutral view of the subject, or, if works of a particular point of view are presented, the section should present a balance of various points of view."
• "Further reading sections are not to be used for pushing a point of view."
• "Should be limited in size" -- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Another thing worth adding here is competing meditation techniques, such as NSR (http://www.nsra-usa.com/) which claims to have similar results.--Unsigned comment

This article is about TM. There are probably 50 books on the topic but we don't have room for all of them, nor is there room for a list of mediation techniques that claim to be like TM. If NSR is a notable subject than an editor can create a WP article on that topic. [WP:FURTHERREADING]] says: "An optional bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of a reasonable number of editor-recommended publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject" -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• For starters (step 1) the section should be trimmed of material that is already used in the articles as sources.(olive (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC))

OK I"m going to start on that process. PS would you mind combining this thread with the one above on the same topic? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:FURTHERREADING I've removed all the publications that were already listed in the References section and I added some additional books for balance. What about the research studies that are there. Should we be listing research papers? I think there are several hundred of those and wonder why only a few are listed and why there are editorial conclusions after the studies listed and why there aren't descriptions after the many books listed.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

After further investigation, I have removed the 9 research studies listed in the Further Reading section because:

• a) They were plagiarized from this webpage by an IP whose only edits were the placement [1] and re-placement [2] of the content, several days later, after it was reverted.
• b) They violate WP:MEDRS
• c) They were previously removed by User:Jmh649 [3]
• d) Other research studies in the Further Reading list were previously removed by User:Will Beback [4]
• e) They violate WP:NPOVas they were picked from a web page called "Negative and Inconclusive Research on the TM program". [5]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Revision to research section

Over the past months I have updated the TM Research article, incorporating comment from several recently published scientific textbooks, a new systematic review, and a new meta-analysis. In keeping with earlier consensus, I now also adjust the research section and Lead of this main article so that it mirrors the updated daughter article. For more information, please see the posts on the TM Research talk page Aug 17 and 19 here[6] and here[7].EMP (talk) 00:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be OK but I am not familiar with the research and so I've posted some comments and questions regarding these changes on the TMR talk page linked above.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of source

Rosenthal's book is clearly a reliable source per its publisher and credentials of the author. The TM arbitration expressively warns against such RS deletions with out discussion. As well, neutral source is a misnomer. If we were to remove sources because an editor considered them non neutral we'd delete most sources on Wikipedia. The number of studies done on the TM technique is extensive so its acceptable to add the content on that. If editors feel that adding that particular content in this article adds to a promotional feel I would be happy to support its removal. However, the content should be removed with a talk page post and and agreement. (olive (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC))

I agree with Olive that the source is reliable. Its a mainstream publisher, and the author is a recognized researcher with many peer-reviewed studies to his credit. However, the phrase may be, in this particular context, a bit promotional. Therefore, I'm inclined to support Herostratus's edit and will reinstate it.EMP (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks EMP, I'm fine with the deletion.(olive (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC))

The lead paragraphs

I have tagged the lead as it does not summarize the content in the article in a complete and balanced way. This may also also help to eliminate the POV problems as indicated by the lead POV tag which has been on the article for several months. I'd like to begin an analysis and propose a proper summary as I did on the Transcendental Meditation technique article and can be seen on the talk page here. Input and collaboration is welcomed.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

As a starting point for discussion I'm going to do a rough word count of the lead and the body to ID any potential imbalances. (see below)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I added the POV tag. There was consensus among all editors involved that there are at least two areas where only one point of view was represented, in violation of NPOV: 1) TM is a religion, and 2) TM is pseudoscience. The first has been somewhat addressed., but is still biased (for example, it makes it sound as if practitioners are the only ones who assert that TM isn't a religion). The second issue hasn't been addressed. A third issue raised was regarding the assertion that independent systematic reviews haven't found a benefit beyond health education or relaxation. This isn't accurate, per a considerable amount of discussion on the TM research article Talk page. There are independent systematic reviews that have found a health benefit. TimidGuy (talk) 11:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, How about if we continue to go through each section of the lead (see thread below) and make sure it accurately summarizes the corresponding section of the article and see if we can address or discuss these POV issues as they come up in each section of the lead. Will that work?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Analysis of the size of the lead

Total words in body of article = 1335 Total words in lead = 300 words

• • Lead
• (Intro = 54 words = 18%) Transcendental Meditation (TM) refers to the Transcendental Meditation technique, a specific form of mantra meditation, and to the Transcendental Meditation movement, also represented as a spiritual movement. The TM technique and TM movement were introduced in India in the mid-1950s by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (1914–2008) and had reached global proportions by the 1960s.

• (History = 83 words= 27%) The TM technique came out of and is based on Indian philosophy and the teachings of Krishna, the Buddha, and Shankara, as well as the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, and is a version of a technique passed down from the Maharishi's teacher, Brahmananda Saraswati. The Maharishi also developed the Science of Creative Intelligence (SCI), a system of theoretical principles to underlie this meditation technique. Additional technologies were added to the Transcendental Meditation program, including "advanced techniques" such as the TM-Sidhi program (Yogic Flying).

• (TM Movement = 123 words = 40%) In the 1950s, the Transcendental Meditation movement was presented as a religious organization. In 1977, the Transcendental Meditation technique was held to be a religion in a New Jersey court case. By the 1970s, the organization had shifted to a more scientific presentation while maintaining many religious elements in an attempt to appeal to the more secular West.[4] Practitioners of Transcendental Meditation assert that their movement is not religious and describe it as a spiritual and scientific organization. The TM movement has programs and holdings in multiple countries while as many as 6 million people have been trained in the TM technique, including The Beatles, Howard Stern, Clint Eastwood, Mike Love, Russell Brand, Oprah Winfrey, David Lynch and other well-known public figures.

• (Research = 43 words = 14%) TM is one of the most widely practiced, and among the most widely researched meditation techniques. Independent] systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation or health education.Skeptics have called TM or its associated theories and technologies a pseudoscience.

• • Body of article
• (250 words = 19%) History section
• (442 words = 33%) TM technique section
• (453 words = 34%) TM Movement section
• (190 words = 14%) TM research section
• Conclusion: In terms of size, the lead seems to be in balance with the body of the article [except the TM technique section is missing in the lead]. Now let's take a look at the content. (See below)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Analysis of the content of the lead

History section

• The Transcendental Meditation (TM) program and the Transcendental Meditation movement originated with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, founder of the the organization, and continue beyond his death (2008). He first taught the technique in the late 1950s. After personally initiating thousands of people, the Maharishi developed a program to create more teachers of the technique as a way to accelerate the rate of teaching TM to more people.[18][19] He also inaugurated a series of world tours which promoted Transcendental Meditation.[20] These factors, coupled with endorsements by celebrities who practiced TM, and also, scientific research validating the technique, helped to popularize it in the 1960s and '70s. As well, in the 1970s advanced meditative techniques were introduced.[21] By the late 2000s, TM had been taught to millions of individuals and the Maharishi was overseeing a large multinational movement.[22] In present times, the movement has grown to encompass schools and universities that teach the practice,[23] and includes many associated programs offering health and well-being based on the Maharishi's interpretation of the Vedic traditions. Despite organizational changes and while additional techniques were added, the Transcendental Meditation technique itself remained relatively unchanged. Among the first organizations to promote TM were the Spiritual Regeneration Movement and the International Meditation Society. In the U.S., major organizations included Students International Meditation Society, [24], AFSCI, [25] World Peace Executive Council, Maharishi Vedic Education Corporation, and Global Country of World Peace. The successor to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and head of the Global Country of World Peace, is Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam.[26]

Part of lead that summarizes this section:

• The TM technique came out of and is based on Indian philosophy and the teachings of Krishna, the Buddha, and Shankara, as well as the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, and is a version of a technique passed down from the Maharishi's teacher, Brahmananda Saraswati. The Maharishi also developed the Science of Creative Intelligence (SCI), a system of theoretical principles to underlie this meditation technique. Additional technologies were added to the Transcendental Meditation program, including "advanced techniques" such as the TM-Sidhi program (Yogic Flying).

Does this lead paragraph accurately summarize the History section of this article? Comments?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm impressed with the history section in the article: it's neutral, factual, and well written. The lead, oddly, introduces topics not covered in the article or in the history section. And it's not clear that it's factually accurate. This includes, for example, the assertion that TM came out of and is based on the teachings of Krishna and Buddha. TimidGuy (talk) 10:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it doesn't seem to summarize the History section at all. Therefore I propose to replace the current 'history' summary paragraph in the lead with this:

After personally initiating thousands of people, the Maharishi developed a program to train TM teachers and inaugurated a series of world tours to promote his teachings. Scientific research and celebrity endorsements helped to popularize TM in the 1960s and '70s. Specific organizations were developed to address different segments of the population including spiritualists, business people and students. By the late 2000s, TM had been taught to millions of people and the movement included school and university programs and a variety of health products and related services.

Comments? suggestions?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

That reads well, and sounds encyclopedic. "Spiritualists" may not be the right word. A spiritualist is someone who communicates with spirits of the dead. TimidGuy (talk) 10:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

OK I've added the content above to the lead. I left out the word "spiritualists" and combined the above with the first two introductory sentences which were also historical in nature. Please feel free to edit my changes if something needs improvement or appears in any way to be non-neutral. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe there is a source for the Krishna Buddha claim. I can't remember where, its been a while since I've seen it. I'll look and see if I can find it. If I do it should probably be readded.(olive (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC))

Yes -- maybe in the TM-technique article. It shouldn't be in the lead of this article, since there's no discussion of it in the article. But I question whether it should be in WP at all. The Buddha thing is a minor point of view. In all his books and lectures Maharishi never talked about Buddha. He did often talk about the Vedic seers in his tradition, such as Patanjali. And other sources don't mention Bhddha. Also, it doesn't seems to make sense to talk about the "teachings" of Krishna. Since Krishna was a god, right? "Teachings" usually refers to a historical person, such as Jesus or Mohammad or Buddha, or to a religion, or to a scripture or a book or an oral tradition, but not usually a god. One doesn't usually, for example, refer to the teachings of God or Zeus. TimidGuy (talk) 10:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

As we know per WP:LEAD, the lead summarizes the article and this article doesn't mention the origin of TM, so I don't think its appropriate in the lead here. However, there is a section called Origin in the History of Transcendental Meditation article and I have doubts about one of the sources there and have started a discussion thread here if you'd like to join or expand the discussion re: Krishna/Shankara/Bhudda and TM.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

We can look at this another way. The history section here links to the TM History article. The TM History article contains a section on origins of the technique. We could easily add something to the lead of the history article on origins, add that change here to the section on history , then add the information summarized into the lead here on the TM article. This is probably a more inclusive action. Since the content and source on origins is now under discussion on the TM History article, we can wait and see what the outcome is, then either add more reliable information or the discussed content if it is considered reliable.(olive (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC))

That's fine with me.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. TimidGuy (talk) 10:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Technique section

• The Transcendental Meditation technique is a specific form of mantra meditation[27] often referred to as Transcendental Meditation or simply, TM. It was introduced in India in 1955[28][29][30] by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (1914–2008).[31] The meditation practice involves the use of a sound or mantra and is practiced for 15–20 minutes twice per day, while sitting comfortably with closed eyes.[32][33] The TM technique is made available worldwide by certified teachers trained by the Transcendental Meditation movement. TM is taught in a standardized, seven-step course over a four day period by certified teachers.[32] The fees vary from country to country. In the United States the adult fee is $1,500, while prices in the United Kingdom (UK) are based on income.[34][35] Transcendental Meditation is a registered trademark of the Maharishi Foundation.[36]

• Maharishi Mahesh Yogi taught his meditation technique in a series of world tours beginning in 1957.[18] From the late 1960s through the mid 1970s, both the Maharishi and TM received significant public attention in the USA, especially among the student population.[25][37] During this period, a million people learned the technique, including well-known public figures.[25] Worldwide, as many as six to ten million people are reported to be practitioners of the TM technique.[38] Notable practitioners have included The Beatles, David Lynch, Deepak Chopra, Clint Eastwood, Russell Brand, Andy Kaufman, and Mia Farrow.

• Transcendental Meditation is part of the Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health.[39] The theoretical basis developed to underpin the Transcendental Meditation technique is the Science of Creative Intelligence (SCI), which describes the Maharishi's view of Natural Law. Skeptics question whether SCI is actually scientific[citation needed] According to proponents, practicing the TM technique can lead to higher levels of consciousness and supernormal effects, including the Maharishi Effect.[citation needed]

• TM is reported to be one of the most widely practiced, and among the most widely researched meditation techniques.[40][41][42][43] Independently done systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation or health education.[44][45][14] It is difficult to determine definitive effects of "meditation practices in healthcare" as the quality of research has design limitations and a lack of methodological rigor,[14][46][47] due in part to the fact that many studies on TM appear to have been conducted by authors connected to the TM organization and on subjects predisposed positively towards TM.[48][49] Despite the fact that TM research has moved from "kooky margin to respectable mainstream", TM's more recent appeal has been attributed to its ability to relax without chemical assistance rather than to the research.[50]

• TM is actively marketed as a scientifically proven technique but not a religion, while there are sociologists and governmental bodies that have categorized it as part of a new religious movement.

Part of the lead that summarizes this section

• At present, it appears that this section of the article is not represented in the lead. So I propose adding the content below as a summary:
  • The TM technique involves the use of a sound or mantra and is practiced for 15–20 minutes twice per day. It is taught by certified teachers through a standard course of instruction but fees vary by country. The TM technique is part of the Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health and the experiential aspect of the Science of Creative Intelligence (SCI), which describes the Maharishi's view of Natural Law. Skeptics question its scientific value while proponents contend the practice can lead to higher levels of consciousness and have a positive influence on society via the Maharishi Effect. It has been marketed as a scientifically proven technique while many scholars and some governmental agencies have categorized it as part of a new religious movement.
• Comments? suggestions?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

My response was actually to TimidGuy which is why I placed my comment after his. I hope he sees it here.(olive (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC))

Yes, I took the liberty of moving your comment. Hope that was OK.I thought you had posted out of order by mistake. I think its best to see comments in chrono order. If you want to address TG's comment then you could just write: "@TimidGuy" or just specify that you are responding to his comment and not to me. But... now I'm wondering why we are conversing down here about the thread far above. I'll leave it you to move both these comments up there, if you so desire. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Its common in my experience to address a speaker right after the comment they make so the sequence is clear. However no worries. (olive (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC))

Thanks for going with me on this one. I know there is more than one way to organize a talk page. Thanks for you cooperation. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

If there are no objections to my suggested summary posted above I'd like to post it in the article. Any objections?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if we should first fix the duplicate content in the article. The sentences about the research in the technique section are repeated verbatim in the research section.

Independently done systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation or health education.[14][42][43] It is difficult to determine definitive effects of "meditation practices in healthcare" as the quality of research has design limitations and a lack of methodological rigor,[14][44][45] due in part to the fact that many studies on TM appear to have been conducted by authors connected to the TM organization and on subjects predisposed positively towards TM.[46][47]

I guess this is an artifact of the consensus decision to have the sections in the article repeat verbatim the leads of the daughter article. But it seems to me we're going to have to address this. Instead of "many scholars" I'd prefer we use "sociologists" as in the article. I'm not sure about this sentence: "Skeptics question its scientific value while proponents contend the practice can lead to higher levels of consciousness and have a positive influence on society via the Maharishi Effect." It seems to give undue weight to a minor point of view. Research on TM has been covered in hundreds of research reviews and hundreds of medical books. The scientific community doesn't question its scientific value. A 2009 research review in the Harvard Review of Psychiatry said, "Despite the criticisms its organizational structure and religious viewpoints have aroused, TM’s medical claims have been taken seriously." Also, it may give too much weight to SCI and MVAH. Most people who practice the technique are unaware of SCI and MVAH. And another niggling point: the phrase "It has been marketed as a scientifically proven technique" makes it sound as if the scientific verification is simply a marketing ploy. But its effects are widely accepted has having been validated by science, in both mainstream thought and in the scientific literature. Regarding the latter, the physiological and neurophysiological effects have been established. The clinical effects are increasingly being established, with meta-analyses now showing reductions in blood pressure and anxiety. How about something like this, which is similar to what you wrote but slightly shorter? I tried to address all the points I raised.

The TM technique involves the use of a sound or mantra and is practiced for 15–20 minutes twice per day. It is taught by certified teachers through a standard course of instruction but fees vary by country. It is said to be a means of relaxation, to reduce stress, and to lead to higher states of consciousness. It has been a focus of scientific research while some sociologists and government bodies have categorized it as part of a new religious movement, in part because of related teachings, such as the Science of Creative Intelligence and the Maharishi Effect.

The points of view regarding the research can be dealt with in the summary of the research section. TimidGuy (talk) 10:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this summary is good, however I don't see in the article that some sociologists have made a causal connection "new religious movement," and SCI and the Maharishi Effect.Octopet (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that I don't like the sentence mixing up NRM and ME and SCI. It seems like original research. I propose a combination of the two proposed versions such as this:

The TM technique involves the use of a sound or mantra and is practiced for 15–20 minutes twice per day. It is taught by certified teachers through a standard course of instruction but fees vary by country. It is said to be a means of relaxation and stress reduction. Skeptics question its scientific value while proponents contend the practice can lead to higher levels of consciousness and have a positive influence on society. It has been marketed as a scientifically proven technique while many scholars and some governmental agencies have categorized it as part of a new religious movement.

I'd like to see us resolve this soon because TM = the meditation and the movement and right now only movement is represented in the lead and that's a dis-service to the reader.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Since 10 days have passed and no one has objected to my proposed content above, I have gone ahead and placed it in the lead.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Further discussion on the lead

There seems to be a lot of duplication in the first two paragraphs of the lead:

• The Maharishi personally taught thousands of people during a series of world tours to promote his teachings and developed a program to train TM teachers. Scientific research and celebrity endorsements helped to popularize Transcendental Meditation in the 1960s and 1970s and organizations were created to address different segments of the population including business people and students. By the late 2000s, TM had been taught to millions of people and its movement had grown to include educational programs, health products and related services offered in multiple countries.
• In the 1950s, Transcendental Meditation was presented in more religious terms than the way it is presented today. However, beginning in 1970 the focus was entirely on scientific verification[4] in an attempt to appeal to the more secular West.[5]In 1977, the Transcendental Meditation technique was held to be a religion in a New Jersey court case.[6][7] Practitioners of Transcendental Meditation assert that their movement is not religious and describe it as a spiritual and scientific organization.[5] The TM movement has programs and holdings in multiple countries while as many as 6 million people have been trained in the TM technique, including The Beatles, Howard Stern, Clint Eastwood, Mike Love, Russell Brand, Oprah Winfrey, David Lynch and other well-known public figures.

I suggest combining them as follows:

• The Maharishi personally taught thousands of people during a series of world tours during which he expressed his teachings in spiritual and religious terms. In the 1960's he began training TM teachers and utilized scientific research and celebrity endorsements to popularize Transcendental Meditation with the more secular West. In the 1960s and 1970s specialized organizations were created to address different segments of the population including business people and students. In 1977, the Transcendental Meditation technique was held to be a religion in a New Jersey court case. By the late 2000s, TM had been taught to millions of people and its movement had grown to include educational programs, health products and related services offered in multiple countries.

Comments? Suggestions??-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I like your summary. At present it seems that there's too much detail in the lead, as well as duplication. The following are mostly minor suggestions. Should you indicate in the first sentence during what period Maharishi was personally teaching people? My personal preference would be "used" in place of "utilized" in the second sentence. Also, I wonder if it's accurate to say that he used endorsements and research to popularize TM. He stated many times that he used science because that was the mindset of the West, the frame of reference. And my impression was that he didn't seek out celebrities: they sought him. Maybe reverse the sentence: "As TM became more popular in the 1960s and 1970s, partly as a result of Maharishi's shift to a more scientific understanding and the endorsements of celebrities who had begun the technique, Maharishi began training TM teachers." That's in accord with the sources but changes the implications. The New Jersey sentence doesn't accurately reflect the court's decision. Law journal articles make it clear that the issue was a curriculum in TM/SCI. Perhaps: "In 1977, a state court found that a curriculum in TM and the Science of Creative Intelligence that was being taught in New Jersey schools was religious in nature and in violation of the First Amendment." In the last sentence I'd use "many" instead of "multiple." Thanks for your diligent focus on improving the lead. TimidGuy (talk) 20:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the detailed feedback. Taking your points into account how about this version (below):

The Maharishi personally taught thousands of people during a series of world tours from 1958 to 1965 during which he expressed his teachings in spiritual and religious terms. As TM became more popular in the 1960s and 1970s, partly as a result of Maharishi's shift to a more scientific presentation and the endorsements of celebrities who had begun the technique, Maharishi began training TM teachers. He also created specialized organizations to present TM to different segments of the population such as business people and students. In 1977, a state court found that a curriculum in TM and the Science of Creative Intelligence that was being taught in some New Jersey schools was religious in nature and in violation of the First Amendment. By the late 2000s, TM had been taught to millions of people and its movement had grown to include educational programs, health products and related services offered in many countries.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I did a copy edit (syntax) of the version above. Not attached to it, though.(olive (talk) 18:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC))

The Maharishi personally taught thousands of people during a series of world tours from 1958 to 1965. During that time his teaching was expressed in spiritual and religious terms. Partly as a result of Maharishi's shift to a more scientific presentation and the endorsements of celebrities who had begun the technique, TM became more popular in the 1960s and 1970s. Maharishi also began training TM teachers during this time, and created specialized organizations to present TM to specific segments of the population such as business people and students. In 1977, a state court found that a curriculum in TM and the Science of Creative Intelligence being taught in some New Jersey schools was religious in nature and in violation of the First Amendment. By the late 2000s, TM had been taught to millions of people. The TM organization had grown to include services that were offered internationally and included educational programs, and health products.

Thanks for incorporating my suggestions, Keithbob. And thanks for the rewrite, Olive. I think I'll try my hand at a slightly revised version. But I'm out of time today. Will give it a go tomorrow. TimidGuy (talk) 11:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The Maharishi personally taught thousands of people during a series of world tours from 1958 to 1965, expressing his teachings in spiritual and religious terms. TM became more popular in the 1960s and 1970s, as the Maharishi shifted to a more scientific presentation and his meditation technique was [practiced] endorsed by celebrities. At this time he began training TM teachers and specialized organizations to present TM to specific segments of the population such as business people and students. In 1977, a U.S. district court ruled that a curriculum in TM and the Science of Creative Intelligence that was being taught in some New Jersey schools was religious in nature and in violation of the First Amendment. By the late 2000s, TM had been taught to millions of people, and the TM organization had grown to include educational programs, health products, and related services offered in many countries.

So that's a slightly tweaked version that combines elements of the other versions. It gives a lot of weight to the court case. But the research received much more attention in the mainstream media. Maybe we should add a phrase or sentence about the research. That's really been a major part of the story of TM as portrayed in the media, as can be verified by a search engine test. TimidGuy (talk) 10:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think its good. Comments from others? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

On second thought... I think the phrase "endorsed by celebrities" is not accurate. While some celebs publicly said they practice TM and its good, there were not any official endorsments like Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan endorse sports products. So I have changed it above and placed my change in brackets. Let me know what you think.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Good change Kbob and nice rewrite by TG. The last sentence seems a bit awkward since it sounds as if only the related programs are offered in other countries. I'd agree that something about research should be added per its weight in the mainstream and per the amount of information in secondary sources. As well, the body of the article has a section and summary on the research so this should be reflected in the lead.(olive (talk) 17:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC))

Yes, good change Keithbob. Maybe to address Olives suggestion the last sentence could read: "By the late 2000s, TM had been taught to millions of people, and the worldwide TM organization had grown to include educational programs, health products, and related services." Perhaps we could go ahead and put this version in the article, and then as a next step address the weight of the Malnak decision. TimidGuy (talk) 10:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Good change TG and it addresses my concern.(olive (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC))

OK, I've added this consensus version below:

• The Maharishi personally taught thousands of people during a series of world tours from 1958 to 1965, expressing his teachings in spiritual and religious terms. TM became more popular in the 1960s and 1970s, as the Maharishi shifted to a more scientific presentation and his meditation technique was adopted by celebrities. At this time he began training TM teachers and created specialized organizations to present TM to specific segments of the population such as business people and students. In 1977, a U.S. district court ruled that the curriculum in TM and the Science of Creative Intelligence that was being taught in some New Jersey schools was religious in nature and in violation of the First Amendment. By the late 2000s, TM had been taught to millions of people, and the worldwide TM organization had grown to include educational programs, health products, and related services.

Please feel free to tweak it in the article as needed. Regarding the TM research there is already a section in the lead which summarizes the research. But we can discuss that next if desired.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Repetition

This paragraph in the section titled "Transcendental Meditation technique" is repeated almost verbatim in the later section on research:

TM is reported to be one of the most widely practiced, and among the most widely researched meditation techniques.[9][11][43][44] Research reviews of the effects of the Transcendental Meditation technique have yielded results ranging from inconclusive[12][13][45][46] to clinically significant.[47][48][49][50][51] More research is needed to determine the therapeutic effects of meditation practices. Sources vary regarding their assessment of the quality of research. Some cite design limitations and a lack of methodological rigor,[13][52][53] while others assert that the quality is improving and that when suitable assessment criteria are applied, scientific evidence supports the therapeutic value of meditation.[54][55][56] According to two researchers, some studies have the potential for bias due to the connection of researchers to the TM organization.[57][58] TM researchers, in a published response, suggested that the studies in question were not biased due to the fact that they were conducted in collaboration with independent researchers at several other universities.[59][60]

Since the material in question is about research, I propose that the research section is the most appropriate location and that the above sentences be removed from the TM technique section. I understand that there was prior consensus to have each section of this article exactly duplicate the parent articles with the same title, but in this case I think we need to remove this text. TimidGuy (talk) 11:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that would be the reader friendly thing to do. Just to be clear we are talking about almost duplicate content in both the TM Technique and TM Research section in the body of the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree. EMP (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Though there appears to be a consensus (above) to eliminate the duplication, we did not discuss the specifics. Meanwhile, EMP has gone ahead and made a good faith based on this discussion, but I'd like all concerned to take a look at the edit and make sure that this is what they had in mind.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is quite the same content or source, although I can see why EMP thought so, so I'd probably say we should keep it in the article. I'll revert the edit until its discussed, further. (olive (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC))

I misread the deletion. Yes, EMP is right the content he deleted is a duplicate (almost identical). Checking now to see if there are any critical differences that should be kept. I'm going to revert just so its easy to look at sources. (olive (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC))

• Content added for comparison. Bold to indicate texts that are not identical:

Deleted content

TM is reported to be one of the most widely practiced, and among the most widely researched meditation techniques. Research reviews of the effects of the Transcendental Meditation technique have yielded results ranging from inconclusive to clinically significant. More research is needed to determine the therapeutic effects of meditation practices. Sources vary regarding their assessment of the quality of research. Some cite design limitations and a lack of methodological rigor, while others assert that the quality is improving and that when suitable assessment criteria are applied, scientific evidence supports the therapeutic value of meditation. According to two researchers, some studies have the potential for bias due to the connection of researchers to the TM organization. TM researchers, in a published response, suggested that the studies in question were not biased due to the fact that they were conducted in collaboration with independent researchers at several other universities.

Potential duplicated content

Research reviews of benefits for the TM technique show results ranging from inconclusive to clinically significant. More research is needed to determine the therapeutic effects of meditation practices. Sources vary regarding their assessment of the quality of research. Some cite design limitations and a lack of methodological rigor, while others assert that the quality is improving and that when suitable assessment criteria are applied, scientific evidence supports the therapeutic value of meditation. According to Canter and Ernst, some studies have the potential for bias due to the connection of researchers to the TM organization. In a published response, TM researchers suggested that the studies were not biased due to the fact that they were conducted in collaboration with independent researchers at several other universities.

Long list of References for the above content

Long list of citations
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comments

• Is there anything in the deleted content that needs to be kept?(olive (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC))

To answer my own question. I think the deletion is fine and content is pretty much the same. The opening sentence of the deleted content is in the lead so no need to repeat that again. (olive (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC))

• • Wow that's a lot of citations ....Thanks for laying it out in a way that's easy to compare before and after. I'm OK with the edit and think its an improvement for the reader.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok I'll revert myself.(olive (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC))

Notice of related discussion at TM project page

I have started a thread at the TM project page as from time to time some editors have expressed concerns about the size of the topic area. If this concerns you, please join this discussion. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Funding

"The U.S. government has awarded more than $20 million in funding from different branches of the National Institutes of Health."

I've moved the content here pending discussion. I think EMP is very right that this is significant however I think it should be discussed. I made a change before moving it which with out a source seemed to be OR. Any thoughts on this content? I believe this content has been under discussion in the past.(olive (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC))

Rethinking this too, today. I've always thought repeated government funding was legitimately significant in terms of the history and quality research on the TM technique so would support readding it. (olive (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC))

At present the sentence in the lead reads as follows:

The U.S. government has awarded more than $20 million in funding from different branches of the National Institutes of Health for research on the effects of TM on cardiovascular disease.

Personally, I don't think this sentence belongs in the lead. As I've mentioned in the thread above...... The lead in this article is a summary of 4 related articles and we have to give a very broad summary. I have problems with this sentence because without a citation it appears to be OR and even with a cite it gives prominence to something that is not prominent in the majority of the sources as far as I can see. That said, I have started a thread on the TM tech article that may be relevant to this discussion and may provide a compromise/solution if the outcome of that discussion is carried forward to this article. You can join the other discussion here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I see your point. That lede is too long, and my addition is not part of the solution. I added this sentence in order to give a more balanced picture: some official concerns, some official support. I could easily live with the loss of the sentence added, especially if some balancing, such as what you are doing at TM technique, is done on the other side.EMP (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Out of place picture

I am wondering why there is a picture of Brahmānanda Saraswatī beside a section that says nothing about him. I would think that either picture should either be removed or something added to the paragraph about who he is. Any other thoughts on this?(olive (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC))

I've added text to justify the image.(olive (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC))

Brahmananda is a very minor point in that section whereas the Maharishi is mentioned 2-3 times in that section and in other sections of the article. I would suggest that we replace the photo of Brahmananda with one of the Maharishi.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Its a section on the history of the TM technique and the organization in which Bramananda played a major role so I think the picture is fine there. This doesn't mean we have to exclude a picture of the Maharishi. As the one who developed the technique and founded the organization, we might consider adding his picture somewhere in the lead. Something to consider.(olive (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC))

Third paragraph of lead

I wonder if we should clarify this sentence in the third paragraph of the lead (which is meant to summarize the TM technique section of the article):

"Skeptics question its scientific value while proponents contend the practice can lead to higher levels of consciousness and have a positive influence on society."

The referent for "its" is clearly Transcendental Meditation, but in the TM technique section of the article, the skeptics are said to question the scientific nature of Maharishi's Science of Creative Intelligence. It seems like this could be clarified. TimidGuy (talk) 11:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Well here is the text from the body of this article (which is the lead of the TMT article) that it attempts to summarize:
  • Skeptics question whether SCI is actually scientific According to proponents, practicing the TM technique can lead to higher levels of consciousness and supernormal effects, including the Maharishi Effect.
• There are cite needed tags from May 2012 so according to TM arbcom the text could be removed. However, some of the content may be easily sourced. Let's break it down.
  • Skeptics question whether SCI is actually scientific-- There are sources for this but is this appropriate for the section on the TM technique?
  • According to proponents, practicing the TM technique can lead to higher levels of consciousness--I think we can find sources where the Maharishi says this and maybe TMM says it too.
  • [TM technique can led to] supernormal effects, --I think this refers to the TM-Sidhi program and while source-able may not be appropriate in this context
  • including the Maharishi Effect.--There are sources for the TMT creating the Maharishi Effect
• Does info specifically about TM-Sidhi and SCI belong in the lead of the article on the TM technique?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

[TM technique can lead to] supernormal effects... ME is a supernormal effect I guess, but this seems like poor wording...Might be more accurate to say, 'TM technique can lead to a supernormal effect'... I'm not sure what other supernormal effect there is with the TM technique. (olive (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC))

Thanks for your responses. I just noticed a larger issue that I'd like to address first. In both the TMT section in this article and in the lead of the TMT article, the material and SCI and the TM-Sidhi program constitutes the second paragraph. These topics are somewhat tangential to the TMT. Then paragraphs three and four shift the focus back to the TMT. So I'd like to move the second paragraph so that it's the last paragraph. The order will then be three paragraphs on the TMT and a paragraph on tangential material. If there are no objections, I'll go ahead and make this move. And then will get back to the other issues raised in this thread. TimidGuy (talk) 11:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I think its a good first step to untangle the paragraphs as they now stand, to delineate TMT from SCI and ME.

I'm rethinking Kbob's points above. Some further thoughts:

- I believe content on SCI should be part of the TM technique article. However, right now content on SCI is tumbled in with TM technique content.The two should be clearly separated as TG suggests.

- Higher levels of consciousness: Sourced, this is OK, however context is important. As Early Morning Person recently implied in the TM technique article this may not be the most significant point made by the TM org on the TM technique and on defining the technique and what it is. I think something about higher states could be readded.

- The ME effect from practice of the TM technique can be sourced. My thought above still seems pertinent on this point."ME is a supernormal effect I guess, but this seems like poor wording...Might be more accurate to say, 'TM technique can lead to a supernormal effect'... I'm not sure what other supernormal effect there is with the TM technique."

- I do think SCI needs some explanatory content in this article since it is the theory behind the technique and its effects, the TM Sidhi program only a mention since it is a separate (group) technique/of techniques.(olive (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC))

The TM lead is basically a summary of 4 articles (TM tech, TM movement, TM research, TM History) That's a lot of ground to cover in a few paragraphs. So we need to summarize in broad strokes. This means that whenever possible we should avoid using specialized terms and concepts that require explanation. IMO this includes: Maharishi Effect, SCI, supernormal effect, higher states of consciousness etc. Its fine to have these in there respective articles and even in the lead of their respective articles IF there is significant coverage of that subtopic in the body of the article. I think its fine to reorganize the paragraphs in the TM tech lead to better serve the reader.... but It would be best to discuss changes for other articles on their respective talk pages whenever possible or things can get confusing. Lastly, I don't think our concern is how the TM people present TM but rather how the sources present it unless we are specifically saying "according to the TM organization..."-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Third paragraph of the lead: Proposed Changes

Early Morn Person has been making changes to the lead while this discussion has been ongoing. He/she probably thought the thread was dead, I guess. At any rate....... I'd like to suggest that we gain a consensus here on the talk page before making any further changes. Is that OK with everyone?

• Current version of the third paragraph of the lead:
  • The TM technique involves the use of a sound or mantra and is practiced for 15–20 minutes twice per day. It is taught by certified teachers through a standard course of instruction but fees vary by country. It is said to be a means of relaxation and stress reduction. Skeptics question its scientific value while proponents say that research on TM indicates improved health, creativity, intelligence, and a positive influence on society. The Transcendental Meditation technique has been variously described by sociologists and religious scholars as religious and non-religious. The characterizations and responses to the TM technique by governmental agencies has varied depending on the time period, specific agency, and country of origin.
• My proposed revised version:
  • The TM technique involves the use of a sound or mantra and is practiced for 15–20 minutes twice per day. It is taught by certified teachers through a standard course of instruction and fees vary by country. Skeptics question its scientific value but according to the Transcendental Meditation movement it is a method for relaxation, stress reduction and higher consciousness. It has been variously characterized by sociologists and scholars as religious and non-religious. The response of governmental agencies to Transcendental Meditation has varied depending on the specific time period and country.
• Comments?? Suggestions??-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I really appreciate your focus on this, and for always going through the drudge work of drafting revisions and getting consensus on new versions. I very much agree with your apt comments in the thread above that we shouldn't be introducing unfamiliar terms in the lead. I think your draft is good. But I want to pick on a couple things. First: "Skeptics question its scientific value...." It doesn't quite make sense to me to say that a meditation technique has, or doesn't have, scientific value. A theory or an empirical study can have scientific value. Meditation is just meditation. Also, if this statement relates to scientific research on TM, it doesn't really make any difference what skeptics say. What matters is what peer-reviewed research reviews say. This sentence in no represents a summary of those research reviews. An accurate summary is already in the lead in the fourth paragraph. This clause is, I believe, the legacy of some text that had been in the lead that cited skeptic James Randi's website, which questions whether the Science of Creative Intelligence is a science.

In addition, the second clause in the same sentence is also problematic: "but according to the Transcendental Meditation movement it is a method for relaxation, stress reduction and higher consciousness." It makes it sound as if this view is only asserted by the Transcendental Meditation movement. But in fact it's also the view of a number of independent researchers (e.g. Noel Bairey-Merz, one of nation's leading cardiologists) and also the predominant view in the mainstream media that TM is a method for relaxation and stress reduction. The claim of higher consciousness is most often expressed by the TM movement, but even that has been covered in independent research reviews that have examined the several studies on individuals having experience of higher states of consciousness.

I think the sentence could simply be: "It is said to be a method for relaxation and stress reduction, and also possibly for achieving higher consciousness." TimidGuy (talk) 11:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I think your points are good and I like the idea of simplifying and then giving details and finer points on these issues in the body.

Regarding the 'scientific value'...... maybe we should say something like: "skeptics question the validity of TM's scientific research and its purported benefits"

Regarding your new sentence....... I think the benefits of relaxation and stress reduction are widely verified and understood. But the this idea of achieving higher consciousness is not so easily understood or verified. For example there is the research you've mentioned and its interpretations,potential criticisms, claims made by the TM movement, teachings of higher states of consciousness such as the Maharishi's writings. So its a big and somewhat nebulous and complex claim. It may be better to leave it out of the lead and just say: "It is said to be a method for relaxation and stress reduction.

Maybe simple is best-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Good point about leaving out higher states of consciousness. I agree. But we shouldn't say "skeptics question the validity of TM's scientific research and its purported benefits". My feeling is, per policy, it's not relevant what skeptics say. What matters is what's said in research reviews and medical textbooks. We have an accurately stated paragraph on the research (the fourth paragraph of the lead). We don't need to also say something about the research in the third paragraph -- especially such a skewed point of view. TimidGuy (talk) 10:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, then I propose this revised version:

• The TM technique involves the use of a sound or mantra and is practiced for 15–20 minutes twice per day. It is taught by certified teachers through a standard course of instruction and fees vary by country. According to the Transcendental Meditation movement it is a method for relaxation, stress reduction and self development. It has been variously characterized by sociologists and scholars as religious and non-religious. The response of governmental agencies to Transcendental Meditation has varied depending on the specific time period and country.

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: 1st para in this thread--you're right, I didn't realize that this very fruitful conversation was going on while I was making changes. Will tune into this page first in future! Good observations that the part about skeptics questioning TM's scientific value seems to have originated in the TM technique article, when skeptics were actually being skeptical about Science of Creative Intelligence, the theory behind TM. So it seems a good idea to straighten that out here. EMP (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Keithbob, I like your latest version. I think it meets the concerns I had. The only question might be the last sentence, which doesn't really say much. We could maybe indicate a range: "The response of governmental agencies has ranged from TM being disallowed in New Jersey public schools to government support for TM schools and for research, and to the governments themselves practicing TM. TimidGuy (talk) 11:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds OK but let's break this down so we know what we are referring to and how it needs to be sourced:

1. The response of governmental agencies has ranged from TM being disallowed in New Jersey public schools (Malnak)
2. to government support for TM schools (does this refer to govt educational grants for MUM? or?)
3. and for research, (OK, NIH funding for research)
4. and to the governments themselves practicing TM. (Chissano?)

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Schools: the British government supports a school in the UK (amply documented in third-party sources); governments in South America are supporting TM in schools (we'd have to use self-published web sources for this, unless you would happen to speak Spanish and could Google Spanish-language newspapers). Research: NIH funding (ample reliable sources). Governments themselves: Mozambique (a number of newspapers have covered this); Dilma Rousseff, president of Brazil (third-party source for this). TimidGuy (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Alright, as long as you have sources for the items you've listed.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

There's a source for Rousseff in the list of TM practitioners. I believe you've added sources for the UK school in the past. We'd have to use Global Good News for the South America schools. There are a couple excellent reports in major newspapers about Mozambique cited in the Chissano article. And we have several sources for NIH funding, in particular the research review by Dakwar used in the TM research article. Should I assemble these? TimidGuy (talk) 11:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes please assemble them I think cites are important here. Also I'd like suggest a final tweak or two when its all assembled with citations.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's the proposed sentence, with refs:

The response of governments has ranged from TM being disallowed in New Jersey public schools to government support for TM schools and for research , and to the government officials themselves practicing TM.

Please let me know what you think. TimidGuy (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

My expanded version:

The response of governments has ranged from strong European criticism and its 1977 prohibition in New Jersey, USA public schools to USA support for TM in educational and social programs funding for research, and government officials learning the practice.

NOTE: According to the Jefferson source above: In the 1970s, courses in the TM technique were conducted at 47 military installations around the world (including eight in the U.S.), with 150 enrolling in the course at the West Point military academy. The TM technique was also taught at five U.S. federal prisons, and three in Germany and Canada. During this period, ten U.S. Senators and more than 100 Congressional staff members learned the technique. (this is not a direct quote)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

This is excellent, and much more informative than the original sentence. Let's use it. TimidGuy (talk) 11:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to summarize below, since this is a long thread-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Summary of proposed revisions for the 3rd paragraph

• Current version of the third paragraph of the lead:
  • The TM technique involves the use of a sound or mantra and is practiced for 15–20 minutes twice per day. It is taught by certified teachers through a standard course of instruction but fees vary by country. It is said to be a means of relaxation and stress reduction. Skeptics question its scientific value while proponents say that Transcendental Meditation research indicates improved health, creativity, intelligence, and a positive influence on society. In 1977, a U.S. district court ruled that a curriculum in TM and the Science of Creative Intelligence that was being taught in some New Jersey schools was religious in nature and in violation of the First Amendment.[6][7][5] The Transcendental Meditation technique has been variously described by sociologists and religious scholars as religious and non-religious. The characterizations and responses to the TM technique by governmental agencies has varied depending on the time period, specific agency, and country of origin.
• Revised version per consensus in thread above:
  • The TM technique involves the use of a sound or mantra and is practiced for 15–20 minutes twice per day. It is taught by certified teachers through a standard course of instruction and fees vary by country. According to the Transcendental Meditation movement it is a method for relaxation, stress reduction and self development. It has been variously characterized by sociologists and scholars as religious and non-religious. The response of governments has ranged from strong European criticism and its 1977 prohibition in New Jersey, USA public schools to USA support for TM in educational and social programs, funding for research, and government officials learning the practice.
• Does anyone object to this change?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks good. Maybe say "government officials and heads of state". TimidGuy (talk) 11:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

It's tighter--more in keeping with the length that is appropriate for the intro section--and balanced also. EMP (talk 16:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the "strong European criticism" statement, the source only mentions the German government. This article in the SF Chronicle was written in 1995, and in 1996 the German government reversed itself, as we note in the TM technique article. By the way, the URL for the SF Chronicle didn't work for me. Here's a current URL.[8] TimidGuy (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

After all our work and discussion, and after your going to the effort to come up with a version of the final sentence of the third paragraph that satisfies everyone, I'm reminded that a lead should be a summary of an article's content. We're adding material about government responses that's not in the body of the article. Darn. I think we should go ahead with the version of the third paragraph that we had consensus on:

The TM technique involves the use of a sound or mantra and is practiced for 15–20 minutes twice per day. It is taught by certified teachers through a standard course of instruction and fees vary by country. According to the Transcendental Meditation movement it is a method for relaxation, stress reduction and self development. It has been variously characterized by sociologists and scholars as religious and non-religious. The response of governmental agencies to Transcendental Meditation has varied depending on the specific time period and country.

I think we should go ahead and put this in the article. TimidGuy (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

You are right, good catch. I say go ahead with the prior consensus version you have listed above. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Malnak, per the suggestion of an uninvolved editor, we're making the lead more general and are removing specific mention, since that applied to just one state in just one country and involved just one issue. There have been other court decisions, such as Hendel and Kropinski. Rather than just remove Malnak, should we add a general statement about courts? As follows: "The response of governments and courts has varied depending on the specific time period and country." Or we could just say, "The response of governments and courts has varied." Or maybe that gives the wrong impression, as if there have been a lot of court cases. But I think there have only been those three. And, tangentially, the German court case. Or we could add Malnak to the religion sentence: "It has been variously characterized by sociologists, scholars, and a court case as religious and non-religious." TimidGuy (talk) 11:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I'm inclined toward toward the latter suggestion. TimidGuy (talk) 11:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

We should summarize what's in the article. Are those points mentioned? If so, then yes we can include a sentence on that.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The article only has this relevant material: "Beginning in 1965, the Transcendental Meditation technique was incorporated into selected institutional programs such as schools, universities and corporations, as well as social programs aimed at veterans, prison inmates and the homeless. In 1977, a U.S. district court ruled that a curriculum in TM and the Science of Creative Intelligence that was being taught in some New Jersey schools was religious in nature and in violation of the First Amendment.[48][49][5] The technique has since been included in educational and social programs worldwide. The Transcendental Meditation technique has been described as both religious and non religious, as an aspect of a New Religious Movement, as having roots in Hinduism, and by the TM movement as scientific and non-religious."

Here's what I propose:

The TM technique involves the use of a sound or mantra and is practiced for 15–20 minutes twice per day. It is taught by certified teachers through a standard course of instruction and fees vary by country. According to the Transcendental Meditation movement it is a method for relaxation, stress reduction and self development. It has been variously characterized by sociologists, scholars, and a New Jersey court case as religious and non-religious. The response of governmental agencies to Transcendental Meditation has varied depending on the specific time period and country.

What do you think? TimidGuy (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Its good bit I suggest the following change to the last sentence:

Governmental agencieshave criticized and supported the Transcendental Meditation program depending on the specific time period and country

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Good suggestion. If there are no objections, I'll go ahead and add it in a couple days. TimidGuy (talk) 11:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

TG made the change so this thread is  Done -- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Parking promo text removed from Research section

• Practitioners of the Transcendental Meditation technique (TM) claim that in its practice and results, the technique is distinguished from other types of meditation or self-development "by its naturalness, effortlessness and profound effectiveness"."The Transcendental Meditation program". TM.org. Retrieved 27 August 2011. The Transcendental Meditation technique is unlike any other form of meditation or self-development—in practice and results. The technique is distinguished by its naturalness, effortlessness and profound effectiveness.

I don't think it is appropriate for this article. If reworded it could possibly be used in the TM technique article if we got rid of the words: "claim" and "profound effectiveness". Comments? objections? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Why should it be removed? Just wonderin'(olive (talk) 15:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC))

I don't see that it's related to summarizing the research and agree that it shouldn't be in the research section of this article. TimidGuy (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Even in another section or WP article, to me it's too promo sounding, even though it's attributed to proponents. If there was an article on Comet cleanser, we probably would not have in the article that according to the company its cleanser is distinguished from other cleansers by its "potent formula and profound effectiveness". So it just seems un-encyclopedic to me in its current wording. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, good point. Maybe simply remove. TimidGuy (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I removed it when I started this thread and I'll just leave it out since there is not consensus to re-add it. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

NPOV tag

There is an NPOV tag at the top of the article that is dated November 2011. Per WP:TC "Their purposes are to foster improvement of the encyclopedia by alerting editors to changes that need to be made. Cleanup tags are meant to be temporary notices that result in the problem being fixed, not a permanent badge of shame to show that you disagree with the article or a method of warning the readers against the article." The tag was placed on the article by Timid Guy in August of 2011[9]. The date was then changed (not sure why) by Littleolive oil in November 201.1[10] If there are issues, it is time to express and discuss them here so the concern(s) can be addressed and the tag removed. Comments? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I added the tag and listed three NPOV issues with the lead on the Talk page. There was consensus among all parties that these issues needed to be addressed. They've now been addressed, and I feel that the lead complies with NPOV. TimidGuy (talk) 11:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you link us to the prior discussion? Thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

See this thread, and the several that follow it.[11] No one objected to addressing two of the three points that I raised. There was extended discussion of the third point. One party didn't agree on the latter point related to the summary of the science, but then he dropped out of the discussion and didn't respond to the counter evidence that was presented. Then this year additional systematic research reviews were published, one of which is cited. TimidGuy (talk) 11:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Looking over the prior discussion and the article edit history....... here is what I see:

• TimidGuy placed an NPOV tag on the article on August 14, 2012
• Doc James removed the NPOV tag on Oct 21, 2011. [12] but it was reverted by Littleolive oil [13]
• When TimidGuy add the NPOV tag he ID'd three problems with the lead summary of the article (see below) and he posted these three on the talk page:[14]
  • The statement in the lead regarding research excludes the fact that there are research reviews that have found health benefits and other effects beyond relaxation or health education
  • The characterization of TM as pseudoscience excludes the view that the research on TM is widely recognized as being scientific and that there are many studies in top medical and science journals, etc.
  • The characterization of TM as a religion excludes the view that it's not a religion

Over the past 5 months the lead paragraphs have undergone significant discussion [15] and have been slowly revised to more accurately reflect the content in the body of this 'parent' TM article which consists of the four lead summaries from its 'child' articles (TM, TMM, TMR and History). And it seems now that these three issues raised by TimidGuy have been addressed and the NPOV tag could be removed. Any objections from other editors? Olive do you agree? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with removing the tag.(olive (talk) 04:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC))

IMO it's appropriate to remove the tag but I have a question about this sentence: "It has been variously characterized by sociologists, scholars, and a New Jersey court case as religious and non-religious." IMO reading this seems to say that the NJ court has characterized TM as both religious and nonreligious, which so far as I have read, is not true. What about: "TM has been variously characterized. A New Jersey court case said TM is religious. Sociologists and scholars have described the program as both religious and nonreligious." Or something along these lines?Coaster92 (talk) 07:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing this. I, too, had realized that issue. But I felt it was appropriate wording. Malnak v Yogi said that a curriculum in SCI/TM wasn't a theistic religion, and recognized facets of it that aren't religion-like. Whatever we decide, we should always be clear that SCI was more at issue than TM and that the ruling was in reference to a curriculum in SCI/TM. Several law journal articles about Malnak, including one by Lawrence Tribe, say that it remains to be tested in courts whether TM itself is a religion. TimidGuy (talk) 12:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the current sentence is awkward. If Coaster, can combine TG's points into his/her version I think that would be an improvement.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Considering TimidGuys' point and clarification, it does look like the sentence would be appropriate. Perhaps the word "described" would be a good alternative to "characterized." What do others think about that one edit?Coaster92 (talk) 04:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Coaster. Yes, "described" seems a good choice. TimidGuy (talk) 16:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm finding the New Jersey court case text still a concern. I think it could be because we are making a generalization per sources but then adding a specific instance, which within the instance itself describes TM/SCI both religious and non religious. So what we have is a kind of run on sentence. Also, the end result of the court case if I remember distinctly labels TM as religious for purposes of the 1st Amendment, so the text as it reads now doesn't seem accurate. (olive (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC))

• I've read this text over and over and it feels awkward, but I guess it could be OK. The alternative would have to be longer and slightly more explanatory added below using TG's comments. I'm OK with either. Both have advantages and disadvantages so its a tossup in my mind. (olive (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC))

The technique has been variously described by sociologists, scholars as religious and as non-religious while a New Jersey court case said that a curriculum in SCI/TM wasn't a theistic religion, recognized facets of it that aren't religion while at the same time ruled TM/SCI was religious in nature

In-Line attribution

I think these statements are opinion and should be inline attributed rather than appearing in Wikipedia's voice. Any thoughts on that?(olive (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC))

TM research has played a role in the history of mind-body medicine[69][70] and helped create a new field of neuroscience.[71]

Yes, and I would even take it a step further and say that it should be moved to the body of the TMR article and out of the lead of the TMR article. I think that the sources provided don't make a clear case that these views are widespread enough that belong in the lead of the TMR article and hence the TMR section of this article. However, the sources are solid enough to support an attributed sentence in the body of the TMR article. But inclusion in the lead as a main point doesn't seem appropriate to me.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that move Kbob.(olive (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC))

Repetitive content

Per this discussion:[16]. the exact content appears in this article three times. I would remove it from the lead and the technique section and leave it in the research section.(olive (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC))

I would agree, assuming the consensus at the other discussion is to remove it from the lead of that article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the connection. This is the more general of the two articles so its lead could be more general. This is more general, "TM is one of the most widely practiced, and among the most widely researched meditation techniques."[8][9][10][11] than this,TM is one of the most widely practiced, and among the most widely researched meditation techniques.[8][9][10][11] Research reviews of the effects of the Transcendental Meditation technique show results ranging from inconclusive [12][13][14][15] to clinically significant.[16][17][18][19][20] I'd like to see the technique article which is more specific have both sentences in the lead while this article could do well with just the first sentence.(olive (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC))

• • Right now this sentence appears 7 times in the TM articles (below). I realize that it replaced inaccurate text, but now I think we have to look at this and see where we can either replace some appearances of this text or remove it altogether.

TM technique : Lead

TM technique: Research [17]

TM movement: TM section [18]

Transcendental Meditation: Lead

Transcendental Meditation: Technique section [19]

Transcendental Meditation: Research section [20]

Transcendental Meditation research: Lead

I agree that this sentence appears too many times in these articles. However, I’d like to suggest a slightly different angle on how to remedy this. I’d suggest axing it in the technique section of this article and in the lead of the TM technique article, while retaining it in the lead of this article. I think it is OK in the lead here because this is a general article, and I think the research on TM is quite a significant aspect of the subject, and so could logically be included in a general treatment of it. I think it could be dropped from the TM technique article lead (and TM technique section of this article), because I think the proper subject matter of that article is the TM technique and closely related issues, such as its manner of instruction, its theoretical underpinnings, where it is taught, etc. I look at the research on TM a less appropriate to this topic area. I have no problem with a short section on research, because the question naturally arises when considering the technique, is it practical in a concrete sense, and if so, how? But mention in the lead of TM technique doesn't seem as appropriate as it is here. Re: TM movement article: I have no problem with its occurrence there, because I think it is as worthy of mention as the concerns that some have raised with the use of scientific endorsement as a marketing tool. The question naturally arises, if used as a marketing tool, is there any basis for that? The sentence adds a significant perspective in that context.EMP (talk 22:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a good analysis. I propose as a first step that we go ahead and remove it from the TM technique section of this article and the lead of the TM technique article. TimidGuy (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyone object to this? If not, I'll go ahead. EMP (talk 20:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Transcendental Meditation/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Articleye (talk · contribs) 04:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Suggestion to postpone GA review

Sorry Olive, I was unaware of your plans to submit this for GA review and I'd like to suggest that this review be postponed as the article is not ready. As you know the content here consists of the lead sections of its "child" articles. A while ago I placed a Lead Rewrite tag on the TM movement article and the improvements to the lead are still underway and under discussion. As soon as those changes and discussions are complete then I plan to bring forward those changes to this article as agreed in prior talk page discussion. The current TM movement section in this article, is not a full summary of the child article and has some undue weight issues as well. Again, sorry for this mix up but I think its best to postpone and start another GA review later. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Another editor feels the refs could be worked on, too, and with that in mind I delisted.(olive (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC))

I think that's best. Another thing that needs work is the section on TM Research. The lead for the child article TM Research has had significant changes in recent weeks that haven't been carried forward here including the removal of this sentence: Research on the Transcendental Meditation technique has been recognized as playing a significant role in the history of mind-body medicine, and helpful in the creation of a new field of neuroscience. [21] which gave undue weight to facts not widely reported. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Good to have this feedback. Thanks.(olive (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC))

It looks as if the review will continue anyway, so we can make the changes later or even now I suppose. Sorry, I should have left you a note on your talk page before I asked for the review to see if you or anyone else had things to clean up. I have a few refs to standardize, too. I'll try and do them in the next few days. (olive (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC))

Hi! I would love to help improve this article. It seems like it was once nominated for good article but did not make it since it wasn't quite there yet. I know this conversation is old, but I see that the article is still B-class. Curious to see if there's anything specific I can get started with. Whitestar12 (talk) 04:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Use of Wayback Machine as a source

Ref 51 cites a defunct page now archived on the Web Archive project.[22] The referenced page is a paper by two undergraduate students at the University of Virginia in a sophomore-level course. It has a number of errors, such as saying that the Malnak decision was appealed to the New Jersey State Supreme Court. It doesn't seem like we should be using this page as a source. TimidGuy (talk) 12:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't see that a paper by undergraduates (and sophomores) is a RS, let alone if there are known errors in the content which points to a possible lack of experiecne on the researchers part. While we can excuse and perhaps expect errors in students this is an encyclopedia and we don't have any excuses for using less than a RS.(olive (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC))

Thanks. It's also redundant. It's one of several sources used to support the point. TimidGuy (talk) 11:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to keep the ref. The content stays and its sourced to other refs, so I'd remove this redundant, non RS ref. (olive (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC))

 Done TimidGuy (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete ref

This ref doesn't have the article title or page number, and I'm not sure how we'd find it:

Travis, Frederick; Chawkin, Ken (Sept–Oct, 2003). New Life magazine.

Should we maybe just delete it, since there are several other citations supporting that assertion that TM is one of the most researched meditation techniques? TimidGuy (talk) 11:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

If we can't find it its not much of a ref/source., and certainly not useful to readers. I'm fine with removing it.(olive (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC))

That repetitive sentence on research (cont.)

Re: "Repetive content" above: Olive raised an objection to repetitive content, and I responded, after one comment of support from TG, with a couple of edits. However, I now see that I did not read her objection carefully enough. She was referring to the use of TWO sentences in those places: 1) a more general statement about the amount of research on TM (340 studies), and 2) a heavily referenced sentence describing the results of the research as being sometimes inconclusive but sometimes clinically significant. She suggested removing the second sentence from the lead to this article, and referred to a total of seven places where this material is mentioned in the various TM articles. I proposed removing the second, heavily ref'd sentence from two places, the lead of the Transcendental Meditation technique article, and from the TM technique section of this article. After getting support from TG, I went ahead and made those two deletions.

Although at that time I suggested leaving the 2nd, heavily ref'd sentence in the lead to this article, I am now thinking that that Olive is right and that it could go. True, it is a general article and the research is an important part of the topic, but looking at it again, I think that the content of the sentence is too specific and detailed for the lead section of such a general article.

Would anyone object to this? Would anyone suggest that this sentence be removed from any more of the seven places listed by Olive above?

I'd like to suggest one further edit: I think the sentence with all the refs could also go from the 3rd instance mentioned above by Olive, the TM technique section of the TM Movement article. However, I'd like to see it transplanted into another section of the same article, the Marketing section (perhaps in the lead of that section) where there is a great deal of discussion of the TM Movement's use of scientific research as a tool to promote TM. There is little or no mention in this section of the status of the research on TM, whether it was substantial or whether it reported any useful results, or whether it was all manufactured by the organization without any scientific significance. This kind of info seems conspicously missing.

And what of the other, more general sentence? Would Olive or anyone else like to see it gone from any of these places? EMP (talk 00:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I think both suggestions are excellent. (Maybe manually move the refs for the heavily referenced sentence to the section below rather than wait for the bot to rescue them.) That sentence has too much detail for the lead of this article. Retaining the more general sentence in the lead is appropriate. TimidGuy (talk) 11:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I like what's been done so far and I agree the sentence in the lead of this article about the research results is too specific for the lead. However, in general I"m finding the discussion about other articles confusing and hard to follow and suggest that discussions about other articles take place on their respective talk pages. — Keithbob • Talk • 16:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for suggn on moving the refs. EMP (talk 20:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)