Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:40, 13 September 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Transcendental Meditation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Alternative medicine Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Religion: New religious movements Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as High-importance).

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Transcendental Meditation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Studies and Scientific/Medical Literature On The Adverse Effects Of TM

I have added this section - the first in series of additions I would like to make to the research section - due to my long held -and stated here - belief, that the research section is not only highly unbalanced but to "pro" TM with any criticism of the research quickly removed. In this new section all of the studies are from reliable sources and are specific to TM.

I shall be investigation this area further and making additions to each section as necessary. One will have to stay with me on this however, given time restraints.

Ed: Sorry, yes it was me. The7thdr (talk) 23:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding this section, 7th. However the studies you site have been debunked by David Orme-Johnson. A detailed analysis of the mentioned studies by Otis, Lazarus, etc. can be found at http://www.TruthAboutTM.org/truth/IndividualEffects/DoesTMDoAnyHarm/index.cfm. If we are going to add this section on adverse effects, then I would like to also include these discussions on the research by Orme-Johnson. Bigweeboy (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think an overall discussion of the research by Orme-Johnon and other MUM scholars would be a good idea. It's missing context now.   Will Beback  talk  18:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Are you willing to lead this, Will? --BwB (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I haven't done any research on TM and have too many other WP matters pending.   Will Beback  talk  00:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I can come up with a little something - in time :) Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

When we all get around to rewriting the Research section of the article, I suggest that we incorporate the "Adverse Effects" studies in the appropriate research section, rather than having a section all to itself. That way a reader can find the pros and con research in one specific subsection of the Research. We should avoid an "adverse effects" section just as we've studiously avoided a "benefits" section. --BwB (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There should be a ground rule that only research is cited that is 1)peer-reviewed, i.e., published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, 2) is actually about TM and not some other practice, 3) has not been found by a meditation research expert to be methodologically flawed. Sounds good? What other criteria? --|talk]]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sciencesays (talk • contribs) 01:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I propose to remove two entries here. The first, Otis, is not a peer reviewed study. There are hundreds of peer reviewed studies that should be added before we start adding non peer reviewed studies. The second is Persinger. This study claims to include some indefinite amount (65% to 70%) of practitioners of TM, purportedly as self reported by a questionnaire. The mixing of cohorts does not allow any suggested results of this questionnaire to be extended to apply to TM. Further, the lack of certainty here about even the exact percentage of the mix adds further doubt to the study's reliability and applicability to TM. Duedilly (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to get a copy of the Persinger study. What I've always wondered is why he says 65-70%. Doesn't he know exactly how many? If not, then that suggests there's some uncertainty in whether the respondents practice TM or another form of meditation. In addition, there's also a problem relying on a person's self report in regard to whether he or she is practicing TM. People sometimes learn the relaxation response or make up their own technique and think of it as TM. There's evidence that this self reporting is extremely unreliable. The public poll done in 1977 reported that 3% of the population in the U.S. practiced TM. But since the organization was closely tracking how many learned, it was possible to know whether that poll was relatively accurate. In fact, it was off by a huge amount -- as much as a factor of 10. At the time only a fraction of 1% had learned TM (and to this day it remains a fraction of 1%). TimidGuy (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Additions to the Lede

As you are all aware the purpose of the lead/lede in an article is to introduce and summarize the article as well as entice the reader to read further. At the present time our lede consists of only two sentences. A proper lede has 3-4 paragraphs and gives an encapsulation of the article topic/subject. For examples see these two recently featured articles here and here .

Here is my proposed text for the lede:

• The Transcendental Meditation technique, or TM technique, is a form of mantra meditation introduced worldwide in 1957 by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (1917-2008). It is reported to be the most widely researched and one of the most widely practiced meditation techniques. It is taught in a standardized seven step course by certified teachers. The technique involves the use of a sound or mantra and is practiced, while sitting down, for 15-20 minutes twice per day.

• In 1957 the Maharishi began a series of world tours during which he introduced and taught his meditation technique to thousands of people. In 1959 the Maharishi founded the International Meditation Society and began to train teachers of Transcendental Meditation. During the late 1960’s through the mid 1970’s, the Transcendental Meditation technique received significant public attention in the USA, especially amongst the student population. During this period a million people learned the Transcendental Meditation technique including well known public figures.

• Scores of studies performed on the technique have been published in scientific journals. The Transcendental Mediation technique has also received criticism from some scientists as well as authors of books on new religious movements and cults. In addition the TM technique has been involved in two lawsuits.

Please give your comments, suggestions etc. on this proposed content on this page. If you would like to edit the proposed content please go to my sandbox here and make any additions or edits that you like. After we have finalized the content I will locate appropriate sources already listed in the article and cite them in the lede. Thanks for you help and participation. -- — Kbob • Talk • 18:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Think it's good except for the 3rd paragraph. I do not feel we need the sentence on the law suits. --BwB (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Kbob, we do need to put some new information into the lede. The paragraphs you list are a good starting place. I will make some changes in your sandbox. I like the stepwise process, with chances for changes before the new material is inserted. These things may go more smoothly if we do not rush it too much. Give other editors a chance to contribute. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Made some edits in your sandbox. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Me too. --BwB (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Good edits, Anyone else have input or would like to make changes to the sandbox version here?-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Made a few more edits. If there is a better way to keep up with the latest version than what I used, let me know. ChemistryProf (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I have added the sentences from the lede from the last version in the sandbox. Editors may tweak as needed and if there are significant issues please start a new thread as I am closing this one now. Thanks for the cooperation and assistance.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Rework History Section

This coming week I will rework the History Section. I will post a draft version on the Talk page for feedback. One thing i want to do is remove the subsection titles such as "Popularity" in the History. Keep checking here of a version in the coming days. --BwB (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

A rough outline of the changes:

• 1. Propose new section titles by decades not topic
• 2. Propose revision of Popularity section
• 3. Propose addition of new material on other notable events --BwB (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I am removing this sentence from the "Origin" subsection. The sentence is completely out of context.

"Of "Guru Dev", the Maharishi wrote: "In the English Language, his devotees felt that the expression "His Holiness" did not adequately describe this personified Divine Effulgence; and so the new expression "His Divinity" was used. With such unique adoration of newer and fuller grandeur, transcending the glories of the expression of antiquity, was worshiped the holy name of Guru Deva, the living expression of Upanishadic Reality, the embodiment of the transcendent Divinity. " --BwB (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Would this information be more suitable in the Maharishi bio?   Will Beback  talk  20:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed the following sentence from the "Origin" subsection. The Beacon Light source has been discussed on the WP:COIN and a consensus reached that we should not use the Beacon Light quotes, and not use Beacon to introduce new points or analyses.

"In October, 1955 the Maharishi said that: "Thus, we find that any sound can serve our purpose of training the mind to become sharp. But, we do not select the sound at random....because such ordinary sounds can do nothing more than merely sharpening the mind; whereas there are some special sounds which have the additional efficacy of producing vibrations whose effects are found to be congenial to our way of life. This is the scientific reason why we do not select any words at random. For our practice, we select only the suitable mantras of personal Gods. Such mantras fetch to us the grace of personal Gods and make us happier in every walk of life." " --BwB (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Where is my head at today?! The sentence above was removed from the Principles section, not the Origin section. The Beacon was discussed on the WP:RSN page not the WP:COIN page. --BwB (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

That misrepresents the discussion at RSN.Fladrif (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we begin by removing the subsection titles in the History section? I have long felt that they are too specific and tend to limit the content. Can we just go by decade? This is how I have seen it done in many other articles. -- — Kbob • Talk • 19:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I support that move.   Will Beback  talk  20:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I, too, support changing the History headings to chronological ones. I agree with the intention to improve other aspects of this section, as long as the steps go at a pace that allows input from several editors. I agree with Will Beback that the Maharishi article would be a better place for the sentence on Guru Dev. The decision on the Beacon Light statement appears to be supported based on a the recent discussion on the WP:RSN page. I hope the further changes will be at a slower pace, so those of us who have limited time each day can be involved in the decisions. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Chem we will move a t a leisurely pace. Happy to have your involvement. --BwB (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Per what appears to be consensus on this issue of chronology, I have very slowly, very leisurely, while sipping tea and listening to soft jazz, changed the subsection headings to decades instead of topics. I also move one sentence and split one sentence which was on the cusp of two decades. I must say it gives that section a much more professional look and makes it easier to read.-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

A very good start, Kbob. We can now continue to refine and hone this section. Thanks. --BwB (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Added a couple of sections on TM Teacher Training to 60's section. --BwB (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Added note about the training of 35,000 people in TM in Armenia in 1990. --BwB (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

What's the source?   Will Beback  talk  21:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Effect on the physiology

Suggest we remove the sentence "According to a 1984 article in the New York Times, fifteen years of research on multiple kinds of meditation techniques has left the question of meditation's physiological effects more confused than clarified. " from the end of the paragraph. Does not add much to discussion of TM research. --BwB (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting deleting other references to the effects of meditation on physiology? This seems like a fairly significant assertion in a mainstream source.   Will Beback  talk  19:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless this sentence references the TM technique specifically it belongs in an article on mediations in general. This sentence is lovely example of WP:OR

To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

...and its inclusion creates a kind of implied and incorrect synthesis of information. If research studies effects of TM on Physiology, and if studies on Physiology are confused rather than clarified then studies on TM are more confused than clarified. (olive (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC))

Yes, this was my thinking Olive, but you expressed the rational so clearly. This is a statement about "multiple kinds of meditation" and does not specifically apply to TM. Let's take it out. --BwB (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not a good-faith argument. The Time's article is specifically about David Holmes paper and the responses to that paper. As I am quite certain olive is well-aware, Holmes was specifically addressing Transcendental Meditation research in his paper. Fladrif (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:MEDRS, the Holmes paper should be cited, not the New York Times. That guideline says not to use popular media, unless it's as a convenience for the reader to go along with the citation to the scientific publication. We'd need to look at Holmes and see specifically what it says about TM. Also, we might want to include this followup article that appeared in American Psychologist responding to the Holmes review.. In fact, there were apparently a number of responses published over a period of several years. We should probably skip the NY Times and report the published literature, especially since the NY Times article is so dated. TimidGuy (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The New York Times article makes extensive reference to TM. If WP:MDRS is applied consistently to all aspects of this article then I don't object to deleting references to studies more than a few years old, including this one. Are we committed to treating TM as a purely medical topic?   Will Beback  talk  21:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly so. If this gets deleted, big sections of the research sections of this article - pro and con - should also come out with a meat-axe approach. There is a double-standard being applied here by the editors with ties to the TM_Org when it comes to WP:MEDRS. The backstory of the NY Times article is that there was a lengthly kerfluffle on the pages of American Psychologist which actually went on for several years. The article is a good summary of the state of the back-and-forth as of that point in time, and it is a much better source and approach for this article than trying to get into the details of every single back-and-forth, or getting into, as timidguy's suggestion boils down to, cherry-picking which of the original studies and articles we're going to summarize and how. I wasn't initially in favor of your idea of splitting off the TM research into a separate article, but once 7th did it, I see the merits of the suggestion. And this particular discussion here reinforces my convinction that you were right, and this article ought to say no more than a paragraph or two on the subject, and link to the new article.Fladrif (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

sheesh... hold on ...I'm noting the sentence in the article is OR and synthesis. I was not discussing the merits of the source. That's another discussion I wasn't part of at this point. Whatever the source says cite it in the article properly so its not OR or synthesis. At the same time per MEDRS the Holmes paper is in fact a more reliable source than the NYT. I don't see a policy called WP:MEATAXE. One thing at a time.(olive (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC))

I'm going to assume that you mean the sentence in the TM article, which isn't OR at all; the referenced portion of the NYTimes article states: "Fifteen years of research, however, has left the question of meditation's physiological effects more confused than clarified." Now, if I misunderstand you, and what you're really claiming is that the NYTimes article is OR, then I'm going to need a martini. Fladrif (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Better get the Martini. The sentence doesn't refer to TM . The source does yes, the sentence, no.... I don't see what the big deal is Fladrif . This is a technical point that deals with how something is placed in an article. This article isn't about meditation (general). Its about TM (specific). If used and there now seems to be question that it should be it needs to be used in a way that references the topic of the article specifically, TM, not meditation in general. That's just policy. A kaffuffle isn't research. You'd have to make some connection between the back door stuff you mention then put it in an appropriate place here. If the point is to cite the research as said above then cite the research rather than a newspaper article per MEDRS. I guess I'm missing the concern here.

To summarize the issues. (Unless I'm missing something):

• The sentence itself violates policy...
• The source is specific but that specificity isn't being employed here.
• The source describes something that may be significant (kaffuffle)
• If the source is being used to cite research then per MEDRS the study itself is more compliant.

Who wrote the above comment? Did someone forget to sign? -- — Kbob • Talk • 19:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're seriously trying to argue that the NY Times article constitutes OR, then you better reread OR. The policy is about editors doing original research. The sources cited can do all the original research they want to, and our job as editors is to accurately reflect what was said. The NY Times article is specifically about TM research, as is the Holmes paper being discussed in it. Given that the current language was something that, IIFC, KBob wrote after you, he and other editors with ties to the TM Org were unhappy with the prior language which cited this NYTimes article, and after a whole new section on "TM vs Rest", which was the "rebuttal" to Holmes, was welded into this article, I cannot assume, in light of the evidence to the contrary, that you are making this argument in good faith.Fladrif (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the applicability of MEDRS discussed above, I'd support generally following that guideline in this article. Note that MEDRS doesn't say that any study more than 3-5 years old should automatically be deleted. This guideline is really just common sense. Use the original study rather than the media reports. Prefer later research if it has superseded earlier research. Prefer meta-analyses if they have superseded individual studies. Regarding the specific issue at hand, the next step would be to get the Holmes study and see what it says. We want to make sure he doesn't pool data. If he does, then we can't say anything specifically about TM that the study doesn't itself specifically say. I do have a copy of the followup study by Dillbeck and Orme-Johnson. They did a meta-analysis of 31 studies that included studies reviewed by Holmes but also other studies and later studies. (Holmes's cutoff date was 2002, theirs was 2005.) They did find a difference in somatic arousal when comparing TM to rest. They also discussed the inherent weakness of the "vote counting" approach used by Holmes. TimidGuy (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Fladrif. How about we just agree we disagree. If you read my post again you'll see that I am not talking about the source in terms of OR. I am discussing the actual sentence in the article. You can't add a sentence like, dogs seem to bite when irritated to an article about Cocker Spaniels, even if a source on Cocker Spaniels concludes by saying dogs seem to bite when irritated. In doing so you are by implication saying Cocker Spaniels bite when irritated.. and first that's not what the source says... the source is making a generalization that may or may not refer to Cocker Spaniels, and second by adding it to an article on CS that general comment becomes an implied fact about CS. Both are jumps in information that are inaccurate. I'm trying to be clear but apparently not doing so well. Maybe I need a Martini. Oh wait, I don't like alcohol. Martini with olives,please Hold the Martini, just the olives .(olive (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC))

Whether citing this source or not is appropriate at the point in the article is a whole other issue and another discussion... and depends on whether it is being used to cite the research in which case as we all know and have mentioned in the past MEDRS comes into play.(olive (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC))

When I brought this whole topic up to delete the sentence, my thinking was that the "sentence" was out of place, and did not think about the quality of the source. I feel the sentence should be taken out because it is speaking about meditation in general, while this article is about TM in particular. We seem to be getting quite a heated debate here about a relatively small point. --BwB (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It does seem like it should be removed, per MEDRS. It could be replaced with Holmes and the meta-analysis done as a followup to Holmes. TimidGuy (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the sentence is out of place in the article. It is not about TM and removal is a good idea I think.-- — Kbob • Talk • 02:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

As per WP:RS, there are many relevant peer reviewed medical studies that should be included in the article, long before speculative comments from newspapers and magazines are added. In that regard, I plan to add medical studies published in reputable journals into the appropriate sections. Duedilly (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably should add Holmes in its place. TimidGuy (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Use of quotations

WP:QUOTE is an excellent discussion of how to use quotes — and how not to use them. In general, it reinforces the notion of the use of summary style and neutral tone in an encyclopedia article. I mention this because I feel like it may serve as a corrective to the way that quotes are sometimes used in the TM article. In particular, it says a Misplaced Pages editor should avoid quotations when "the quotation is being used to substitute rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias. This can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Misplaced Pages's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided." Also, regarding how to use quotations, it advises against standalone quotations: "Similarly, quotations should always be presented with an introduction; a stand-alone quotation is not a proper paragraph." And "Quotations should generally be worked into the article text, so as not to inhibit the pace, flow and organization of the article." And it advises against overusing quotations. TimidGuy (talk) 10:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. --BwB (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added the quote template to the article. It uses way too many quotes. And I suggest we follow the advice in WP:QUOTE. TimidGuy (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

New Lede Comments

Thanks for the work on the new Lede section. I do not think it necessary to include this sentence in the lede "The technique has also aroused controversy." I propose it be removed and the controversy issues can be raised in the bulk of the article. --BwB (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection.-- — Kbob • Talk • 02:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed the sentence. --BwB (talk) 16:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Reception Section

This section, which includes "Cult Issues" and "Relationship to Religion", now seems way out of balance with the rest of the article, especially Cult part. Do others feel we need to dedicate so much verbage to this? Perhaps it could be condensed? --BwB (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

At present 25% of the article is devoted to controversial issues surrounding TM. Is TM really that controversial? I don't think so.

If you look at the Reception section you will notice that the citations are primarily from a handful of cult and new religion authors. Their point of view should be included in the article but in proper proportion to the portrayal of TM by the mainstream media. At present 5-10 authors who specialize in cults and new religions are being given undue priority in comparison to the the hundreds of authors and news writers who have reported non-controversial aspects of TM.-- — Kbob • Talk • 03:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a false statement of what "Weight" means in a Wiki article, and is the flip side of the same specious argument repeatedly made to exclude or minimize any criticism of TM research or any research the conclusions of which are contrary to the positions of the TM Org. About half the article is about "Research", although nearly all of that is about research undertaken by people with direct ties to MUM and the TM Org. The fact that mainstream science and medicine virtually ignores TM and its claims, or that many of its claims are dubious and have been subject to criticism is buried under the "hundreds of studies" "peer reviewed publications" talking points. Yes, there are serious controversies concerning TM. They have been reported not only in the sources you characterize as specializing in "cults and new religions" but in mainstream news publications. That there are also hundreds or even thousands of articles which say nothing about the controversies is irrelevant to (i) whether there is a controversy and (ii) what is an appropriate amount of space devoted to it. And, I would note that in saying that 1/4 of the article deals with controversies, the actual text consists of roughly equal space devoted to "pro" and "con" on each particular controversy. Fladrif (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

For example, why is this study by the National Research Council Committee on Techniques for the Enhancement of Human Performance not being prominently featured both in the Research and the Religion section Fladrif (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Fladrif, if mainstream science ignores the research, then why is it published in top mainstream academic journals? Every article published in a peer-reviewed journal is assessed by a mainstream editor and two mainstream peer reviewers. In what sense are they ignoring this research if they're publishing it? And what makes the claims dubious? Science is science. Just because you don't agree with the result of a scientific study makes it dubious? These aren't talking points. This is research done in the way that research is done, and published in the literature in the way that research is published in the literature. At some point you're going to have to propose a metric regarding balance other than your intuition. I've suggested Google News as a metric, per WP:SET. And I think Google Scholar is a good metric for looking at balance in the academic literature. Both metrics give strong weight to the research. And the mainstream media largely give positive coverage to TM. The problem is that you try to skew the article to your point of view and in the process violate policies and insert errors and misrepresent sources. This has been documented. You enforce your point of view via edit warring and create a hostile environment not amenable to collaboration. You make no effort to achieve WP:CONSENSUS and don't engage in rational, logical discussion. As immediately above, you turn everything into Ad hominem and Red herring, both of which are logical fallacies. You're intelligent, and I think you could do better. TimidGuy (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream science ignores the research because (i) mainstream scientists are not, with very few exceptions, doing any research on TM. The overwhelming majority of this research is being done by a handful of people all with ties to MUM and the M Org. and (ii) virtually none of it ever gets cited in any other research other than again, by the same small circle of TM-sponsored researchers. Reread WP:SET because is specifically warns that Google News and Google Scholar are not appropriate for what you propose - trying to weigh the relative prominence of one. I have proposed a metric for the research portion of this article: use only the studies which per WP:MEDRS are regarded as the most reliable - and that would be the handful of metastudies published in peer-reviewed jounals which have done the job that the editors here are frankly incapable of doing - determining which of the "hundreds" of "peer reviewed" studies on meditation were properly conducted and appropriately documented, and then assess whether or not they show anything significant. And, I am happy to stand by my edits and my history of achieving consensus whereever and whenever other editors are actually interested in consensus. Fladrif (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem unfamiliar with how science works. Academic refereed journals take many tens of thousands of submissions each year. A small subset of those submissions are selected by the journals' publishers and editors, who themselves are typically recognized as experts in their journal's field of focus, for potential publication. The selected papers are then sent out for a detailed review to respected scientists who have been recognized for their publications in the subfield of the submitted paper. If the submitted research study is able to pass this critical peer review process, it is usually published. This is how science progresses. And acknowledging the careful academic filtering that this established process entails, Misplaced Pages looks to this peer review process for its highest level of reliable sourcing (WP:RS). Over the last 40 years there have been hundreds of peer reviewed research studies published on the physiology of TM. Every single one of these scientifically peer reviewed studies is considered higher RS than any publication that has not been peer reviewed (such as Otis), or which is not a study (such as Lazarus) or any popular (non-academically reviewed) newspaper, magazine or website articles. Any attempted indictment of the validity and the reliability (WP:RS) of these studies (which have already been reviewed to the highest[REDACTED] RS standard) is nothing more than irrelevant opinion and an inconsequential attempt at original research, which is not allowed here. Duedilly (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Duedilly’s point about peer reviewed research being more trustworthy, according to WP:RS guidelines, than any non-peer reviewed article, newspaper article etc. is an important one. It has long seemed clear that some editors’ insistence on inclusion of the weak claims by Otis, Lazarus, and others is motivated more by their bias against the TM technique than by any desire to produce a neutral article. Something needs to be done to correct this. Attention to better research articles is one way to approach it. ChemistryProf (talk) 11:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The Lede, 60's and 70's

Also not sure why we are giving such prominence to the 60's and 70's in the lede? --BwB (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The lede was written to reflect the emphasis in the article. Later if we expand the History section to include more info about the 80's and 90's than we can amend the lede to reflect these additions. But right now the 60's and 70's stand out.-- — Kbob • Talk • 02:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious why the 60's and 70's are most prominent. After the collapse of TM as a mass-market product in the mid to late-70's, the TM Org became significantly more inward-focused, placing more emphasis on selling training "advanced" techniques and products such as TM-Sidhi, and yet more esoteric and controversial beliefs and practices about which the public and popular press is little aware. Since the editors with ties to the TM Org have succeeded over the years in pushing those aspects of TM off the pages of this article, insisting that this article needs to be about the "technique" only,(while simultaneously insisting that nothing that is not straight off the pages of "official" publications about the technique must be deleted) that doesn't leave much to say about TM in the late 70's onward, does it?Fladrif (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Cult Issues Section

In this section we have the sentence:

"Steve Hassan, author of several books on cults, and at one time a CAN deprogrammer, said in the same press conference that those who practice the Transcendental Meditation technique display cult-like behaviors." The reference for this is an article in the Washington Post (Group Says Movement a Cult, The Washington Post, Phil McCombs, July 2, 1987).

The only mention of Hassan in the article is the following quote:

"They want you to dress and think and speak in a certain way and not to ask questions," said Steven Hassan, a former follower of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon who has studied cults for a decade. "They go into hypnotic trances and shut off who they are as a person."

I am not sure how we can take this sentence and then come to the conclusion presented in the TM article that "those who practice the Transcendental Meditation technique display cult-like behaviors." This is a huge generalization from Hassan's statement. I propose that sentence be removed. What do others think? --BwB (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed above text. --BwB (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry BWB. I missed this or forgot about your concern. I think we need something in the article on cult, and this is a legitimate source. The points are a summary of the Post. I agree there is some extrapolation. We could to be more accurate and include Hassan's words as direct quotes. Since the article is already overloaded with quotes I'd orefer to stay with what's was in place, and which I just reverted.(olive (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

I could certainly be wrong on this so open for further discussion.(olive (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

I did look again at the section and I think you're right. It might be fine to remove this little bit. There seems to be a lot of material that comes from sources that specifically mention cult and TM, so I'd say we could remove this. Sorry for my hasty deletion.(olive (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

No problem, Olive. There are many threads running on this article and easy to miss some points. The Cult section need some serious overhaul. --BwB (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Further down this section, in the second-to-last paragraph, we find the sentence:

"Only those who clearly display their commitment and also belief in the movement - by employing its rhetoric and conceptual vocabulary."

This sentence seems to say nothing and go nowhere. Perhaps it can be removed? --BwB (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

REMOVED above sentence. --BwB (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

i dont understand why the WaPo material was removed. I've gone back to the source and added more material from it.   Will Beback  talk  21:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

ROTFL..Nice One... castle to bishop.. Is that a little weighty in terms of one source, perchance? Adds context though, one of my concerns and no longer extrapolates.(olive (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

I've removed the heading, since this is a continuation of the same thread. The WaPo article contains a lot of information on the cult topic. Three sentences doesn't appear to be undue at all. There's more from the source we could add as well. If weight is really a concern we can move this material over to the article on the movement.   Will Beback  talk  22:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the "dumping" article.(olive (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

The wording which I think was mine originally was probably OR which I see now, but didn't in my earlier days on Misplaced Pages. There seemed to be lots of material in the section and this was an extrapolation rather than an accurate reference. I initially reverted the deletion but later felt there was enough well sourced material in the section with out it. You've add a lot of material, so the section probably needs a good session of scrutiny to see how things are in terms of WP:WEIGHT.(olive (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

We are under no contract to use as much of any source as possible because there's lots of it, we are however per Misplaced Pages, guided to include material per its ratio to the article as a whole and per its significance to the topic of the article which is not weighted per anyone 's opinion of what that weight might be.(olive (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

We are required to include all significant points of view, with the weight proportionate to their prominence.   Will Beback  talk  22:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The point of view has a hefty presence. We'll need to make sure not too hefty.(olive (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

If this article is solely about a meditation technique, then the cult allegations are entirely off-topic as is half of the article. That's why we need an article about the movement as a whole. I'll start drafting one next week.   Will Beback  talk  22:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Wherever cult ends up "weight" will have to be considered. In drafting your new article you might keep in mind how Misplaced Pages views the word "cult". (olive (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

Misplaced Pages isn't a source. You're proably thinking of WP:WTA. The idea there is that we shouldn't describe groups as cults when usiung the editorial voice. It doesn't restrict the coverage of cilt allegations. Like any article, a movement article should verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view.   Will Beback  talk  22:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

An article on the TM movement will be an interesting undertaking - almost 60 years of activity, numerous programs, world-wide influence, pros and cons. FUN!! --BwB (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Mozambique

Perhaps something could be added to the article about the practice of TM in Mozambique? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/22/jamesastill --Uncreated (talk) 09:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes this is a good idea. And this article provides some good data and quotes. --BwB (talk) 13:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Mantra to reception section

Will originally suggested that the mantra used in the TM technique was a controversial issue, so I've moved the material to the reception section where it more obviously belongs. (olive (talk) 01:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC))

Aren't mantras pretty much central to this technique? It'd be better to have the section on mantras cover al aspects, not just the criticism. Isn't there any non-critical material related to the topic?   Will Beback  talk  03:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Transcendental Meditation is based on a natural tendency of the mind to go inward. In a sense, this is what's central. The mantra is used to initiate this inward direction, but the mantra isn't a focus. It's not unusual that during much of the practice, the person isn't aware of the mantra. The mantra is simply a meaningless sound used as a vehicle to prompt the inward direction of the mind. TimidGuy (talk) 10:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, but mantras aren't reception. They are, as TG says, the vehicle for TM. I'm going to move the material back.   Will Beback  talk  16:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Opinion needed

Leave Mantra in the Principles section or

Move Mantra to the reception section

Please read the discussion on this topic before you leave an opinion. Thanks

Reception refers to controversy, and you yourself wanted mantras in the article because their use was controversial. The controversial aspects of the mantra use have nothing to do with the use of the mantra in the actual process. How the mantra is selected and what the mantra's sound is or refers to, is the controversy. I'd like to ask for input and consensus on this from other editors. I don't think this is a critical edit in that anything is being added or removed so I think its fair leave it to an agreement from the editors here on how to deal with this.(olive (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC))

The scientific studies have also caused controversy. There are controversial aspects about every part of TM.   Will Beback  talk  18:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Will is right. Taking olive's and timidguy's position to their logical conclusion, everything about TM belongs in "Reception", which is Misplaced Pages's code word for "Controversy" because everything about TM is controversial. But, that is an absurd basis on which to organize an article. Information on the mantras belongs in Principles, right up near the beginning where it was.Fladrif (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• In fact despite Fladrif's stated position on TM, aspects of the article that just lay out information are not controversial. Can we extrapolate controversy from that information, sure. That a mantra is used in the technique and the technique is taught a certain way is not controversial . Extrapolations on that process and use of part of the technique have raised controversy. I am supporting moving controversy into one section of the article and leaving the base line non controversial information on how the technique is taught separate from that. The article is already set up to separate out controversy. I've added a bullet to Flad's post to make sure its clear that it states his position. Hope that's OK. (olive (talk) 19:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC))

Yes. The bullet point is fine. But, given that several editors asserted that something as simple as whether MMY started teaching TM in 1955 or 1957 was controversial, I'm not sure what information in the article isn't controversial at least to somebody. Fladrif (talk) 19:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

For once, I'm in at least half agreement with Fladrif. The basic principle of how the mantras are used should remain under Principles, but the controversial aspects belong under Reception. It does seem that someone (and often it is just that, one or two people) has stirred up controversy over practically every aspect of the Transcendental Meditation program. That controversy should be mentioned in the article, even if it is not a widely held opinion. However, it should be made as clear as possible just how limited or widespread the controversy is. If there are no direct sources with which to make that comparison, then the only way to make it clear is to include more from the large number of sources who mention no controversy. In that regard, the article at present is highly imbalanced toward controversy. ChemistryProf (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Chem, Could you specifically state where you see that division occurring in the present text?(olive (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC))

I am OK to leave the Mantra stuff where it is in the Principal section. However, I am not at all convinced that the information is presented in the best way. The points jump around and one is not sure what is being said or what the principals of the technique are. So I want to see the text cleaned up and organized better. And, yes, there are controversial elements in the text that also need to be addressed. But OK to have text in Principal section about the mantra that is appropriate there. --BwB (talk) 00:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Responding to olive's question, I had not read that section for a while. It has changed substantially, and I agree with BwB that it is now highly disjointed. It's a mish-mash of ideas and is not currently presented as a controversy in the sense we are used to seeing, nor is it presented as a description of principles. I am particularly puzzled at some editors's choice to list what are purported by a disaffected teacher to be the mantras used in the TM technique. What is the point of that? If this source is correct, what is the value of seeing these enumerated? If the source is wrong, then why spread this disinformation? Could it be that the editor who placed this material there sought to sew confusion and doubt in the minds of those who practice the technique? That's what it seems like to me.

The whole section needs considerable work just to see what is principle and what is controversy. What I favor, for all WP articles except in the rarest of circumstances, is separation of the controversial issues and discussions from the non-controversial ones. There are many reasons for doing that, but this is not the time or place to enumerate them. The first step, based on the current material, is to sort it out into what is controversial and what is not. That needs to be done regardless of where the controversial material is presented. Once that has been done, then my preference is to keep the accepted principles where they are and to move the discussion of controversies to a separate section. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this is a fine spot to say why you think that all articles on Misplaced Pages should separate the controversies from the rest of the material since that is what you want to do here. There's also a movement to integrate critical materila into articles rather than segregating it, so there are views on both sides.   Will Beback  talk  04:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think ChemistryProf makes an important point: regardless of where the material goes, we have to make clear that the deity thing is not a principle of the technique but a matter of controversy. The principle of the technique is that the mantras are meaningless sounds. As Shear explains in his book, the technique wouldn't work if the mantra had meaning, since then the mind would remain on the level of the intellect rather than transcend to a deeper level. That's the principle. (By the way, I just noticed that passage from Beacon doesn't say that the mantras are the names of deities. It uses "of," suggesting that these sounds are used by deities. Also, do we know whether this is a translation from Hindi?) TimidGuy (talk) 11:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's the problem. That doesn't appear to be the principle of the technique at all. The "official line" is not, if you read carefully, that the sounds are meaningless. The "official line" is that the sounds are specifically selected for their effect, and that, in instructing new TM students, no meaning is assigned to the sounds. Not telling a student the meaning of a mantra is a very different thing from saying the mantra is meaningless. And, it is clear from the sources that both the teachers of the technique, as well as students of advanced techniques, are well aware of the meaning of the mantras.Fladrif (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Getting back to the issue at hand. Let's rework the current text in the Principal section. We can leave what is agreed as appropriate in this section, and then move any controversy to the Reception part (or both in the one section as Will suggests). Perhaps this will get a little "messy", so lets set up a sandbox for the new Principles section, and allow editors to work on it there. Let's try to be patient as we go along. We can take our time to try and get it right together. --BwB (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The issues are based on understanding of what delineates the principles from the more controversial aspects. Unless we have a base line of common understanding chances of agreement are less.. Agreement seems to be to leave mantra content in place but with some editors suggesting we move what might be controversial. Is that correct, and is there agreement on that? (olive (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC))

Oh and not meaning to cutoff BWB... just finishing what I started.(olive (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC))

Yes, I think Fladrif's reading is correct from the sources that I've seen -no meaning is attached to the sounds. My understanding is that whatever the sounds were originally connected to their usefulness was in their sound value alone, so the technique can be taught by using these sounds irrespective of whether meaning is attached to the sound or not. In fact attaching meaning to the sound is counter productive to the technique.

As an aside:

To put a western spin on this, the technique is based on the natural ability the brain has of shifting functioning modes. Artist/ actor/ dance teachers know that the so called logical thinking brain must give way to a more holistic brain to optimize work in these art forms. Logical thought, (and naming something falls into this category), gives way to other kinds of thought until another kind of brain functioning takes over. A well know acting exercise consists of walking around a room looking at objects and throwing out any word that comes to mind rather than naming the object. I teach both the visual and performing arts and there are multiple exercises used in these fields to move to a non logical thinking but more holistic style functioning. As I understand it the TM technique is based on, and the results parallel this natural ability or tendency the brain has to move beyond logical thinking to the more holistic awareness/ thinking mode. Of course the TM technique also takes the mind beyond all thinking altogether to the source of thought. I understand that the choice of sounds for certain kinds of people in TM facilitates the process, but knowing the logical meaning of the sound would be counterproductive to the process since it would cause logical thinking to occur just when we are trying to "transcend " that kind of thinking. As well, logical thinking is still possible, and artists actors and dancers are extraordinarily alert and aware, its just they they aren't relying on logic but on a more intuitive form of functioning. Logic is there, but it can take a back seat to the more holistic. I'm not a TM teacher but I've never seen literature that indicates anyone is ever told what the mantras mean ... and in fact I remember Markovsky saying in a document that may no longer be online because I can't find it, that the words could mean anything including wagon wheel, if I remember his example. Of course the advanced program, the TM Sidhi Program as we know from our own article uses sutras or threads so no gods there. .(olive (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC))

Fladrif, I'm not sure where you're getting your "official line." In fact, TM teachers aren't taught that the sounds have meaning. Also, at no time is someone who learns TM or receives an advanced TM technique told that the sound has meaning. If by "advanced techniques" you mean the TM-Sidhii program, please realize that that technique is fundamentally different from TM in terms of procedure. In Malnak the plaintiffs alleged that the mantras were the names of deities, but affidavits submitted by the defense clearly refuted that allegation, forcing the plaintiffs to drop it. In any case, the principle of the technique is that TM takes advantage of the natural tendency of the mind to go inward. And the mantra, which is, in Maharishi's words, a "word devoid of meaning," facilitates that process. We need to make clear what the principles are and elaborate on them, and make clear that the claim that the mantras are names of deities is not a principle of the technique but a matter of controversy. TimidGuy (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

My point , that the mantras are used independent of whatever meaning they might have comes from Shear (The Experience of Meditation) and as TG said is part of the debate about mantras. The official line has to be the Maharishis's quote and that should go into the actual "Principles of the technique" section. Shear also never says the mantras are the names of anything so that's a critical point in the debate on mantra.(olive (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC))

Good start on reworking the Mantra section, Olive. I will give it some thought and attention in the coming few days. --BwB (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Have we agreed that the first goal is to separate the official principles from the controversy? It seems as if some editors never want to agree on anything. This makes progress difficult. If we can at least agree on that one, then both the discussion and the improvement of the article can move forward. As for the reasons for separating controversy into its own section, those require an introduction just to be clear. That is why I suggested this might not be the place for it. But if anyone wants to have my take on it, I’m happy to give that, and I’ll keep it as short as possible without losing the meaning altogether.

WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia, is it not? What do people use encyclopedias for anyway? Don’t they want the information to be reliable? And in any area that is technical or requires special training, don’t they want the best knowledge of those who have the most experience and training in the field? This is certainly what I want when I use an encyclopedia. In my first use of Misplaced Pages, and anytime I use it at all, it is for looking up the meaning of some method or technique, or occasionally to learn about a person or some concept I don’t know. The Southern Blot technique comes to mind. This example is from some years ago. My biochemistry training dates back to an early time, when this term was not in use. To find out what it refers to, I put the term into my search engine, and the WP entry was one of the prominent ones to pop up. Now if I thought the definition I was reading had been written by people who had mostly only heard of the technique second or third hand, without having had personal experience with it, I would be skeptical of whatever they wrote. I would not know whether to take it seriously. Same goes for biographies. If I thought the material was mainly representing the views of some critics or others who might harbor a dislike for the person, then I would immediately leave that site for something more authentic. Having now participated in editing a number of articles, I have become highly skeptical of WP. I use it as little as possible, and always try to back up what I read here with some independent source. If this encyclopedia is going to last, and to be worthwhile, the rules may have to change.

Going back to the question at hand, to get any use from a WP article, the reader needs to know that some aspects are clear and non-controversial, and he or she needs to know which aspects are generally accepted by the practitioners or experts in the field and which are considered to be controversial. He or she needs to be able to read the accepted principles in the field and then any controversy. That way, they can begin to decide if the controversy is something relevant to their needs. Since editors do not usually announce their areas of specialization, and since the casual reader would not know which editor is responsible for which portion, segregating off accepted principles from controversy is a way to get across some basic information first, then, if relevant, to communicate some of the controversy. Placing the controversy under one section title, perhaps named “controversy,” to be clearest, would increase the usefulness and reliability of WP articles. The reader can then decide how much attention to pay to controversy. In this way, controversy will be useful to some, but not to others, and each person will not have trouble seeing what the controversy is about and to see its sources. This will allow for easy use of the encyclopedia. If controversial understandings are peppered throughout an article, especially without being labeled as such, the article becomes useless. So the reasons for a separation into separate sections can be listed as: increased clarity; increased usefulness to the reader; increased reliability; increased ability of the reader to judge content; greater ease of editing; increased value for the lifetime of WP (which will eventually cease to exist if such policies are not followed). Can we agree on these basic ideas and sort out the text accordingly? ChemistryProf (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

How about another option? I read that these were supposed to be the TM mantras, but it is not accurate for mine. I know that the article is simply referencing a magaizine which claimed these were the mantras, but what proof do they offer or do we have? We can't just add in every single thing that any magazine says about every single subject on wikipedai, especially when they don't offer any proof about what they claim. I think another option should be to either find a more reliable source like something official from the TM organization or at least a source that is accurate. And until we find something like that, I think we should remove this section altogether. Some incorrect specultion on what the mantras are from a 30 year old issue of a defunct science fiction magazine does not justify including this in an encyclopedic entre (even if it is just[REDACTED] that no one is supposed to relie on anyway). We should still strive to be encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.128.123.242 (talk) 03:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Any thoughts on my suggestion to remove this section on mantras until a better source can be found? Here is what[REDACTED] says on reliable sources "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." Were the facts of the mantra list checked and confirmed by multiple people(or even by one other person)? The article doesn't claim that and the fact is that the list is inaccurate, so it certainly seems to me that the inclusion of this lits does not meet the criteria for reliability that an encyclopdeia should have. Does anyone else see my point and agree? I propose we look for some official TM document that has the list of mantras that we can then link to. Certainly there must be something findable on the internet? But until then, I think we should remove this section for lack of reliability.

Principles of the Technique section

I've worked on this section to try and create a logical sequence of information, improving flow, hopefully. I've also added some comments from significant sources.(olive (talk) 22:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC))

I didn't see ChemProf's comment above before starting on the Procedure section. (olive (talk) 23:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC))

I like the way you have augmented, summarized and organized the section. I have done some clean up and a little further rearranging to improve the flow. What do others think?-- — Kbob • Talk • 04:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that this is improving and is starting to give a much better idea of the principles of the technique -- which the sources seem to summarize as 1) utilizing the natural tendency of the mind, 2) not involving effort, 3) using a meaningless sound, and 4) taking it as it comes. I added a couple headings for these principles and a few sentences of sourced material. We should maybe add a heading for that last point -- that one takes a passive attitude. Russell has a good discussion of this. TimidGuy (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

References

1. Yogi, Maharishi Mahesh, Beacon Light of the Himalyas 1955, p. 65.

• Start-Class Alternative medicine articles
• Start-Class Alternative views articles
• Mid-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• Start-Class Religion articles
• Mid-importance Religion articles
• Start-Class New religious movements articles
• High-importance New religious movements articles
• New religious movements articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics