Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:03, 24 January 2010

Skepticism C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Religion: New religious movements C‑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 C This article has been rated as C-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.

The Lead

Will has done a nice job creating a basic article. One point of attention is that so far we have just a primary source for the lead. Everyone knows how important secondary sources are especially for the lead. I know the article is just hours old and there will be lots of initial adjustment but please keep your eyes open for a secondary source(s).-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The intro for an article like this should be about four paragraphs long.   Will Beback  talk  21:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, nice job Will.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.   Will Beback  talk  21:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, nice job on the article. TimidGuy (talk) 11:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Changes to lead

To explain the changes:

-Maharishi developed the programs but many were not created or founded by him. In some case he apparently revived ancient programs or techniques.

-I thought both programs and orgs would be more inclusive and more accurate since there are programs such as the TM technique program but also organizations such as MVEDC

-Many of these programs are not connected to the TM technique. For example the rejuvination program is a kind of spa program which non TM meditators use without any knowledge of TM.

- changed date consistent with source, and with use in rest of article.

To repeat a comment I made on another talk page, we should avoid using the construction "is a term used to describe", using instead the word "is", something more like "The Transcendental Meditation movement is composed of programs and organizations..." Regarding the 1957 founding, that is the date which appeared in many obituaries for the Maharishi.   Will Beback  talk  21:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Whatever date we use should be consistent within the article, I would think. My change also reflected the source we are using in that paragraph....(olive (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC))

And thanks for putting this article together....good work.(olive (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC))

I appreciate Will's encouragement not to circumlocute (Did I coin a new verb?) the article name, but the article does deserve a more accurate beginning. I made some changes to the first sentence to make it more precise. The question of a date needs to be sourced. ChemistryProf (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Medical Acceptance

Is this a possible secondary source that could be used to show acceptance by the medical community of Transcendental Meditation? http://www.johnshopkinshealthalerts.com/alerts/hypertension_stroke/JohnsHopkinsHealthAlertsHypertensionStroke_3159-1.html#read --Uncreated (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That would belong in Transcendental Meditation, which covers the meditation technique. This article covers the associated organizations.   Will Beback  talk 

opps...my bad...I got confused as to where I was...of course it should go in the TM article.--Uncreated (talk) 09:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

"Control issues"

I don't believe any of the sources in that section use the phrase "Control issues". I believe that phrase was suggested in Talk:Transcendental Meditation#Remove Tags, but I don't see any discussion or consensus for it. That material was previously titled "Cult issues". Unless someone can show that that "Control issues" is really the isue discussed in the cited sources, I'm going to restore the previous heading. Suggestions for alternate headings would also be helpful.   Will Beback  talk  06:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:WTA says to avoid the use of "cult." Putting it in a subhead draws attention to the word and is prejudicial, whereas putting it in the article itself offers the opportunity for context and attribution. Maybe we could use "The nature of the movement" or something like that. TimidGuy (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:WTA is sometimes misunderstood. Let me quote the actual text of the relevant section:

Words that label

Some words may be used to label a group from an outside perspective, even though these words are used in accordance with a dictionary definition. For example:

• "The Peoples Temple is a cult."
• "The Ku Klux Klan is a racist organization."
• "Pedophilia is a sexual perversion."

Such terms, even when accurate, often convey to readers an implied viewpoint: that of an outsider looking in and labeling as they see it. The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it may not be neutral.

There are at least three ways to deal with this: attribute the term to reliable sources; replace the label with information; or use a more neutral term. These three approaches are illustrated as follows:

• "The Peoples Temple is an organization, described as a 'cult' by X, Y, and Z."
• "The Ku Klux Klan is an organization that has advocated white supremacy and anti-Semitism."
• "Pedophilia is a paraphilia."

So it's OK to say that the Peoples Temple has been described as a cult. We should avoid saying "The Peoples Temple is a cult." Likewise here. "Cult allegations" is another option. We could use "nature of the movement" as a super-heading instead of "Reception". Do we have sources on other aspects of the nature of the movement?   Will Beback  talk  17:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think there was consensus not to use the word 'cult' in the heading. However the term 'control issues' is a poor substitute and could be improved on.-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that consensus. If the material talks about cult allegations then that is a logical heading. Euphemisms should be avoided.   Will Beback  talk  19:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

"Control issues" is an absurd euphemism. "Cult Allegations " would be both accurate and neutral.Fladrif (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we have the right title for the so called cult section yet, and should go back to the proverbial drawing board. I'm including some comments by a couple of scholars on the usage and idea of the word cult.

Chryssides:

The use of the word 'cult' which is characteristically employed by anti-cultists carries pejorative connotations, as is evidenced by the consistency with which the NRMs themselves take exception to the term. New religious movements are dubbed by their opponents as 'cultic', or, more specifically, as 'destructive cults'.

The fact that they are 'free standing' and hence lack a specific religious identity helps the anti-cult movement claim that because their goals are unclear they are possibly sinister

As things stand, academics and anti-cultists alike are inclined to bend or ignore their professed definitions almost at will to suit their own purposes

Timothy Miller : Introduction pg.1-2

They are largely avoided in this book as they generally have been by scholars for several years because in popular use they have become largely pejorative. "Cult" today typically means a group that the speaker does not like, considers potentially harmful and wants to deprecate.

My point in posting these quotes is that the word "cult" is heavily non neutral and leans to the pejorative. We need another word for the heading. Possibly the bigger problem is that the section on cults is a highly biased slice of the much larger and increasingly well studied area called among other things alternative movements, or New Religious movements. (olive (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC))

NPOV calls on us to include all significant points of view, regardless of whether they are postive or negative, so long as they are well-sourced. While some scholars prefer "NRM", others prefer "cult". The current material we have in this section concerns cult allegations. The Chryssides paper concerns whether TM, among others, is a NRM. Perhaps we should have a separate section for "NRM allegations". BUt I don't think we should use a meaningless euphemisims like "Control issues". I'm open to something better than "Cult allegations" , but I don't see any suggestions for improvements so I'll make that change. If something better comes up we can either change the heading or create an additional section to cover it.   Will Beback  talk  23:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. (Chryssides ' paper is on definition rather than on TM. TM is only one of many examples). The issue here isn't whether to not include the cult content . The issue is that in using a pejorative term for the section heading we create tone and slant the section. That is not neutral, is not NPOV. The heading must be worded so that all views of what to call or to describe TM come into play. I could define for example behaviour in Border Collies as good or bad . The issue is behaviour so a heading using the neutral term behaviour can include both good and bad dog behaviours. If I were to just name the section bad dog behaviours then I am limited to including only bad dog behaviour and comments refuting those descriptions but I cannot include good dog behaviours. The section on cult is a biased section because the heading is specific to one reading of the organization, the negative and any refuting of that kind of reading, but is not neutral enough to allow all sides. Its a violation of NPOV. The heading needs to be fixed as does the section. I'll think about it. (olive (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC))

The material in the section is not close to comprehensive - there are many more scholars and other reliable sources we can cite on various aspects of membership in the TM movement. The section heading doesn't limit the material, except in that section. There do appear to be enough cult allegations to populate a section. We can add as many sections as are needed to cover other aspects.   Will Beback  talk  00:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm somewhat concerned that you have readded the old title in the middle of a discussion when there is a fair amount disagreement on its use. (olive (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC))

It's not the old title, which was "Cult issues". I don't see any consensus for the change to "Control issues", so the "old title", or something like it" is a reasonable usage until one or more bnetter headings are found.   Will Beback  talk  00:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this is quibbling so I'll back away . Chem Prof had suggested the title "Control Issues" and after a fairly long period of time when no one commented or objected he move it into the article. I'm not happy with it either. This needs some thought though and a quick title change one way or the other isn't going to do it. (olive (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC))

I'm open to suggestions.   Will Beback  talk  00:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, we may bnot need a heading here at all, since there is already the "Reception" heading. I'm going to delete "Cult allegations". That way we can keep adding material on schoalrlyt and other views of the TMM without concern over whether they contain cult allegations or not. Once the material is closer to being complete we can see what headings make sense.   Will Beback  talk  00:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a good solution for now, Will Beback. As olive said, there are multiple reasons for not using the word cult in a heading. We discussed it at length before, and I suggested the alternative title for starters. No one disagreed, and I put it in. I agree that this whole section now under "Reception" needs to fill in a bit more and then will need to be considered for subdivisions. ChemistryProf (talk) 05:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems several editors (including me) had issues with both titles: 1)Cult Issues and 2) Control Issues, so I think this new title "Reception" is a good compromise.-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all for thinking this thru together. I also do not like 1)Cult Issues and 2) Control Issues, but we do need to come up with a title that reflects the sources. I think Will's compromise is very good for now. --BwB (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Natural Law party

Political parties by law must be independent entities. However, the NLP had many candidates who were closely associated with TM and TM was part of its party platform. Even so I'm not sure we can consider it part of the TM Movement. At present there are not any sources for this section. I think this is one section where we would want to see some secondary sources saying that this political party was part of the TM movement otherwise it needs to be removed I think. Yes?-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Lots of sources tie the NLP to the TM Movement and MMY.

• The TM movement is also a political movement striving to achieve an "enlightened" populace, and under the banner of the Natural Law Party puts forward parliamentary candidates in Britain.

• Not content with providing the individual with a panoply of Vedic tools for mere self-transformation, in 1992 Maharishi helped create a full-fledged political entity called the Natural Law Party, which aims to achieve world transformation.

• Bob Roth, a spokesman at the Natural Law Party headquarters in Iowa, said it has been no secret that the party is connected with the TM movement. ``There has been extensive coverage about TM and the party. It's no secret this is the TM party.''

• The TM movement founded...political parties in many countries around the world known as the Natural Law Party.

• With this in mind, in the 1990s the TM movement formed the Natural Law Party, which fielded candidates in Britain, the US, Canada and Australia. The party sought to combine politics and TM on a platform based on the appealing, if unlikely, promise of low taxes for all and the complete elimination of disease, crime and pollution. The party launched its campaign in Britain with a full-page advertisement of its manifesto in The Times beside another full page portraying 119 of its candidates. Despite printing 12 million copies of their manifesto, advertising on radio, TV and 7,000 billboards and having the backing of George Harrison, the candidates had little success. In December 2000 the Natural Law Party was disbanded, amid jokes about the failure of yogic flyers to win over floating voters. Fladrif (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've also found dozens of newspaper sources that connect the NLP to the TMM. Here are a few:

• Maharishi Vedic Universities and the Natural Law Party are arms of the Transcendental Meditation Movement.
• It is also unfortunate that our election laws make it possible for a group such as the Transcendental Meditation movement to run a nation-wide promotion for itself partly at taxpayer expense through the Natural Law party.
• Most of the 13 candidates for the area around Ottawa live in a housing complex in Orlans, where they meditate together. Some are yogic flyers, and some work full time for the Transcendental Meditation movement. "We have tried to make proposals to the government, but they haven't listened to us, so we thought . . . let us form a political party," says Paterson, party leader and Governor-General of the Age of Enlightenment for North America, who is running in Ottawa Centre. The party's 44-page election brochure even includes an advertisement for videotaped courses on Natural Law and the "Maharishi Effect," although there is no reference to their prices ($15-$60). Throughout the brochure, claims are made to the scientific validity of the party's beliefs, although the scientists are connected to the TM movement.
• The Natural Law party, 231 candidates. Leader: Neil Paterson. The party is closely tied to the transcendental meditation movement and argues that a group of 7,000 people practicing "yogic flying" could decrease stress in society and result in huge savings for governments.
• After years of minimal growth the TM organization went political and became the Natural Law Party.
• ompkins said the Natural Law Party approaches politics as a cooperative venture, not a confrontational process. The party, formed April 20, is based at Fairfield, Iowa, the home of Maharishi University. More than half of the founders, Tompkins said, were connected with the Transcendental Meditation movement.
• The new Natural Law Party, made up of adherents to the transcendental meditation movement or TM, has submitted petitions to qualify candidates for two Missouri congressional seats - here and in Kansas City.

And so on.   Will Beback  talk  19:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Some of the citations listed above do not make a direct connection between NLP and TMM however, enough of them do that I am willing to accept it as a valid topic for the TMM article. Thanks for the references.-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Maharishi Vedic Science programs section

I really appreciate the collaborative manner so far. Thank you thank you. The section titled "Maharishi Vedic Science programs" section doesn't quite seem parallel with the other sections, which are specific organizations. Maybe we could have a section heading that says Maharishi Ayurveda organizations, and then under that have subheads for the Lancaster Ayurveda Spa, The Raj Ayurveda Spa, and Maharishi Ayurveda Products International, for example. All of these have received national and regional news coverage. And instead of the Maharishi Sthapatya Veda heading, we could have Maharishi Global Construction (which has also been covered in major media). Eager to know what everyone thinks. TimidGuy (talk) 12:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I had been thinking that the article could use a section on "Programs" or "Main teachings" to allow for short sections on TM and TM-Sidhi. If some of the ones you list would fit under there then that would take care of them. I don't know about listing every spa and Peace Palace, but we can try. If any section gets too long we can split it off into a subsidiary article.   Will Beback  talk  15:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The current section title is kind of limiting. Maybe it could be called something like Maharishi's Programs or ??. Then TM, Purusha and other items could go under this heading. I think the Spas and MAPI should be listed under Maharishi Ayurveda since they all have the word Ayurveda in them. Doesn't that make sense? If that section gets big we could consider moving it later.-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the word "Maharishi's" is needed, but otherwise that sounds like a workable plan.   Will Beback  talk  20:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I support this direction. --BwB (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. I'll gather a few bits of information about the spas. TimidGuy (talk) 11:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding overall organization, maybe specific topics could be under the organizations that offer them. For example, TM and TM-Sidhi could be under MVED. Peace Palaces under Global Country. TimidGuy (talk) 12:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

In the context of the entire TM movement, the spas seem fairly minor so I don't think we'd want to add too much about them to this article.

As for organization, I don't see why we'd put TM, which was a founding concept of the movement, under MVED, which is a US company founded long after TM was conceived. I think that conceptual programs like TM and TM-Sidhi would be better treated in a section of their own rather than based on corporate entity.   Will Beback  talk  15:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

As usual we should go by the sources. Certainly TM and TM-Sidhi have had lots of media coverage and deserve some real estate in the article and if the spas have lots of sources then they should get their due weight.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that TM-Sidhi and spas belong in the same section. I think "Maharishi Ayurveda" is a better heading for spas and the vedic medical treatments, with "Programs" used for TM, TM-Sidhi, and similar teachings.   Will Beback  talk  22:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I've organized that section a little ... does that make more sense.(olive (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC))

I don't see why spas would be considered a "theoretical aspect". The things listed in that section don't seem "theoretical" at all.   Will Beback  talk  23:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I've re-organized the sections a bit further.   Will Beback  talk  00:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Your organization doesn't quite work... MVS has two aspects, one practical, and one, theoretical applications to life. The techniques are one arm, the practical aspects, the theoretical aspect the other arm. These are two subsets of the kinds of programs available. Programs may be the wrong word though. They need to be under a heading that show this .... (the spas are part of Ayur Veda and Ayur Veda is under the application or theoretical aspect of the programs . Spas in this case are medicinal rather than resorts or something like that).(olive (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC))

The descriptions I saw on one spa site make it appear pretty much like any spa, offering massages, herbal treatments, gourmet health food, etc. I don't see how that can be considered a theoretical program. Maybe "businesses" would be a better heading to include the spas.   Will Beback  talk  00:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The spas whether businesses or not are based on and supply Ayur Veda services.... MDs charge as well and medicine is big business but they are medicine based. and like any service, the service costs, so money is charged.(olive (talk) 01:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC))

But medical treatments aren't theory. Are the spas referred to as medical providers?   Will Beback  talk  01:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

These definitions, theory, for example are how the organization defines its programs, not how we would define them.... Practical and theoretical are "arms" according to the TM organization... Ayur Veda as self defined, is the health/medicinal aspect of the theoretical arm....and as is traditional in Ayur Veda, the treatments which we here call spa treatments are integral to the treatments... spa is a word that's hanging up this discussion I think....The same treatments if offered free would still be the same treatments... They do requite expertise and facilities so money is charged, otherwise who trains and pays the the technicians who give the treatments for example. A hospital provides services but they are also big business.(olive (talk) 01:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC))

I've removed "practical" and "theoretical", since they seem to be original research.   Will Beback  talk  01:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

And yes, I'd agree that hospitals are businesses too.   Will Beback  talk  01:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

And I'll see if I can find a better explanation and source for MVS...(olive (talk) 02:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added new wording that's sourced. This is a "self published" source, but it probably is the best place to go for an accurate description of what the TM organization means by the term MVS. See what you think. I reorganized the section to reflect the change in the description.(olive (talk) 02:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC))

I think the use of "applications" is good... nice.(olive (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC))

Definitely better that "theoretical aspects".   Will Beback  talk  05:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The word 'spa' doesn't properly reflect the medical and overall health benefits claimed for Maharishi Ayurveda treatments such as panchakarma and pulse analysis. But we're stuck with it because that's what they're called.

I think the spas should be described in a new article TM Programs and this TMM article should describe the actual movement, mostly from a historical perspective (starting with MMY leaving India, support from the Olsons, founding of SRM, training teachers, accepting flowers from followers, MMY's Movement as a landing pad for hippies and others looking for alternatives to a boring life, 1972: launching of the Science of Creative Intelligence (SCI) and the World Plan for the Age of Enlightenment, TM-Sidhi Program, the Maharishi Effect, the Global Country of World Peace, Rajas, the Raam, etc.) Just my two cents. David spector (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Law document as source

Is this an acceptable source per WP:Primary for content in the section "Purusha and Mother Divine".(olive (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC))

This source doesn't seem to reference any info on the lines it is sourcing. Not sure why it's there...(olive (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I've cited the original source on the article since this ref sees to be to a blog (as an aside to avoid confusion.)...and just noting this source in the article i've just added seems not to be the same article that I removed found on the blog so will check this out later today.(olive (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC))

Update: The ref above seems to not be available in the Watuaga Democrat archives, and a quick look seems to indicate its not available elsewhere except on blogs, non reliable sources. I replaced it with a ref on somewhat the same topic from the Democrat. I am still unclear as to why this ref is there at al. Perhaps it should be removed.(olive (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC))

Olive the link you have put in as a substitute is from the same date and the same newspaper, but it is a different article and it does not mention anything about the section topic. Kaplan: Residents told to vacate-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes I say that above. Sorry f its hard to understand ...That's why the concern has been brought here. The 2nd source was used to ref the physical location of the programs. I didn't find the other source in any other place but will check the Democrat archives. (olive (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC))

If we have a reliable source writing about the TM movement then we should keep it. However it may be better handled in a different section. The "Watauga Democrat" has online archives back to at least 2002. Regarding the court documents, I recall that appeals court decisions are considered secondary sources. They are very different from the various documents filed in lower courts and provide a reliable overview of the legal dispute.   Will Beback  talk  21:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The concern is not the original ref which is fine. Its that the ref is on a blog and so far we can't find the original source. Still looking.(olive (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC))

An interesting discussion on court documents here.

Will could you point to a place that says appeals court decisions are secondary sources. Since we've had several discussions on law cases, the information would probably be really helpful.(olive (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC))

I found this thread: I believe there have been others as well, though i cna't find them now. What reasons would there be to view an appeals court decision as an unreliable source?   Will Beback  talk  22:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

As for the decision of the NC Court of Appeals, First of all, this is a decision of an appellate court, not a mere "court document". Second, it is published, by an independent publisher, West, as opposed to unpublished decisions or orders that are merely public documents in a government file. Third, it does indeed support the material in the article, in that it describes not only the location of the Purusha and Mother Divine program, but also what they entail in a fair amount of detail.

As for the article, it is a reliable, verifiable source. It is a convenience to readers to link to an online version of it, notwithstanding that the online versions can only be found in blogs. It is completely inapproprite for you to remove the reference. We can discuss whether you have a legitimate question with the link, but there is no basis to argue with the reference itself. As for its purpose, it provides support for the relocation of these programs from Boone NC. There may be other information in the source that should be added to the article. Fladrif (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the original article is available on the newspaper's website. The use of "convenience links" to copies hard-to-find articles has been discussed extensively over the years. I believe the comminuty consensus is that we should not link to copyright violations, which would include full copies of newspapers articles. However it's entirely permissible to cite the article without linking to the hosting website.   Will Beback  talk  22:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Its tricky connecting to a blog since content can be changed and not noted, unless the original document can be located for comparison. Since we now have the original source then we we can readd. My question concerning law documents was a very real question which I had hoped to have clarified per Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines since I personally had never run across any such information within those policies and guidelines Thanks for adding information on the subject.(olive (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC))

Question concerning Olson book as source

• Maharishi at 433, Helena Olson, R R Donnelly and Sons, 1979, p178 and p245

I'll ask about this here, since we're discussing sources. None of the catalogs I've looked in list a publisher for this book. Where they would list the publisher they instead say "". According to whom was this published by RR Donnelley & Sons Company? They are mostly known as printers, not publishers. Olson's later book, "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi - A Living Saint for the New Millennium", appears to have been self-published. Unless we can determine that "Maharishi at 433" was published by a reliable source we should probably not use it.   Will Beback  talk  21:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Maharishi at 433 was only printed by R.R. Donnelly and Sons and so it appears to be self published. I will remove it as a source.-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Saved content fromTM technique article

Bainbridge:

• "Going on to note that TM is an example of a "missionary" religious group which distills the essence of its own religious traditions to make itself more acceptable to its intended audience."

Trademark license

• The terms "Transcendental Meditation" and "TM" are servicemarks owned by Maharishi Foundation Ltd., a UK non-profit organization. These trademarks have been sub-licensed to the Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation (MVED), an American non-profit organization which offers the Transcendental Meditation technique and related courses in the U.S.A.

Do we know who holds the ownership to the trademarks, the entity that is licensiing them to the MVEDC? The United States Patent and Trademark Office has this info:

• Owner
  • (REGISTRANT) WORLD PLAN EXECUTIVE COUNCIL-UNITED STATES NON-PROFIT CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 17310 SUNSET BLVD. PACIFIC PALISADES CALIFORNIA 90272
  • (LAST LISTED OWNER) MAHARISHI FOUNDATION, LTD. CORPORATION ASSIGNEE OF UNITED KINGDOM P.O. BOX 652 ST. HELIER JERSEY JE4 8YZ CHANNEL ISLANDS

This page makes it appear that MAHARISHI FOUNDATION, LTD. has been assigned trademarks held by a number of Maharishi-related entities. Is there any other information on this matter?   Will Beback  talk  16:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

One point to note is that many of the assignments were made to MF by the now defunct WPEC. Just an observation from looking at your citation.-- — Kbob • Talk • 15:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Not just the WPEC. It appears that many entities conveyed their trademarks to the MF, which seems to now be the ultimate owner of all of them. If I understand correctly, the MVEDC sublicenses those trademarks to subsidiary entities in the U.S., and similar arrangements are made in other countries.   Will Beback  talk  09:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

At risk

At risk in this context defines any child in multiple kinds of school programs possible who are facing high levels of stress and what that stress can create for the child and the school...kids that are "stressed out". The term doesn't refer to alternative school systems as Misplaced Pages defines the term(olive (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC))

OK. I'll de-link the term in the DLF article too, from where this was copied.   Will Beback  talk  21:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Followers?

A sentence has been added that Maharishi has 4 mil "followers". Can someone define what a "follower" is? --BwB (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I added the material. I have no idea what the writer meant, but it's a reliable source. It's relevant to this article because movements are usually made up of people. I presume those 4 million followers comprise the movement   Will Beback  talk  07:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

More generally, this article should have a section on what we might call followers, practitioners, or movement members. To the extent that there are sources available, the section should have information on the size, demographics, international scope, and level of involvement. Let's start compiling sources and adding material towards that end.   Will Beback  talk  09:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Do we consider Joe Schmo who learns TM anywhere in the world to automatically be a "follower" of Maharishi? Perhaps "followers of Maharishi" would be better suited in the Wiki article on Maharishi? --BwB (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

We don't consider anything. We verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. Do you think that the Mahrishi's followers are not part of the TM movement? That seems like an unlikely conclusion.   Will Beback  talk  21:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, reporters often use the word "followers" when simply referring to those who have learned the Transcendental Meditation technique and continue to practice it. This is a probably a poor definition of "followers" and can be misleading. Many who learn and continue to practice the technique have little if any contact with teachers or educational material after their instruction. Is it reasonable to call such people "followers?" My feeling is it's not reasonable, and that we need to be cautious when using this term just because it may well have been used by a reporter or writer in this loose manner. ChemistryProf (talk) 05:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a lot of extrapolating. Leaders have followers.

• "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi was a well-known spiritual leader and the founder of Transcendental Meditation technique."
• "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi: Hindu religious leader who introduced the practice of transcendental meditation (TM) to the West."
• "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Spiritual Leader, Dies. The Maharishi’s movement began losing followers the late 1970s, as people were put off by the organization’s promotion of a more advanced form of TM called Yogic Flying, in which practitioners try to summon a surge of energy to physically lift themselves off the ground. In the last years of his life he rarely met with anyone, even his ministers, face-to-face, preferring to speak with followers almost exclusively by closed-circuit television."
• "He established his headquarters in Switzerland (moving to Amsterdam in 1990) and at its height the movement had more than two million followers worldwide, including 90,000 in the UK. His followers either paid a subscription or tithed part of their earnings, and as a result the society became rich, with the Maharishi running his own helicopter."
• "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, a spiritual guru hailing from India, is the founder and leader of the renowned spiritual movement of Transcendental Meditation (TM)."
• "In the 1960s he attracted many followers including the Beatles who went to meditate with him in India in 1968. Last week a Maharishi spokesman said the guru had announced he was stepping down as leader of the TM movement, which has some five million followers worldwide, and retreating into silence. 'I can only say: Live long the world in peace, happiness, prosperity and freedom from suffering,' the spiritual leader said in his last message, according to his followers."

And so on. I don't know what definition these reporters are using for "leader" and "follower", but the assertion that he was a leader with millions of followers doesn't seem remarkable.   Will Beback  talk  06:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with Will. Many people who do TM may not consider themselves to be followers but if its a term used by the media in a significant way than its legitimate as a term in the article when properly referenced.-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I guess my point must sound like nitpicking to you two, but the point is significant. Will said "Leaders have followers." True enough. But in reality, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi was a teacher who gave out both practical and theoretical knowledge. He discouraged individuals from considering him as a spiritual leader to be followed. He did not want uncritical acceptance of anything he said. The problem inherent in this concept of leaders and followers is that it subtly suggests that followers are not critically thinking individuals, that they accept the leader's words without question. This is a significant distortion of the situation that actually exists for most of those who learn the technique. This distortion is one that was and is made by many reporters and others who have not been students of Maharishi. Do we want to be responsible for propagating this poor representation or do we want to take the material to a more realistic level of understanding? It may be hard to find common mainstream sources that take this tack, but it is not hard to find academic articles that do. Are these our only options? ChemistryProf (talk) 05:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV calls on us to report all significant views. If there are sources that say the Maharishi is not a leader and has no followers then we can add that view too.   Will Beback  talk  06:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding usage of the term follower, most mainstream media coverage doesn't refer to people who practice Transcendental Mediation as followers. Usually it just says that they practice Transcendental Meditation. There are literally thousands of articles that talk about people practicing the Transcendental Meditation technique without calling them followers. Also consider the hundreds of studies on TM and the extensive media coverage of this research. The people who participated in these studies are never referred to as followers. When the term follower is used, it's often in the context of referring to the people who worked directly for Maharishi. If we use the term follower, I think we need to be very cautious how we use it. Certainly its occasionally used to refer to anyone who practices TM, but more often it's not used.

And while we're discussing people who practice the Transcendental Meditation technique, maybe we should add a list of people who've publicly talked about their practice. They are many many famous people who could be sourced. In recent weeks, for example, that includes Candy Crowley and Russell Brand. Also, mentioning these two makes me realize that in the vast majority of cases where people self-identify as practicing Transcendental Meditation they don't self-identify as being a follower of Maharishi. Of course now that he's dead, it will be even less likely that people who learn Transcendental Meditation will self-identify as a follower. (To tell you the truth, I've never thought of myself as a follower of him, and all that implies.) TimidGuy (talk) 11:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

AS I mentioned at the beginning of this thread, we should have a section devoted to followers, practitioners, or movement members, or whatever name is used. Probably also sections on the structure and finances of the movement, if we can find sources.   Will Beback  talk  15:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Practitioners might be the best and most accurate term for the heading. Because we have a leader who teaches a technique, we can't necessarily say all those who use the technique accept the teacher as a leader. Really, all we can say is that those who learn the technique from a teacher are practicing what the teacher teaches. The technique isn't a belief system that requires acceptance of anything except how to do the technique. Practitioner, also, is perhaps more inclusive so maybe a better choice for that reason. Two cents. (olive (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC))

I don't think it's our decision to make. We should use whichever terms the sources use, and if one predominates then we might use that for the heading. Maharishi's role in the movement is more than teacher. If I understand correctly, he made administrative decisions as well. While terms vary for the followers/students/practitioners, Maharishi is widely described as a leader, not just a teacher.   Will Beback  talk  19:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

These are all good points. I would summarize them by saying 1) Not all people who practice TM or take TMM courses etc consider themselves to be followers. 2)At the same time we do find that sometimes the media uses the term follower and in some instances where the source uses the term it may be appropriate to use the term follower in the article. 3)There are many sources (Timid says most) that use other terms like practitioner etc., in particular the research studies, so we should consider using those terms as well. 4) Whatever term the majority of the media uses we should use for a section title.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, if we are going to use the term "follower," it should be more clearly defined. There may be some justification to calling the administrators of programs that Maharishi devised or inspired "followers." But as Timid points out, this is not the most common way those who simply learn and practice the technique are labeled. I have no quarrel with appropriate use of the term, but I do not think a few examples from the popular press constitutes enough of a reason to abandon this more accurate understanding. And if we are going to use multiple designations such as followers, TM practitioners, students of Maharishi, students of Transcendental Meditation, etc., then why not exert some effort to clarify the difference in these designations? ChemistryProf (talk) 05:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

What's your source for "this more accurate understanding"? If we have sources for the definitions then I think that would be useful information. We shouldn't make up definitions on our own.   Will Beback  talk  07:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Will look for sources. ChemistryProf (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Haven't found a source so far. I'm sure they exist, but how to find them...? One friend relayed the story that a reporter once asked Maharishi how many followers he had, and he said, "I don't have followers... Meditators follow their own progress..." This is the general attitude of most people I know who practice the Transcendental Meditation technique, but it certainly has not been widely perceived by the press. I'll keep looking. ChemistryProf (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Changes, 4 January

Will has split the "Reception" section into 3 and renamed the sub-sections. A few comments:

• "Members" is not the correct attribute to someone who learns TM. They are not become "members" of anything by learning TM. Yes the media sometimes incorrectly refer to people who do TM as "followers", "disciples", "members", etc., but his a mischaracterization. I have changes the name pending further discussion.
• We have the reappearance of "Cult" in the title of one of the sections. How do other feel about this? --BwB (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

"Size" or "Size of the movement" might be similar terms for the section for the time being. "Numbers involved in TM" is ambiguous. "Numbers" of what? It's still under construction, as I'm sure many more sources are available. As we discussed above, the popular choice for what to call those numbers will probably appear as more sources are added.

The material in the last section it's clearly about whether or not the TMM is a cult. This is not a WP:WTA situation since we're not saying that it is a cult. But as an interim measure I'd be willing to go with something vague, like "Nature of the movement" or "Sociological characterizations", until we bring this article closer to completion.   Will Beback  talk  17:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

We can consider it a work in progress. I am OK with "Size of Movement" for now. --BwB (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Critics who say it's religion not science

Some critics say that the TM Movement is really a religion, but that it disclaims its religious roots, and instead claims to be a science, in order to get government funding. You can agree or disagree with the criticism, but to take out the word "religious" from a description of the critics' position is hardly consistent with the source.Fladrif (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The source, , does discuss the religion angle.   Will Beback  talk  21:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Fladrif that the position that the TM movement is religious (held not only by some intelligent critics but also by others who just misunderstand the nature of TM) must be included in the article. However, the article must also not state that TM or the TM movement are religious. See the difference? Unlike Methodists or Scientologists, those who enjoy TM or those who 'followed' Maharishi never viewed TM as religious. WP articles must be balanced, and not make "outside-oriented" claims such as 'The Peoples Temple is a cult' or 'Transcendental Meditation is a religion'. David spector (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Pandits

I reading TM sources I keep coming across discussions of the Indian Pandits. It's not exactly clear what they do - recite passages from the Vedas? Practice TM-Sidhi? Which article should we add them to?   Will Beback  talk  20:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any sources that say exactly what the pandits do, except to describe their activities as Vedic. i would think the best place for content on them is here in TM movement since they are a project that has been embraced by the Movement as a whole.(olive (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC))

The primary sources I've seen say that they are part of the Invincible America program. They don't seem to be directly related to any of the existing TM related articles from wath I can see so maybe best as Olive says to have a mention of them here.-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is a good place to put info on them. We might also add some section sometime about the activities of the TMM in India and then we could expand the info on the Vedic Pundits. --BwB (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have any secondary sources for this stuff? I haven't seen any.-- — Kbob • Talk • 00:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they appear in sources that discuss their housing in Iowa and, IIRC, their visas as well. I don't recall seeing any secondary sources on the pandits still in India. A good process with writing material is to assemble sources first. Since there's no rush about this I suggest we post relevant citations here and then summarize them for the article.   Will Beback  talk  00:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure if The Iowa Source is an independent and reliable source. But there's this:

• Maharishi Vedic Pandits Arrive: Increased Numbers Will Help Fulfill Maharishi's Goal of Invincibility for America

It reads a bit like a press release, but it's a start.   Will Beback  talk  12:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

There is some mention of the Vedic Pandits in the Jyotish and Yagyas section of the MVAH Article - they are the ones who perform the yagyas prescribed by the jyotish practitioners. Some other secondary sources that aren't press releases:

• AP Article at Fox News
• Larry King Interview of the Maharishi
• Total Heart Health
• Another AP article in Cedar Rapids Gazette
• Guru of Joy (tale of a yagya gone awry apparently...)Fladrif (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good plan to assemble secondary sources to start.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The Guru of Joy reference is about Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, not MMY. David spector (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Summarize the College of Natural Law section?

• The TM movement's national offices and the College of Natural Law were located in Washington D.C., near the Washington Convention Center, from 1981 to 1987. The movement and its affiliates also had a private school, a clinic, teaching and group meditation centers there. Near the end of this period, the Maharishi advised TM practitioners to leave the city to "save yourself from the criminal atmosphere". Robert M. Oates Jr., then the director of public affairs at Maharishi University of Management, said that "People were given to understand it is like living near Chernobyl" because of "the incredible rate of violence". As a result, 20 to 40 TM practitioners put their homes up for sale in an effort to move away from the city.

Any thoughts on the above text form the Defunct Org's section? It seems to me that it could be condensed. Do we need this kind of anecdotal copy in an encyclopedic article? Maybe we could remove the last two sentences. Comments?-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Didn't you just expand the material that you're now asking to condense? Anecdotes are another word for history. We leave the CNL material under Defunct orgs and move the rest to the history section.   Will Beback  talk  22:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes ironically, I did expand it for balance and accuracy. But now that it's balanced and accurate I am proposing that it be simplified. I think all of the defunct organizations could and should be merged into the History section. The above paragraph should also be in the History section once it is properly summarized.-- — Kbob • Talk • 23:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This is all part of the history of the movement. If it takes this much text to make a balance treatment then so be it. I don't see the problem with having it in the current location. A wholesale merger of the defunct organizations into the history section would be problematic because some of those sections have significant information that is not well-suited to history. Perhaps the founding, dissolutions, and other key events should go into the history while keeping the bulk in the organizations section.   Will Beback  talk  23:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. There is no reason to cherry pick the so called "founding" for the History section. They are all history. Also, the movement didn't start the day SRMF was incorporated. It was one event along the way just like all the other organizations. Why do you want to give special emphasis to this one event?-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand you. I had meant that, for the defunct organizations, we could better integrate them into the history section by adding the key dates of their histories there. For example, the dates of the founding and dissolution of the CNL. However I think that organizations which now have standalone sections should not be moved into the history section in their entirety because details of their organization structure or goals are not well-suited to the relatively short history section. I don't know what you mean about the SRMF, or even what it is.   Will Beback  talk  19:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

McTaggart

An editor deleted this material from the "Sociological characterizations" section:

• Lynne McTaggart, an author and spokesperson on conventional and alternative medical practices, wrote in 2003 that the Transcendental Meditation organization has been "ridiculed largely because of the promotion of the Maharishi's personal interests".

With this edit summary:

• This tag team of POV editing on the McT quote I entered is not acceptable, either its all in or all out. If this is not clear please start a thread on the talk page

The material appears in a reliable source, and is a correct quotation. The edit summary for its removal accuses editors of improper behavior. I have restored the material, and ask the editor who deleted it to explain why it was deleted and why he has made the charge of improper editing.   Will Beback  talk  22:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Lynne McTaggart, an author and spokesperson on conventional and alternative medical practices, wrote in 2003 that the Transcendental Meditation organization has been "ridiculed largely because of the promotion of the Maharishi's personal interests" while acknowledging the compelling weight of the evidence for its Super Radiance theory.

Sheesh. The above summarizes the source.

Lynne McTaggart, an author and spokesperson on conventional and alternative medical practices, wrote in 2003 that the Transcendental Meditation organization has been "ridiculed largely because of the promotion of the Maharishi's personal interests" .

The above doesn't, and creates POV.

Pretty simple. NPOV, a core policy trumps, "its in another article".(olive (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC))

This section of the article concerns views of the overall movement. We have another section on TM-Sidhi (AKA Super Radiance) and an entire article on it. TM-Sidhi already contains McTaggart's view of the research on Super Radiance, so there's no need to repeat it here, especially not in this section. The comment from McTaggart is presented with a neutral point of view, neither approving nor disapproving of it nor giving it excess weight.   Will Beback  talk  22:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This summary is not what the source says ...pure and simple, and in misrepresenting the source also creates POV... manipulating the source to create a particular slant violates NPOV ....and how interesting a brand- new squeaky -clean editor reverts me....LOL.. Come on. No one believes this is a neutral reading of the source, do they !?(olive (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC))

No edit warring for me. I'm out a 1RR. And especially with a sock. (olive (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC))

Are you saying that it is a misquote? You may note that the version at TM-Sidhi only mentions the part about Super Radiance, because that is the part which is relevant there. As for editors, please focus on the edits, not the editors. If you have a problem with an editor then there are other pages for that.   Will Beback  talk  22:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Relevant? That's a point of view... I shouldn't mention a sock appears out of thin air and reverts me... You want me to go to a sock's page and discuss the socking with him. Sheesh. Alright! (olive (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC))

Yes, there are other pages for discussions of problem editors, including WP:SPI.

As for relevance, I think it's pretty clear. McTaggart's comment about the TMM is relevant to this article on the TMM. Her comment on TM-Sidhi is relevant to that article. Is that in dispute?   Will Beback  talk  23:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Will. I'm done with this discussion. I'm not going to waste my time or yours arguing something that is obvious. The source summary is incomplete and is taken out of context and so create a particular slant. If that's what you want. Fine. but I'm not going to dignify this as a serious discussion.(olive (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC))

I don't have McTaggert's book in front of me, and there is apparently no online version, so I have no idea whether any of this accurately reflects her views or not. But, assuming it is accurate, for purposes of discussing the reception of the TM Movement, I see nothing odd or improper whatsoever in using her as a source for saying that people have criticized the TM Movement for promoting the Maharishi's personal interests in this article, and as a source for saying that she thinks the evidence for the Maharishi Effect is compelling it that article. The two have nothing whatsoever to do with one another. It is not a violation of NPOV to uses this source in this way. Her views on the ME are irrelevant to public perception of the TM Movement; her reportage on criticism of the TM Movement are irrelevant to her views on the ME. This isn't that complicated, and these complaints are neither well reasoned nor even marginally persuasive. Fladrif (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Now Bigweeboy has deleted it, with an edit summary of "Let's talk", but I don't see any posting from him on the talk page.   Will Beback  talk  17:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If there's nothing more I'll restore it.   Will Beback  talk  09:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no harm in having the text "while acknowledging the compelling weight of the evidence for its Super Radiance theory." where it is. It does not do any harm. We have seen text included in other sections of TM related articles where some positive comment on the subject has been "balanced" by some counter view. This seems reasonable to leave as it was. --BwB (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is harm in asserting gratuitious material having nothing whatsoever to do with the subject matter of the article in the misguided attempt to "balance". What McTaggert thinks about the Maharishi Effect has nothing whatsoever to do with the general reception by the public of the TM Movement. It is a complete misinterpretation and misunderstanding of NPOV to assert that every positive be "balanced" by a negative, and vice versa. It clutters up an article with irrelevancies to edit with that objective.Fladrif (talk) 12:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

E/C

It's irrelevant to the subject of the section. Including include irrelevant text is harmful to the cohesion of the article. The one view does not balance the other view since they concern different topics. Let's try to maintain a consistent standard.   Will Beback  talk  12:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. So let's "try to maintain a consistent standard" going forward. Thanks. --BwB (talk) 13:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not fine with manipulation of text, we either use it to say what the author says, or we don't use it at all. Per my recent edits. (18:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC))

It is not a manipulation of text to separate McTaggert's characterization of the reasons for criticism of the TM Movement, and her assessment of the Maharishi Effect research. They are two completely different, comletely unrelated things. McTaggert's sentence is a non-sequitur. The criticism she writes of is of the organization, not of the research. The job of a Misplaced Pages editor is to accurately summarize the relevant information from the source material. Including irrelevant information simply clutters up an article. Just because somebody at Harper Collins lost track of their blue pencil on that page doesn't mean that we as editors are rendered impotent to distinguish what is relevant from what is irrelevant for a particular article. McTaggert's statement on criticism of the movement is relevant here and irrelevant in the TM Sidhi Article. Her statement on the Maharishi Effect research is relevant to the TM Sidhi article but irrelevant here. This argument completely misunderstands NPOV and the editing process.Fladrif (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not our job to decide that someone should have edited McTaggart's sentences to mean something different than they do right now. I'm going to assume her publisher hires competent copy editors . That assumption is the luxury of having a policy that says a source is reliable so we don't have to phone over to the publisher and check on who they hire. Leaving out context means we are cherry picking what we want to say in the article rather than using the sources properly and that creates, in this instance, and is, a non neutral edit. (olive (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC))

That completely misconstrues what I wrote. The edits that you advocate add no context whatsoever. This is not complicated stuff. If someone wrote in an article, "Although they grow a lot of corn in Iowa, the Iowa football team's defense dominated Georgia Tech in the Orange Bowl.", does it provide context in the Misplaced Pages Corn article to say the Hawkeyes won the 2010 Orange Bowl, or context in the Iowa Football article to say that they grow corn in Iowa? It is not cherry picking, or a violation of NPOV to use our brains to distinquish between two completely unrelated things, and to use them in proper context. Fladrif (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for reference here is the quote from the source:

• “Although the TM organization has been ridiculed, largely because of the promotion of the Mararishi’s own personal interests, the sheer weight of the data is compelling.”The Field: The Quest for the Secret Force of the Universe by Lynn McTaggart.

The quote appears in the section of her book on the Maharishi Effect. The sentence is primarily about the Maharishi effect. Using the entire sentence as a quote in an article is fine with me. However, using a part of the sentence out of context I don't think is good Wiki editing. I am also OK with just leaving it out of this article entirely since the Maharishi Effect is only briefly mentioned.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Do folks here think that McTaggart is not a qualified person to be commenting on the TMM, or that her view is not significant?   Will Beback  talk  21:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting question. Based on her background, I'm inclined to think that she is probably qualified to comment meaningfully on the TM Movement generally. I would question whether her opinion on the ME research and data cited in support of it rises to anything above the personal opinion of a layman. Clearly, her opinions on other matters of science and medicine are, to put it most charitably, unconventional, and less so, baseless and utterly wrong.Fladrif (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This was discussed when the quote was first introduced a few months ago on the TM-Sidhi article. It was mentioned by some editors at the that time that if we were accepting the opinions of James Randi etc. that we would also need to accept McTaggart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithbob (talk • contribs)

I agree that the shorter quotation gives the opposite impression of the author's point of view than the longer quotation. So if you're going to use the quotation in the text, instead of just as a reference, quote the whole statement. David spector (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

De escalate

Any chance of editors taking a little break and letting the dust settle on this article. Have a little tea, take it out on unsuspecting small stuffed animals, climb a mountain, play tennis, have dinner... well you get the point... and perhaps come back with cooler vision and less fire. Just a thought.(olive (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC))

Yes! A lovely thought, Olive. Thank you. David spector (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Lack of WP:FRINGE compliance

Just a notice that as with other TM-related articles, many of the references in the entry are not WP:FRINGE compliant, that is they use primary sources for a Fringe topic.

We should work together to remove the non-compliant refs. and remove or edit the corresponding text.--Kala Bethere (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure this is a fringe topic as much a religious/"New Age" one. Either way the article of course needs to rely on secondary sources. --dab (𒁳) 17:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs more acceptable sources. The problem is that they are hard to find because most people are either "outsiders" who have an inaccurate or distorted understanding of the TM movement or "insiders" who know all about it, so don't feel the need to publish. Newspaper reporters tend to take the easiest approach, which is to paste together whatever text they can find that reads as sensible, regardless of pro or con, or else to print an article that was really purpose-written by a TM meditator or teacher. There are few topics in WP for which it is as difficult to find good references. However, neither TM nor the TM movement can be characterized as fringe (in the sense of being pseudoscientific), "new age", or religious. The TM movement is based on the desire to make natural and spontaneous refreshment, joy, and higher states of consciousness available to everyone in the world. It's the same basic desire to improve life that motivates the founders and supporters of the Red Cross and Red Crescent organizations, the United Nations, almost all political parties, and just about any college or university, made in the case of TM very specific to the strengthening of consciousness itself (which improves all activities) rather than solving specific problems. I hope these clarifications help. David spector (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

number of adherents

The most realistic estimate of adherents ("devotees") I can find is "tens of thousands" (Melton Encyclopedia of American Religions, (1993). The "3/4/5 million" estimates probably add up the number of people who have ever taken a TM class or session, as does the "1 million in the US" one. --dab (𒁳) 17:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

How have we arrived at the measurement of the "size" of the TMM - devotees Vs. TM practitioners? Press use different terms - which is correct? How to decide? --BwB (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Please also refer to the earlier discussion on the topic above. --BwB (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's add all of the reputable estimates. In all likelihood, many of them are probably from movement spokespeople or literature even if reported in independent secondary sources.   Will Beback  talk  22:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Why were the estimates removed here? J. Gordon Melton, a religious scholar, is a more reputable source than newspapers for a topic like this.   Will Beback  talk  02:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Adherents.com has an excellent compilation of estimates of the size of the TMM.page 1, page 2 It's a tertiary source and it's best if we don't cite it directly, but the underlying secondary sources are mostly usable. Our section should reflect the range of numbers provided there.   Will Beback  talk  02:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are we rethrashing this topic again? We discussed it earlier and at the time, everyone seemed satisfied with the content. We also had a lively debate about the use of the word "member", "disciple", "follower", etc. Now we have introduced a new one - "adhernt". Can someone please define who/what an "adherent" to the TMM is? --BwB (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't need to define it. We're just reporting what others have written. Why did you delete Melton's estimate?   Will Beback  talk  16:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

it's as easy as WP:CITE. If the secondary sources collected at our tertiary source (adherents.com) has "adherents" we'll use "adherents". If you have quotable sources to add to this, we can also report their terminology. If you have no secondary sources to present, you don't have a debate. --dab (𒁳) 13:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This is correct, the text should reflect the (reliable) source. If different terms are used by different sources, than it may be appropriate to use the word or phrase in quotes and/or identify the source.-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

In this context, our current source for the high estimate of 5 million adherents is given as Bickerton, Ian (February 8, 2003). "Bank makes an issue of mystic's mint". Financial Times. London (UK). p. 09. This is not satisfactory. Not only does the article no longer appear to be online, so verification is rather difficult, judging from the title, the article topic is also not the TM movement itself but some report on some bank doing something with their money. The estimate of five million was probably just pulled off some TM website by the journalist. It doesn't compare to our citation of published works with the express purpose of presenting an inventory of new religious movements. Needless to say, the estimate is also rather unrealistic. The highest estimate adherents.com is aware of is the three million of O'Brien, J. & M. Palmer. The State of Religion Atlas. Simon & Schuster: New York (1993), p 35. --dab (𒁳) 17:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The FT article is available in Proquest. It concerns the RAAM currency. At the end of the it says, by way of background: "The maharishi, who claims 5m devotees worldwide, rose to prominence in the mid-1960s when the Beatles sat spellbound at his feet." So they are not endorsing the number, just reporting the movement's claim.   Will Beback  talk  18:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

So the FT does not state TM has 5 million adherents at all, it simply reports that MMY claims to have 5 million followers? I rather crucial point I would say. Interesting how whoever included the FT citation took care to not point this out. --dab (𒁳) 19:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

comma to period

not an extremely sincere edit summary, sir. --dab (𒁳) 18:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Split: List of TM organizations

An editor has proposed splitting the "Organizations" section into a standalone "List of TM organizations". I think that we could avoid that by shortening the material devoted to organizations which are already the subjects of articles. Several subsections are essentially the first paragraphs of their articles. We could reduce those considerably without losing any information. The schools section has gotten a bit long with material from primary sources, and it could be trimmed a bit too. If the article is still too long then the history section might be a more logical section to split off instead.   Will Beback  talk  11:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments requested: non agreed on split off of content

Without agreement a split was just created. I contest this for multiple reasons, the most obvious being that an alternatives was suggested here. Of course the split now weights the cult section unduly, an obvious result of the split.(olive (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC))

I agree with the split as it give the cult section the weight it deserves. This is a cult and this fact needs to be clearly communicated.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

New religious movement?

The very first sentence of this article states (as a fact) that the TM movement is a New religious movement. The article on that phrase states that it is a new alternative to "cult". Common understanding of the phrase implies "a religion" rather than a cult. Both are wrong for TM.

I'm sure this has been discussed on WP talk pages before, but it should be very clear that TM is not (as a technique) religious in the slightest; in fact, it is used by many religious individuals, including priests and rabbis.

Furthermore, even the devotees living in the long-term Mother Divine and Maharishi Purusha courses cannot possibly be called cult members. They don't worship their leader, they don't proselytize, they aren't alienated from their parents and friends, they don't believe the end of the world is coming, they don't believe that mankind will be judged, they don't raise money. All they do is enjoy "celestial bliss 24 hours a day". That is, they spend their time looking within, experiencing pure consciousness as they find it within. They are not studying the 'holy words of their master', they are developing their own awareness, their own consciousness.

If this is religious, it is unrecognizably so, and therefore could only be called that by stretching language to an extreme. And even if these two courses were considered cults or religious, TM instruction itself has no elements of a cult or a religion, other than the puja, which is also a practice in Hinduism but which even WP calls a "ceremony of gratitude" rather than a religious ceremony. Any TM teacher can tell you that it is not religious (unless you call putting your attention on your inner, pure consciousness religious).

There were a total of only roughly two or three court cases that determined that TM was religious within their particular legal contexts; this is hardly conclusive. There is no general consensus among scholars of religion that TM is religious. TM is not taught in even one school of religion.

TM centers are colorfully called "Peace Palaces" and "Centers of Invincibility". So what? It's just flamboyant language, not religion. The TM movement, whether as TM teachers giving an introductory lecture or instruction, or students at MUM courses, or officers in the TM organizations (all the way up to the top, the Rajas) show no trace of cultism or 'faith-based' characteristics. They're all just ordinary folks who believe that TM is essential for a world free from war, greed, and all other disharmony. That makes them believers, not religious.

The current two citations for the first sentence do not establish that either TM or the TM movement is a New religious movement. If no one can find a reliable and clear citation, can we please remove this statement, as well as all the 'Religion' WP tags at the head of the article? David spector (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There are ample sources which include TM among the groups referred to as "NRMs" or "cults". Whether it actually is one of those is not our concern, as we're just here to summarize reliable sources. This Google books search picks up numerous scholarly books that characterize TM in this way. For example: , , , and   Will Beback  talk  22:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting comment here, Will. Could we not apply the same sentiment to your strong push to categorize TM-Sidhi, ME and Yogic flying as "Fringe". Could we use the view you express here to the Fringe discussion to read "Whether it actually is Fringe is not our concern, as we're just here to summarize reliable sources."? --BwB (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The issues are not comparable. This thread is discussing what content to put in the article. The issue of characterizing theories as being "fringe" or pseudoscience concerns internal policies which frame the discussion of sources and NPOV.   Will Beback  talk  17:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

NRM or NSM is an area that is undergoing a fair amount of academic scrutiny and discussion. By no means do sources indicate or should be considered definitive on whether any "body" is an NRM or NSocialM. Chryssides for example says that TM is not religious and implies it may not be a NRM. Second cult" is not a universal synonym for NRM but is a generally considered a pejorative which NRM may not be. Further, because sources call it that doesn’t mean it has to be used in the lead section with Misplaced Pages’s editorial voice, but rather it needs to be attributed in the body of the article and then accurately summarized in the lead. Right now, it’s firmly stated in the lead in WP’s editorial voice as a definition. Unless ALL sources say it’s a NRM, or a vast majority, then it’s incorrectly phrased and placed in the lead. (olive (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC))

What page of Chryssides are you referring to? On page 278 he says it is connected to a religion. We can certainly add that members of the movement say it is not a religion.   Will Beback  talk  23:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Your missing the point. The article defines TMM as an NRM rather than describes TMM in terms of New Religious Movements . The issue is that this is an area that is being discussed and is ongoing. The body of article must describe that accurately and then the lead must if needs be summarize that information. A definition excludes. While the TMM maybe according to some scholars be a NRM it is much more, and that is what must be in the first lines of the lead to this article.(olive (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC))

If the preponderance of scholars call it a new religious movement, then we are on safe ground using their terminology. What scholars say it is not a religion?   Will Beback  talk  00:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You miss the point, again. We can describe it as an NRM but not define it as such.(olive (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC))

If ten people say that oranges are round, and only one person says it is another shape, then it is reasonable for us to say that oranges are round fruit. Our job is to present the majority view and include minority views. If we were to equivocate on every statement this encyclopedia would be twice as long and four times as hard to read.   Will Beback  talk  00:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Round does not define it describes. If you say in the first sentence of a WP lead that an orange is round you are using round to define, and round does not adequately define orange. You can say later in the lead as part of the description that round is part of what describes the orange but a definition must be more overarching than either round or NRM. NRM can be in the lead if there is information in the article on it, but it must come later as a part of what describes TMM not as the article's the editorial definition. (olive (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC))

The Transcendental Meditation movement is a movement, that is axiomatic. It is relatively new, having been formed in the late 1950s. So the only point of contention is whether it is religious in character. If most scholars define it as an NRM, then we can call it an NRM.   Will Beback  talk  01:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No. Per Misplaced Pages lead we do not just summarize:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first sentence.

And if we are summarizing the article, there is no mention of NRM in the article, unless it is so small I missed it, in which case why would it be added to the lead(olive (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC))

The lead of an article should start be defining the topic. WP:LEAD says: "The article should begin with a declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?""

The answer to "what is the subject"? is "it's a new religious movement". If we'd like to improve the summary in the intro then we should add something about the discussion of the cult allegations.   Will Beback  talk  03:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope... that's a limited definition and that's the problem...and you know that. The orange is not just round nor does round say much. I realize you are trying to intimidate me by suggesting we add cult to the lead. The TM articles are being moved towards non-neutrality and NPOV violation, and I note that. (olive (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC))

I'm not trying to intimidate anyone. You suggested that the intro should better summarize the material in the article. The largest single section is devoted to the cult allegations. David spector wrote, above, that "NRM" is sometimes used as a euphemism for "cult". Reporting that TM has been called a cult does not violate NPOV, and in fact the NPOV policy requires that we include all significant views. I don't see any suggestions for definitions that would better reflect scholarly views of the TMM. Any ideas?   Will Beback  talk  03:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Saying TM is an NRM is a criticism, like David suggested, it can be another word for a “cult”. So is that how WP defines things, through criticism? We’re talking not just about the lead, but the very first, opening sentence of the lead – and what that’s saying is “Transcendental Meditation Movement is a cult”. That’s defining it by a critical pov, in Misplaced Pages’s editorial voice. If it’s going to be called it an NRM, then that needs to be attributed and have different placement in the lead. That is not what TMM is.

This was an accurate and neutral introductory sentence:

The expression "Transcendental Meditation movement" commonly refers to the programs and organizations developed or inspired by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, who is recognized as their founder. Also called "Maharishi's worldwide movement", it includes programs in education, natural medicine, architecture and city planning, and Vedic organic agriculture.(olive (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC))

What sources would we use for that statement? Where and how should we discuss the cult allegations and the description of the movement as an NRM?   Will Beback  talk  04:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I described an opening sentence not the entire lead. I also attempted to add a lead that contained the points we both had been discussing as a compromised version and that was nuetral, but I see as expected, it has been reverted. (18:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC))

There is even a court verdict declaring TM a religious movement for crying out loud. Just read the article. I am frankly growing tired of the naively obvious filibustering on the part of the TM adherents here on Misplaced Pages. If you want to tout TM, be my guest, the internet is wide and blogs are free, but don't come to Misplaced Pages. Whether TM is a "cult" is another matter, because of the intrinsic problems with the term "cult". This has nothing to with TM in particular but applies to every nmr that has been called a cult. Again, the case for TM is exceptionally clear, as we can even cite a monograph that examines TM as the prototypical cult movement, but that classification cannot be objective. It is objective to say that TM is a nrm that has frequently been described as a cult. --dab (𒁳) 09:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I note that the reference to the 1977 court verdict, declaring TM religious practice and consequently stopping its spread into public institutions in the US under the First Amendment, was in the article on the Maharishi but lacking here. It is obviously of central importance to this article, and I have included it. In retrospect, I believe it is fair to say that the 1977 ruling marked the apex in the movement's rise. --dab (𒁳) 10:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me clarify a few points for you. TM/sCI was declared religious within the confines of that court case . However TM is being taught and used in multiple schools around the world as a technique. I suggest you read the Malnak vs Yogi case for a better understanding of the details of that case.There are sources that say TM is religious and those that do not and frankly your opinion on that is of no concern to me . What is a concern is how that opinion plays out in these articles . So please just source and add content in a neutral way, deal with the edits and not the editors,

Cult is a pejorative term. Including pejoratives in a lead is generally frowned on. However, I added the word anyway in efforts to create a compromised version with in context of a discussion between myself and Will. I opened my version of the lead with a neutral more general statement rather than open with more exclusive point, and a pejorative . Such an opening is neutral. Opening with a pejorative is not. Chryssides, a scholar in the area of NRM and NSM says:

"It is largely the media and the anti-cult movement that have been proactive in defining the scope of the ‘cult scene’. Groups as disparate as the Unification Church, the Church of Scientology, est (Erhard Seminar Training), TM, Promise Keepers, neuro-linguistic programmers, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God, all attract the media label ‘cultic’. Anti-cultism goes further, and Christian anti-cult organizations have added Unitarian Universalists, Dungeons and Dragons, some forms of alternative medicine, and, most recently, Pokémon (Reachout Trust, 2000). Reading the annals of anti-cult literature, it can often be difficult to see any coherence in the range of movements that are judged to fall within anti-cultism’s remit: the concept ‘cult’ seems to merely encompass a somewhat nebulous cluster of organizations and movements that are simply disliked.

NRM and NSM are terms used by scholars studying this area. What TMM calls itself has no bearing on the academic discussion of those terms. What we have to say about TMM ... Its a movement, its a religion has no bearing on those terms. Note that Chryssides says of TM "There must be something plausibly religious about a movement or organization for it to count as a religion and hence an NRM. One possible suggestion is that religion demands exclusive allegiance: this would ipso facto exclude Scientology, TM and the Soka Gakkai simply on the grounds that they claim compatibility with whatever other religion the practitioner has been following." I am not arguing the point either way, but simply note that there are no cut and dried definitons on NRM, NSM and whether TM is a religion, and using opinion on what any of those terms means as a reason to enter something in an article, and in a lead just doesn't hold water.(olive (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC))

This article isn't about the TM technique. It's about the TM movement. There is a considerable difference between casual TM practitioners and those who have greater involvement, such as teachers, Yogic Flyers, governors, rajas, etc. Second, have we established that NRM is a pejorative term? Note the leads of Unification Church and Sōka Gakkai. Both start "X is a new religious movement..." So clearly it's not a violation to use that formula in an article. That said, since it is a matter of dispute it may be best to move it out of the first line and give it a more nuanced treatment. I don't think the lead you put in was great, but the sentence you added to the end is probably the right general approach. Here's a suggestion for the lead and for the religion sentence:

• The Transcendental Meditation movement (also "Maharishi's worldwide movement") comprises programs and organizations related to Transcendental Meditation (TM). It was founded in 195X by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.
• The movement has been characterized as a new religious movement and included in lists of cults. However adherents say that it is not religious in nature.

I omitted the Neo-Hindu assertion because that hasn't been developed in the article yet. (And might be better in the discussion of religion in the TM article). How does that look?   Will Beback  talk 

Thanks for your compromised version. I'm a little concerned the last line is a bit weasely. Do all adherents say its non religious?... Unless we can source that statement its weasel wording I would think...And lists of cults also seems rather general... Is there other wording we could use to say the same thing...(olive (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC))

Littleolive, you need to get this: "let me qualify a few points for you" does nothing. You need independent third party sources. If you have those, present them in a matter-of-fact way and you have got yourself a debate.

If you present an independent third party source saying "however, some adherents dispute the religious nature of the movement", I will be ever so happy to agree to its inclusion. As long as you do not cite any such sources you simply aren't making any sort of point at all.

Nobody suggested that we should describe TM as a "cult" in Misplaced Pages's voice, because, as you say, "cult" can be considered a pejorative. We can still state that TM has been listed as a cult by people who are into compiling lists of cults. It will be almost impossible to define "cult" in any way and not have TM satisfy the definition because all the hallmark features are there. But if you do not want to accept "cult" as a meaninful term you will obviously not be forced to decide what the term should include.

"New religious movement" is different. We have overwhelming evidence that TM is universally classified as a nrm as a matter of course. Even if you can show that there has been disagreement on this (can you?), there will still be the question of WP:DUE because your voice of disagreement will be in opposition to a rock-solid consensus of practically everybody and will very likely not be lead-worthy. --dab (𒁳) 10:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Version added by Olive

Transcendental Meditation movement' refers to the programs and organizations begun in the 1950's founded or inspired by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and includes the Transcendental Meditation technique

The movement has been described as a new religious movement and new social movement, as neo Hindu in nature, and has been criticized as a cult.

Version suggested by Will Beback as a compromised version to Olive's version

The Transcendental Meditation movement (also "Maharishi's worldwide movement") comprises programs and organizations related to Transcendental Meditation (TM). It was founded in 195X by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.

The movement has been characterized as a new religious movement and included in lists of cults. However adherents say that it is not religious in nature.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs)

There's several problems with that, which is why I'd suggested something different. First, the "X refers to Y" formulation just makes for extra verbiage. compared to "X is Y". "And includes TM" is pretty weak, since it includes so much more. I suppose we could list the major elements, but that be better in a later sentence in the intro. What sources call it a "new social movement"? Why would we include "neo-Hindu" when we don't mention that in the article? I think we can avoid the loaded term "criticized as" and stick with the more neutral "called", or the variation I suggested: "included in lists of". Finally, regarding talk page comments, the appropriate term is "compromise version". "Compromised version" has a different connotation altogether.   Will Beback  talk  19:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, if we're going to include a view which members of the movement strenuously disagree with then we should include that disagreement. We have many sources in which members of the movement say it is not religious and, to the best of my knowledge, no current members who say that it is religious. So it seems worthwhile to include that view too. Why wouldn't we?   Will Beback  talk  20:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Lets make a deal ...I won't and don't correct your grammar, and you won't need to correct mine. Seems pretty much a waste of time. Thanks. I am somewhat in the dark as to what is being proposed. Perhaps you could write it out.(olive (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC))

I'm proposing what I proposed above. I wrote it out once and you copied it again. What isn't clear about it?   Will Beback  talk  20:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't sure if your proposal was a change or the same as your first rewrite. Sometimes a visual explanation is easier to "read" for some people(olive (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC))

There is no way we can claim "adherents say" until and unless we have a third party source we can attribute this to. Who are these adherents? We aren't even sure if there are 50,000 or 5,000,000 of them, consequently it is absolutely impossible to put any claim in their collective mouths without violating WP:OR. And no, "some adherents (see google)" will not do. We either need to cite a notable adherent, by name, or we need to attribute the "view of adherents" to the original research reported in some quotable source. All of this is quite elementary. If we cannot find a quotable third party source making a specific point about TM, chances are Misplaced Pages doesn't need to make it either. --dab (𒁳) 20:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest, "adherents say" is a form of WP:WEASEL unless its attributed. (olive (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC))

We can use "officials" instead, as there are many officials quoted as saying this. Perhaps the Maharishi said it as well. Saying "an official" would give the impression that only one has said it, that's why the plural is better. I'll dig up some cites.   Will Beback  talk  22:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Transcendental Meditation is not a religion or philosophy and does not involve any belief or change in lifestyle.
  • Press release, Maharishi Foundation UK: Transcendental Meditation Helps Women with Breast Cancer, Oct 19, 2009.
• A portion of the profits will enable the National Meditation Centre of Wales, based in Llandaff, Cardiff, to offer training courses in Welsh schools. Centre director Helen Evans said: "It's fantastic because so little is known about transcendental meditation. When people hear it's from the East they assume it's a cult or a religion, which is a shame because it's neither of those things. It's not even a way of life, it's just a technique to enable you to relax and help you cope better with your day."
  • Chill out ... with a little help from some friends; Major gig with ex-Beatles will help children in Welsh schools, Katie Norman. South Wales Echo. Cardiff (UK): Apr 16, 2009. pg. 3
• Some vocal critics in the US have also called TM a "stealth religion", suggesting that it is rooted in Hinduism and that introducing it into the school system therefore violates church-state separation. In 2006, when the David Lynch Foundation awarded a grant to Terra Linda high school in California, outraged parents compared TM to a cult. One Californian religious group threatened to sue. Supporters of Transcendental Meditation refute these allegations, and point out that the practice pre-dates Hinduism by 5,000 years. They say that it is not a religion or a philosophy; nor does it, as popular mythology suggests, require growing a beard and levitating on a carpet. It is merely a practical brain-calming technique that involves repeating a sound, or mantra.
  • Health: Should our schools teach children to 'dive within'? Lucy Atkins. The Guardian. London (UK): Apr 14, 2009. pg. 18
• While meditation is part of Hinduism and Buddhism, Transcendental Meditation adherents maintain it is not a religion or philosophy, and is practiced by people of various religions.
  • Paul, Ringo help push for meditation in schools, Robert McCoppin rmccoppin@dailyherald.com. Daily Herald. Arlington Heights, Ill.: Apr 4, 2009. pg. 6
• TM has vigorously insisted that it is a technique and not a religion.
  • Paul, Ringo and a transcendental proposal Richard C Dujardin. The Providence Journal. Providence, R.I.: Apr 3, 2009. pg. A.1
• Its proponents say it is not a religion or a philosophy.
  • National: Meditation courses for problem pupils, Polly Curtis. The Observer. London (UK): Mar 29, 2009. pg. 23
• The fee-paying Maharishi School in Skelmersdale, Lancashire, has held talks with officials in an attempt to sponsor and run the schools, the Times Educational Supplement reports today. The potential backers claim the technique increases creativity and improves intelligence and insist that it is not religion-based.
  • Ministers consider meditation academies, Graeme Paton Education Editor. The Daily Telegraph. London (UK): Feb 13, 2009. pg. 2
• Shirley Boncheff, director of the Brattleboro Transcendental Meditation Center: "The Transcendental Meditation technique does not involve concentration, control of the mind, or change in lifestyle. Nor is it a religion or a philosophy. It is simply a mental technique to remove stress from the mind and body," Dr. Boncheff says.
  • Health Notebook for 9-5-2008, Anonymous. The Brattleboro Reformer. Brattleboro, Vt.: Sep 3, 2008.
• TM detractors have said the movement is a cult at worst, or a religion at best. But Dr Vicki Broome, who teaches TM, differentiates between religion and spirituality: TM is spiritual but not religious, she says.
  • Putting mind to the fight against crime, Franny Rabkin. Business Day. Johannesburg: Aug 18, 2008. pg. 4
• Lynch says from his office in Los Angeles. " People think it's a religion, it's mumbo-jumbo, it's a cult. It's none of those things. It's a mental technique that works."
  • David Lynch tours to tout the benefits of Transcendental Meditation in schools, Glenn Gamboa. McClatchy - Tribune News Service. Washington: May 1, 2008.
• The group vehemently denies it is a religion, even taking the issue to court - and losing - in the United States.
  • Spiritual leader and guru to the Beatles founded Transcendental Meditation, Lilly Koppel. The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont.: Feb 7, 2008. pg. S.8

And so on. Given what some of these sources say, I think the better wording might be something more like "the movement denies it is a religion."   Will Beback  talk  22:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

movement scope

"it includes programs in education, natural medicine, architecture and city planning, and Vedic organic agriculture."

this is so much hot air. Was this copy-pasted off a TM website? If we are going to report on the movement's scope, will we please do that on the basis of independent third party sources? Thank you.

education: fair enough, you are initiated and "educated" in TM. Not what "education" usually means (primary school, secondary school, higher education)

• natural medicine. This means Ayurveda. If TM is recognized as an authority in Ayurveda by anyone outside TM that is fair enough, but can we have the independent reference for this please, and then call Ayurveda Ayurveda, not "natural medicine".
• architecture and city planning. Sure, as in "please demolish all your cities and rebuild them, and pay us $15 trillion. Just what we wouuld call "architecture and city planning" in Misplaced Pages's voice
• Vedic organic agriculture. It is TM jargon to call everything they do "Vedic". It is not the meaning of the term Vedic (northern India during the early Iron Age) as it is used encyclopedically. Nothing in the Vedas deals with "organic agriculture", except that in the Iron Age all agriculture was "organic" (what is "anorganic agriculture, btw?)

In a nutshell, please let's see the independent references, or we will be obliged to remove the stuff based on TM sources. --dab (𒁳) 10:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no question that the movement is engaged in education. It has countless entities at all levels.

"Natural" medicine is meaningless. We should use "Ayurvedic" or "traditional Indian".

"Organic agriculture" has been a feature of promotional literature and investment opportunities, but it isn't clear that it's a significant factor. We don't mention it otherwise so perhaps we should mve this to the body of the article.

The intro does not adequately summarize the article, and the article does not fully summarize the movement. The intro won't be right until the article is. But we're making progress.   Will Beback  talk  10:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

In my book, education is teaching people to read and write and do sums, and later on to think for themselves (so that, among other things, they will think twice before sumbitting to a guru). As opposed to giving them a mantra and telling them the world will be saved if they keep repeating it. This is not "education" in my book, it is simple religious indoctrination. You cannot read anything published by the Maharishis without seeing the word "Vedic" a dozen times over. Does "education" mean teaching people Vedic Sanksrit and giving them the skills necessary to read the Vedic texts? How many TM disciples have even a passing knowledge of Sanskrit? In what sense do we talk about "education" here? If we can cite an independent, quotable, third party source admitting that the TM movement is engaged in education, that will be fine with me. As long as we do not cite such a source, I reserve the right to be highly skeptical about the claims involving "education". They can give their institutions names containing capital-E Education, that won't mean more than calling things Vedic, it will just be a proper name (l'arbitraire du signe). The truly astounding thing here is not the bizarre nature of the claims involved, but the ability of tens of thousands of people to switch off their brains and tag along. I get this sense of being nonplussed at the behavioral patterns of H. sapiens associated with charismatic leaders every time I read about one of the more bizarre nrms. --dab (𒁳) 11:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to see that "in my book" attitude dominating the debate and not the content of the article and Wiki policies. The TMM is engaged in education by owing/operating a university in USA and in India. There are 1000s of children in Maharishi schools in India. There TMM educational institutes in many countries of the world. Many of these institutions are accredited by local authorities. Doctors get continuing ed credit for taking Maharishi Ayurved cources, etc., etc. We have sources for these points. What is the issue with saying the TMM is engaged in education? --BwB (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If they are accredited by local authorities, excellent, cite that fact and you have a case. Just calling something a "University" or "educational" means nothing. Reognition by authorities is a different matter, and will either reflect favourably on the institution, or then again unfavourable on the authority in question, but that will be a judgement left to the reader. --dab (𒁳) 10:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's any question that the movement has numerous schools of one form or another. Some are simply schools of meditation, confusingly called universities, which are not accredited and in some cases as probably very small. However they are accredited universities and schools as well, including a vast school system in India. Those schools may focus on TM-related topics, but they purport to give a complete education.   Will Beback  talk  23:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Move text to MMY article

The following text seems not to bout TMM and should be moved to MMY article.

"Following the Beatles, celebrities rushed to be associated with the Maharishi, initiates including Mick Jagger, Marianne Faithfull, the Beach Boys, Mia Farrow, Kurt Vonnegut and Vidal Sassoon. Because of his involvement with many wealthy celebrities, the Maharishi began to be ridiculed for the display of his love of luxury, such as his habit of touring in a Rolls-Royce, and his business acumen. Alexis Mardas, head of the Beatles' Apple Electronics, noted the luxurious infrastructure at the Rishikesh ashram. Neil Aspinall, the Beatles' road manager, recalled his opinion that "This guy knows more about making deals than I do. He's really into scoring, the Maharishi". Private Eye ridiculed the guru with a character named "Veririchi Lottsa Money Yogi Bear". The Maharishi was also parodied by comedians Bill Dana and Joey Forman in the 1968 comedy album "The Mashuganisi Yogi", and by comedian Mike Myers in the movie The Love Guru and in the character "Guru Maharishi Yogi" featured in the BBC sketch Goodness Gracious Me." --BwB (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe it was copied from the MMY article. I've trimmed that and the paragraph about The Beatles. The history is far from complete, but those details are better kept in other articles.   Will Beback  talk  17:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It is "not about the TMM" to note that the TMM first became notable when lots of 1960s celebrities became initiated? Please. This is the movement's main claim to notability and the reason for its meteoric growth over the 1970s. --dab (𒁳) 13:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the celebrities are part of the history of the movement, but folks who simply took TM classes are only barely part of the movement so their names and details are better kept in other articles. Some celebrities, for example Donovan or Andy Kaufman IIRC, went further and became TM instructors and they might be relevant here. It's possible that we should move the history of TM from that article to here or a separate article to consolidate the material and avoid duplication.   Will Beback  talk  23:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge: Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation

I'm proposing that we merge Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation into this article. It's questionable whether MVED is notable enough for an article of its own because none of the sources in the article are primarily about the MVED, and most simply mention it in passing. Much of the material in the article is redundant with material already here.   Will Beback  talk  21:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Support. Fladrif (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
2. arguable, but it might also be considered merging all Fairfield items into Maharishi Vedic City, Iowa. --dab (𒁳) 10:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure merging all Fairfield items into MVC is the right approach. There is a wiki article on FF that is more than the TMM connection and perhaps deserves a article in it's own right. FF is not just a TMM city. --BwB (talk) 12:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

when I say "Fairfield items" I mean of course "all the TM bodies located in Fairfield". I am not talking about Fairfield the article on Fairfield, Iowa as a town. --dab (𒁳) 13:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the "Fairfield/MVC/Vlodrop/etc" article. Let's not be overly precise. Many of these entities have presences in various locations. Each entity in each country doesn't need an article. MVED is a relatively small component so a couple of lines or paragraphs here should suffice.   Will Beback  talk  11:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Support: MVED is not notable enough to have its own article. --Defender of torch (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Characterizations

These sections should be higher up in the article to provide balance rather than denigrated to the end as done here .Doc James (talk contribs · email) 00:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Why per Misplaced Pages?(olive (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC))

See WP:DUE "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." The important third party comments on the organization have been placed at the very end which equals poor prominence of placement.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps some of these characterizations should be moved out of the ghetto section and woven into the text. If we have a description of the movement from official quarters, then that's a good place to add different views.   Will Beback  talk  02:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree mainstream views should be through out the text. The devision of the article into people who support the movement with a small section at the end of those who disagree is bad form. Moving the a section on characterizations up I hope would address some of this.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Think Will's idea is better than Doc's. --BwB (talk) 11:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not think the "characterization" (which boils down to "is it a 'cult'?") stuff belongs before "history". The problem with this article is that it is burdened down with the "list of TM organizations" cruft, which could well be exported. As for the "cult" question, it is WP:DUE to state, up front in the lead, that TM is almost universally considered the prototypical cult movement, complete with guru and a multinational money-making apparatus, but that this is, of course, controversial (as always with the c-word). --dab (𒁳) 13:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

History overview

I am a littel confused with the new text in this section (Text below). We have a statement that Wallis has "identified four phases in the development of the TMM", but then the next sentence "Spiritual-Mystical Period" by Woodrum". The ref for this section is a book bt Wallis. What is the connection between Wallis and Woodrum? Can someone please clarify this section? Thanks? --BwB (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

"Roy Wallis identified four phases in the development of the Transcendental Meditation Movement. The first, called the "Spiritual-Mystical Period" by Eric Woodrum, from 1959 to 1965, identified Transcendental Meditation as the primary component of a wholistic approach to spiritual evolution, detachment from the material world and the achievement of nirvana. The second period, which Woodrum called the "Voguish, Self-Sufficiency Period" by Woodrum, from 1966 to 1969, saw a rapid expansion of the Movement through identification with the counter-culture, and a significant modification of the prior Hindu understanding of the goals and effects of Transcendental Meditation. The third phase, from 1970 through 1977, Woodrum called the "Secularized, Popular Religious Phase", during which the Movement identified practical, material and social benefits of TM, with virtually no references to non-worldly considerations. Wallis writes that this de-emphasis of religious rhetoric and style, except among its inner core of followers, was acknowledge by former TM Movement official Robery McCutcheon. Since the late 1970's, however, the Movement has reversed course, introducing programs such as TM-Sidhi, which are claimed to enable its practitioners to exercise occult powers.Wallis, Ray, The Elementary Forms of the New Religious Life", Taylor & Francis, 1984 ISBN 0710098901, 9780710098900, p. 90

perhaps you could consider consulting the reference given? Woodrum (1977) identified three phases (obviously, up to the publication date of 1977). Wallis (1984) is citing Woodrum, and adding a fourth phase. Sometimes it really helps to actually read the paragraph you want to criticize. --dab (𒁳) 13:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

5. "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi", The Times (February7, 2008)
6. http://web.archive.org/web/20060831081613/religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/tm.html
7. Service Mark - Transcedental Meditation
8. "Conditions of Use - Maharishi University of Management". Mum.edu. Retrieved 2009-11-15.
9. McTaggart, Lynne (2003-07-24). The Field. HarperCollins. p. 211. ISBN 0060931175, 9780060931179. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
10. McTaggart, Lynne (2003-07-24). The Field. HarperCollins. p. 211. ISBN 0060931175, 9780060931179. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)

• C-Class Skepticism articles
• Unknown-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Unassessed Alternative views articles
• Unknown-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• C-Class Religion articles
• Mid-importance Religion articles
• C-Class New religious movements articles
• High-importance New religious movements articles
• New religious movements articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics