Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Keithbob (talk | contribs) at 13:46, 17 April 2013 (→Proposed addition to article: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Error: The code letter tm for the topic area in this contentious topics talk notice is not recognised or declared. Please check the documentation.

Transcendental Meditation movement B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Transcendental Meditation 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.Transcendental Meditation movementWikipedia:WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movementTemplate:WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movementTranscendental Meditation movement B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

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

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months

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.

Parking sourced content for discussion

This stuff was in the SCI/Characterizations section and, correct me if I'm wrong, but the are not specifically about SCI. Can we use these someplace else?

• A 2009 research review in the Harvard Review of Psychiatry says that "despite the criticisms (that) its organizational structure and religious viewpoints have aroused, TM’s medical claims have been taken seriously."ref>Dakwar, Elias and Levin, Francis R. (2009) The Emerging Role of Meditation in Addressing Psychiatric Illness, with a Focus on Substance Use Disorders, Harvard Review</ref
• In a 1980 book, Neurophysiologist Michael Persinger wrote that "science has been used as a sham for propaganda by the TM movement" .ref name="Harvey1993" . ref name=Persinger>Persinger, Michael A.; Carrey, Normand J.; Suess, Lynn A. (1980). TM and cult mania. North Quincy, Mass.: Christopher Pub. House. ISBN 0-8158-0392-3. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• The main purpose of the first one (2009 review) seemed to be to balance a statement by James Randi, which denied any scientific basis for claims of benefit for TM. But since that statement is now gone (because it both had nothing to do with SCI, and was considered non-compliant with MEDRS), there would no longer seem to be any purpose for this statement about TM's medical claims being taken seriously. Also, as you say, the statement has no bearing on SCI. I can't think of another place this statement would go, with advantage to that article. The same point has been brought out in different ways in the other articles, I believe.
• Re: Persinger, I agree--the statement does not apply to this section on SCI, but rather to discussion of TM and TM marketing. As to where else it could go--same reaction as to above text. There's already lots on the TM orgns use of science in bringing TM to the public. Also, the quotation seems weak. The phrase, "Science has been used as a sham for propaganda" is unskillful prose. I think he means that the TM orgn has made a sham of science in its marketing. Even if grammatically correct (which is doubtful) the phrase is unfamiliar and a head-scratcher. Not up to standard, IMHO. EMP (talk 18:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The quote from Cult Mania could possibly go in the Marketing section but I'd like to see the context of the quote first. I think I can get the book at my library. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The quote is actually from an article in the Ottawa Citizen. The article is ostensibly quoting the book, but given the problematic syntax, it would be a good idea to locate the quote in the book to see if it's accurate. Apart from this, I question Persinger's 1980 book from a Christian publisher as a source. It goes into detail criticizing the research, faulting every area. But that was 33 years ago. In the intervening years, the research has been published in top medical journals, has been funded by NIH, and has been recognized as playing a role in developing the new field of mind/body medicine. TM is included in standard medical textbooks. I would think that a statement by Dakwar in the Harvard Review of Psychiatry would have more weight that an outdated book from a Christian publisher that claims the research is a sham. TimidGuy (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I finally got a hold of the book and here is the quote from page 35:

• The Maharishi insists that his meditational states can be verified by science (rationalism) but at the same time he emphasizes the importance of inner experience, which cannot be verified easily. Within the format of this peculiar postulation, TM scientists have engaged in sham research. The have intended to "scientifically prove" the nebulous and indefinite statements of the Maharishi by spanning vast conceptual distances between concise data and the diffuse wonder of words of mystical philosophy.

Therefore the current text: "science has been used as a sham for propaganda by the TM movement" seems grossly overstated and inaccurate. Also, the topic of SCI is not mentioned until page 92 and receives only a minor mention. I recommend that the following text be placed in the Marketing section:

• According to the 1980 book, TM and Cult Mania, scientists associated with TM have attempted to prove the Maharishi's concepts by uniting scientific data and mystical philosophy.

Comments? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

My feeling is that this source has been superseded by the many research reviews that include research on TM and report that TM does indeed result in a wakeful hypo metabolic state, does indeed find EEG signatures that are unique, does indeed affect body chemistry in specific ways. The National Institutes of Health wouldn't provide $25 million in funding over a period of 20 years for "sham research." The early studies, according to a research review published by the New York Academy of Sciences, are now considered classic. The study by Wallace in Science published in 1970 has been cited over 900 times. This research has a solid footing in the scientific literature, and we shouldn't give any weight, in my opinion, to a 1980 book published by a small Christian press. TimidGuy (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand your concerns ie that it is not a reliable for discounting the large body of research on TM because its was published in 1980 and because the source makes a sweeping statement and provides no details about what it is referring to ie. SCI, health studies, unified field claims etc. At the same time I think it has validity as a third party opinion about the way some scientists associated with TM have spoken about TM using examples from science to justify metaphysical theory. So my suggestion is to place the text I've recommended above, in the TM movement article under the section "Characterizations of marketing" since the Marketing section has already been moved from this article to the TM movement article. Would that be an acceptable compromise? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Since there is no response for four days I have add the text as I suggested above in the TMM Reception to Marketing section if there is still disagreement, then TG you can revert and we can continue discussion. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to remove the NPOV clean up tag

Given the concerted efforts and reviews given the article in recent months by myself, Coaster92 and Littleolive oil, does anyone see any reason to maintain the NPOV tag on the article? If there are any remaining issues I'd like to ID and address them as per WP:TC: Cleanup tags are meant to be temporary notices that result in the problem being fixed, not a permanent badge of shame to show that you disagree with the article or a method of warning the readers against the article. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The history behind the NPOV tag is that it was placed on the article in August 2011 by Timid Guy . It was then removed by me in July 2012 and then replaced by me a few days later after input from Arjayay. All of Arjayay's feedback was discussed at length and changes were made to to adjust for tone and other issues. Discussion was had and edits were made to address the issues raised by an IP and many of Arjayay's concerns have been addressed such as the the article's length, excessive number of quotes, a further review by Coaster92 for tone, and more trimming here. There was also a very careful review of the lead for NPOV. Does anyone have any remaining concerns? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The concerns that I had when I originally placed the tag have been addressed. TimidGuy (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm now happy as well - I have been watching from the sidelines since June - but trying to keep up with, let alone comment on, over 300 edits was too much. Congratulations to those who managed to restore an NPOV, even though, considering their detailed knowledge of the subject, I suspect that many, or most, are advocates or practitioners of TM.

COI operates at many levels - but although direct, commercial, COI has many obvious problems, Misplaced Pages relies on knowledgeable "fans" of many subjects to write and improve articles about their interest or passion. "Disinterested editors" cuts both ways - we cannot rely on total bystanders, who do not know anything about a subject, to know, or find, the sources that an article needs, nor to spend a lot of their time on a subject that does not interest them.

As removal of a neutrality tag by (one of) those editors who improved the article could be seen as COI, and as I am the person whose criticism caused it to be added back, I hope you don't mind if I am WP:BOLD and remove the tag.
Arjayay (talk) 12:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. I'm pleased you feel that the article is now compliant. TimidGuy (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to move Marketing section

As I and Arjayay have mentioned before the Marketing section seems inappropriate for this article. If you look at it here you will notice that many of the sentences say the Maharishi did this or the Movement did that etc. This section is not talking about the meditation technique but rather about things the leader and organization did. Also the TM movement article already has a section called Promotion so I think it should be combined with that section and if needed some parts that are specific to the Maharishi can then be moved to that article. Comments? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. There's no point in having a constellation of articles if each one is a mishmash of the same stuff. Better to parcel out the content to the relevant articles, so that the reader gets a specific angle in each article. I was thinking possibly some could go in the History article, but your suggested venues may be better. TimidGuy (talk) 11:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, agree: let's get it all sorted out properly. EMP (talk 18:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to be the nay sayer, but how the technique is marketed seem highly relevant. I'm not saying we have the right content in this article to describe that, but just that it is connected. The real issue is and always has been, seems, where should the line be drawn the line drawn between the technique and content connected to the technique... so far that line seems to be arbitrary dependent on who is editing at the time. We might look at that more general issue first before moving content.(olive (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC))

It's not a matter of whether it's relevant or connected. All of the related articles are relevant and connected, such as History of Transcendental Meditation, Transcendental Meditation, Transcendental Meditation movement. The question is parceling out the content to various locations. In general, we've been trying to avoid duplicating content. Since the Transcendental Meditation movement article already has a substantial section on promotion, It would make sense that this article be about the technique itself, and the bulk of the material on promotion of the technique be in the article about the organization that promotes it. TimidGuy (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

In the past content has been repeated in the many different articles, so if that is not going to be the case and if we are setting a precedent for that, I think that has to be stated. And I disagree whole heartedly; it is a matter of connection and relevance and the missing aspect of that which is where do we decide the relevance and connection is too distant to include. :O)(olive (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC))

I think the decision should be made keeping in mind the number of articles on TM-related subjects already in existence. Had there been only one TM article, as opposed to a gazillion, then the information would have gone to that one article. But there are several. It makes sense, therefore, to decide in a logical way what each article should contain, so that they do not become repetitions of the same information. This last point, I agree with Olive, is one that we should state so that it is clear, but on the other hand, what would be the point in having many articles each repeating the same information?

In this particular case, we have an article about the TM technique and one about the TM Movement. In view of this, I see the TM technique article as the one that discusses the technique, and therefore I would move the marketing section to the TM Movement article. This is because the TM Movement is described in Misplaced Pages as the organization, or number of organizations, responsible for the teaching and promotion of TM-related programs, including the TM Technique. I agree that I am making an arbitrary division, but it is dictated by the fact that an article on the TM Movement already exists. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Articles are stand alone, so that may be reason to repeat certain kinds of information. I'm not against parceling out content to the most appropriate articles, I just think we have to be clear about where the line is drawn that causes editors to make a decision to move content, in part because the repetition of content has been a contentious issue in the past. To my mind there are multiple sections in this article that do not relate any more directly than the marketing section, "Government" for example. Why are we not moving those sections? (olive (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC))

I definitely agree with you that if we decided the "Marketing" section did not belong in this article, then neither should the "Government" section be there. They both have more to do with the Movement's interaction with its environment than with the practice itself. Drawing a clear cut line would be nice, though I suspect it may have to be done on an article-by-article basis. I would think editors need to decide what the article is really about and then go from there. If this article is mainly about providing an illustration of the technique, then sections about marketing and governmental reception do not belong there.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 05:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

My proposal was inspired by the feedback we got from Arjayay some months ago. In his mind, the article is about the technique not about the organization that promotes, advertises and implements the technique. It was with this in mind that we moved the Education section to its own article. This proposal is a continuation of that. However, some duplication will always occur from article to article and I think the way we've been handling that at the TM and TMM articles is to have a summary (usually the lead of the mother article) and a Main Article wikilink that links to the mother article. I was planning to do the same here. Does that make it any more palatable for you Olive? As for the Government section, it is a subsection of Characterization of the technique and as such it seems to me to be relevant to this article but I think we should start a separate thread or sub thread if we want to have that discussion. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I think I would still prefer to see the marketing section go somewhere else, so I like Kbob's proposal. I reread the Government section in light of Kbob's comment and I can see what he means, though I could go either way, keeping the section in the current article or maybe removing it. We can start a new discussion on that once the current issue is resolved, but if we do keep it, I would recommend changing the name of the section so that it is clear from the outset that this is a subsection of the Characterization section. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I can go with a consensus on this whether I agree or not.:O)(olive (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC))

It looks like Kbob, TimidGuy and I think the section should be moved, did I get this correctly? --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Plus the feedback we got from uninvolved Arjayay, who questioned its relevance to this particular article. TimidGuy (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

There is clearly a consensus to move the marketing content so I am OK with that move, as well. Go for it! (olive (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC))

 Done -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to amend lead

• Currently in the lead: It is reported to be one of the most widely practiced, and among the most widely researched, meditation techniques, with over 340 peer-reviewed studies published. Research reviews of the effects of the Transcendental Meditation technique have yielded results ranging from inconclusive to clinically significant.
• I think undue weight is being given to a very small section of the article and I recommend removing the second sentence. Comments? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. First, content on the research was so extensive that it was originally split off from the main TM article of the time. The research section in this article now links to an entire article's worth of content. Second, the second sentence is merely the briefest of summaries of the entire range of the research which gives the reader simple, but critical information on the research findings. I suggest strongly that the sentence in the lead stay in the article.(olive (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC))

What I would suggest given that the sentence appears twice in the article is to expand it slightly for the research section, then leaving the summary now in the lead, in place. The same content appears three times in the TM article and that's another issue. I 'd add that this content replaces inaccurate content that was repeated over many articles. The sentence under discussion simply replaced each repetition of that inaccurate sentence. It is time to trim that kind of repetitive content in my opinion as I had suggested in the past (olive (talk) 17:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC))

Since we have a TM research article, I am not sure that expanding the research section here is warranted. If we left it as is, the research section is quite small and it does not, in my opinion, warrant a sentence on research in the lead. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm suggesting a sentence at the most. In my mind the section is long and the content so extensive it had to be split off. This indicates content that is highly significant. A slightly longer explanation would be warranted. (olive (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC))

The current summary is quite good. I'd hate to start going into more detail in this article, because there are so many facets of the research to deal with and so many different findings. If you have a specific idea of what should be added, perhaps draft some text. TimidGuy (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess I haven't explained very well. I am suggesting a very slight extension of the sentence that has been repeated, or possibly saying the same thing in slightly different words with a bit of extension. I think that sentence belongs in the lead, but it shouldn't be repeated (or should it ), especially that it appears 7 times in the TM articles. We can either remove it or explain it a little more. I can't see this as changing the section very much or extending it.(olive (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC))

• • • • I have moved this discussion to TM which is the mother article, to centralize the discussion This is a larger issue than this content appearing in one article. Once we have looked at the overall picture then we could come back and solve this problem. Otherwise this has become very confusing.(olive (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC))

Parking text that needs verification

• and in one of his books, the Maharishi refers to TM as "a path to God". --Meditations of Maharishi. p. 59

This text has a an incomplete citation and there had been no response to request for quote made 7 months ago. If a source can be found it can be added back to the Characterizations section -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've added the reference for the book which I found on Amazon. The quote probably deserves some contextual material. I'll let Kbob put this back in since he parked it.(olive (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC))

1. ^ Mahesh Yogi, Maharishi (1973). Meditations of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Bantam. p. 59.

• • Ok, thanks, now we have a complete citation but Amazon doesn't provide a preview to verify the text or its context. Shall we re-add it and place a "quotation needed" tag on it?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  • So we still have the problem that a request for a quotation was made 7 months ago and the text referenced in the citation cannot be verified on Amazon or Google Books. What should be done? Suggestions?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
    • OK, I"ve replaced the text including the "quote needed" tag which was placed there in June 2012. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The book does say, "Transcendental Meditation is a path to God." But it would be better if we included some of the context. TimidGuy (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree and Olive mentioned this also. However I don't have access to the source.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Why do we have this at the beginning of the article?

This statement appears at the top of the article:

Isn't it self-evident that this article is about the technique? That is, after all, the title of the article. It's unlikely that someone would arrive at this article expecting to read about the TM movement. The most likely landing point for a reader would be the main TM article, and that very clearly directs readers to the TM technique and TM movement articles. Seems like this statement isn't needed. TimidGuy (talk) 11:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a similar statement referring back to this article on the TM movement article. We should either remove both or keep both. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Any objection to my deleting both? TimidGuy (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Addition of Omni content:Mantras

There was agreement to not include the mantras published in Omni . Given that agreement I'd like to move the content here for further discussion. If there is good reason to put the content back in it could be considered here now.(olive (talk) 06:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC))

In 1984, these 16 mantras were published in Omni magazine based on information from "disaffected TM teachers":

1. Cite error: The named reference Bainbridge was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Bainbridge, William Sims (2007). Across the secular abyss: from faith to wisdom. Lexington Books. p. 136. ISBN 978-0-7391-1678-4.
3. Barrett, David V. (2001-06-30). The New Believers. Cassell. ISBN 978-0-304-35592-1.
4. "Transcendental Truth". Omni. January 1984. p. 129.
5. Scott, R.D. (1978). Transcendental Misconceptions. San Diego: Beta Books. ISBN 0-89293-031-4.

Una Kroll

I'm reading through Una Kroll's book, The Healing Power of Transcendental Meditation, and am impressed with her language and explanations which are very approachable. I'll add content to the articles from her book because I can see her view as easy to follow and understand. She is both a medical doctor and proclaimed Christian and so seems to be in a very good position to give a somehwat neutral, although personal, of course, view of the technique.(olive (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC))

I skimmed that book a couple months ago and felt that it was a good source. TimidGuy (talk) 12:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed addition to article

An editor added the following text to the TM article. I removed it, because it seemed more appropriate to this article.

The following quotation sums up the fundamental principles of Transcendental Meditation: "The fundamental premise of the psychology of fulfillment is that within every person exists a seemingly inexhaustible center of energy, intelligence, and satisfaction... To the extent that our behavior depends on the degree of energy and intelligence available to us, this center of pure creative intelligence may be described as that resource which gives direction to all that we experience, think and do."

Should this text be added to the article? TimidGuy (talk) 10:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I've added the text to the article. Is the placement of the text ok? It seems to fit in with the general flow of the article.Matipop (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Matipop and welcome to the TM topic area. I see that you are a new editor and you may not be aware that the opening paragraphs of an article (called the lead or lede) are supposed to be a summary of the main points from the entire article per WP:LEAD. So I've moved it to the Theoretical Concepts section and gave it an inline attribution. Meanwhile, welcome to the article and topic area and please feel free to edit the article and/or bring your thoughts, suggestions or questions here to the talk page for discussion. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

1. Phelan, Michael. "Transcendental Meditation. A Revitalization of the American Civil Religion". Archives de sciences sociales des religions. 1 (48). {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

• B-Class Transcendental Meditation movement articles
• Top-importance Transcendental Meditation movement articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics