Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:46, 21 November 2007

Alternative medicine Start‑class

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

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.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page.

Archives

Index 01 (Pre - Feb 2005): 02 (Nov 28 2005 - Nov 30 2005) 03 (Nov 30 2005 - Feb 10 2006) 04 (Feb 10 2006 - May 28 2006) 05 (May 28 2006 - Jun 25 2006) 06 (Jun 25 2006 - Jul 19 2006) 07 (Jul 19 2006 - Oct 31 2006) 08 (Nov 01 2006 - Nov 25 2006) 09 (Nov 25 2006 - Dec 21 2006) 10 (Dec 21 2006 - Jan 11 2007) 11 (Jan 11 2007 - Feb 28 2007) 12 (Feb 28 2007 - Apr 16 2007) 13 (Apr 16 2007 - Oct 01 2007) 14 (Oct 01 2007 - Dec 31 2007) 15 (Dec 31 2007 - Feb 9 2008) 16 (Feb 9 2008 - June 14 2008) 17 (June 14 2008 - Oct 2 2008)

What's the Technique?

Why is there no description of how transcendental meditation is actually performed?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.61.51 (talk • contribs)

Because the technique is owned by Maharishi, and if it were described here, that would violate various laws. Several frequent editors of this page are associated with Maharishi, and would take exception to such, as well.Michaelbusch 16:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This should probably be saved for a users page but since the user has no page I'll put this here with an apology to other editors and will do my best to explain to the best of my understanding. How to teach the technique is known only to the TM teachers and the practitioners who learn the technique. Both are asked to keep this a private matter between the teacher and initiate. The technique relies on the ability to be natural and effortless for benefits, and avoids concentration and contemplation. Discussion of the technique itself predispose expectation and thought about the technique, the very things which will destroy the quality of the experience. Teachers spend many, intensive months in residence learning how to teach so that the technique is always taught over time in exactly the same way safeguarding the technique from subtle or gross changes that would certainly harm the ability to gain the benefits the technique offers if done correctly. Any help?(olive 16:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC))

"The TM organization recommends that the TM technique be learned from an authorized teacher only. The fee in the U.S. is currently $2,500."

doesn't that make you figure? That very line is the easiest way to tell the bogus apart from solid health care methodologies that actually care more about your well-being instead of your bank account. I would like to hear about the revolutionary methods, of course, but I think this'll be just another rip-off movement seconded by the Cult of Scientology in getting the most famous face to promote it. Three thumbs down. --Sigmundur 23:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality and factual accuracy

For discussion of issues underlying the tag Dreadstar † 19:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking further through the references, it's not as bad as I had thought. Pretty much all the references in the lead paragraph are to tm.org, mum.edu, maharishi.org, etc... none of them "third party". That's why I replaced the "disputed" tag (I didn't tag the article originally). Rracecarr 20:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter to me if the article is tagged or not at this point . But....If we want specific information on the technique who would be better qualified to give that information than the organization that teaches the technique. If you are asking an artist what colour combinations she/he used in a painting would you ask around to see if someone else knew or would you ask the expert , the artist who created the painting. This is one place that Misplaced Pages guidelines may not meet the challenge at hand.Thoughts (olive 20:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC))

Seems like in this case the sources fall within the restrictions outlined in WP:V regarding use of self-published sources in articles about themselves . TimidGuy 20:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Do not have much time to analyse all references linked to TM-organisations, but in general: The organisation which teaches/sells a product is only then and only then a "qualified source" if it is acting in a truthful manner. I would NEVER claim a weaponery industry to be a qualified source for an article on weapons, because a weaponery industry could never be able to be truthful. Therefore: The task to the reader is to find out: Who is truthful, who not? A task too big for everyone. Therefore an organisation can never said to be a "qualified soruce" in regard of claims which have to evaluate the organisation and its products.

The way out for organisations who are writing Misplaced Pages-articles is: Sources linked to itself are fine as long the organisastion/product only has to be described. Sources linked to neutral organisations are necessary as soon the organisation/products has to be evaluated.

Example: Authors X/Y found out that 85% participants of the study showed lower blood pressure (source: www.JournalAB.com; not: www.organisationBC.org/scientific research). The organisation BC interprets this finding as a sign for positive influence on health (source: www.BC.org/scientific research). Author X is connected to organisation BC, yet got a co-author which is not connected to the organisation. The article was peer reviewd by Z and was evaluated in such a way that the authors "examined their theme in a neutral manner" (source: www.JournalAB.com/editorial).

I am not a scientist. But this seems to be the only way an organisation can write articles in Misplaced Pages so that the articles not only sound neutral but have the character of neutrality. --Josha52 12:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Josha for making this distinction. My point wasn't about the whole article but about specific facts concerning the actual procedure and technique that only TM teachers would have, and for which we needed to use official TM web-sites. Your phrase, "which have to evaluate the organization and its products" and especially key word "evaluate" seem important. Misplaced Pages indicates references to self publication is ok under certain circumstances WP:SELFPUB. So as I understand it, in the intro.of the article speaking about the actual technique itself and the procedures would be ok since this requires information no one but the TM teachers would have in any kind of really accurate way, and nothing is gained for example by saying , one sits with the eyes closed for 23 minutes instead of twenty, but speaking about the effects the technique has , as in for example the research requires a neutral reliable, verifiable source. I may have not made that a clear distinction. I think we have really "sweated" through the article looking for reliable sources over time. There have been numerous discussions to that point so I think what's there is reliable, but you made an important point and distinction, I thought.(olive 13:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC))

Seems like we're all agreed, then. The references in the first paragraph, which Rracecarr noted as the reason for reinserting the tag, fall within the guidelines. They simply are citing the official TM sites to describe the technique. As Josha notes, it wouldn't be appropriate to use those sites as sources to support evaluative claims, but in this case the article cites research in peer-reviewed journals. It's not really clear why the article is tagged. TimidGuy 15:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like the tag can be removed then. I'll go ahead an do that. Thanks for discussing! If someone puts it back, then the reason for it's reinsertion needs to be clearly presented here. Dreadstar † 05:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change

I want to make a addition "In his book Flim-Flam!, James Randi expressed his doubts about the pro-TM research in existence at the time". Since this might be a controversial change, I wanted to discuss it here. Eiler7 00:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Eiler. If I recall, we discussed this extensively back in July. We talked about how many of Randi's crictisms have been superceded. For example, he says that there are no randomzed controlled trials, but 30 years later there are dozens, including studies published in top medical journals published by the American Medical Association and the American Heart Association. We discussed the Misplaced Pages guideline that says to avoid citing the popular press when adding scientific information. And i tried to give you a picture of how widely accepted this body of research is. And how highly respected the researchers are in the scientific community. If Randi were a scientist who was familiar with current research, it would seem appropriate to add to the article. But he's not an expert on science (specific things in his book demonstrate this), and his book is now nearly 30 years out of date. It seems misleading to reference it. It might be better to find one of the studies that he cites, check to see how relevant the results still are in light of the subsequent research, and then if it's still relevant, cite that study. TimidGuy 11:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You say "specific things in his book demonstrate this". It sounds like you are trying to use your personal opinion in this discussion. That is not appropriate. You need to appeal to policies. You said "it is 30 years out of date". This is, once again, your opinion. Please note that a paper published in 1977 (30 years old) is mentioned in the article. Are you suggesting that anything recent be removed? If so, does any policy support this argument? If not, then you would need to make a case for it. I also checked the guideline that you mentioned and it did not rule out Randi's views. You say the research is widely accepted. However, publication, even in journals, is not the same as acceptance. You seem to be assuming that subsequent research has refuted Randi but, once again, this is not your call. It is "original research" which is not appropriate in an encyclopedia. There is a policy to this affect. Please can you review my suggestion again, not in the light of your personal feelings but in the light of what you can establish in terms of encyclopedia policy. Eiler7 12:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

HI, Eiler. As I understand it, a role of the Talk page is to discuss the merit and accuracy of sources and the expertise of those sources. I hope you agree and can assume good faith. Here's a quote from the guideline WP:TALK: "The talk page is the ideal place for all issues relating to verification. This includes asking for help to find sources, comparing contradictory facts from different sources, and examining the reliability of references." For example, I don't think Randi's book is a reliable source. Again, he says that there are no randomized controlled trials. But there are dozens. As a popular writer, he relies heavily on straw man arguments. To my mind, he's not a reliable source for information about science because he has no formal training as a scientist, because he betrays ignorance of science, because his comments are in a popular book that uses the sort of rhetorical approach common to popiular books but not acceptable in science discussions, and because he's making statements that have been superceded by decades of research.

Of course it's fine if you want to cite specific studies, if they haven't been superceded and aren't given undue weight. TimidGuy 15:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I wrote this and then strangely, it disappeared. I’ll throw it back in even though TG has responded

I was struck Eiler by your concern with the idea that TG was not using Misplaced Pages policy.

He refers to scientific studies. In the scientific world peer-reviewed studies in a established publication constitutes acceptance, and there are numerous such peer-reviewed studies cited in this article. Misplaced Pages requires as policies verifiability and reliability. The scientific, peer- reviewed study in an established publication is considered to be verifiable and reliable by all standards, including Misplaced Pages’s. You also note an early study in the article and question its inclusion. I wanted to mention again Misplaced Pages Reliability on this topic.

Where a subject has evolved or changed over time a long standing source may not be accurate with respect to the current situation. To interpret utility one must appreciate how the subject has changed and has that change impacted on any of the salient points of the the source information.

The 1977 study you mention is used as an historical marker. The date indicates early research, but the article goes on to cite later research giving the reader a sense of the development of the body of research on the TM technique and as well helps to create neutrality in the section. These are important functions of this early study. Misplaced Pages Reliabilty also notes: "Historical or out of date sources may be used to demonstrate evolution of the subject but should be treated with caution where used to illustrate the subject." Randi’s book is now 30 years old and the research is outdated . We have a marker in the article that indicates historical development, and this is a scientific study - the first line for reliability and verifiability. Randi as a writer, scientist or not, uses research to support an argument in his book. A more reliable way of way of using this material would be to cite the research itself. The research itself seems to be outdated, but if you can find recent studies that support Randi’s claims then I would think that as long as undue weight is considered the studies could be included.

PS I believe OR refers to material in the body of an article but not to discussions on a talk page. Best wishes.(olive 16:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC))

"In the scientific world peer-reviewed studies in a established publication constitutes acceptance" - I have no idea where you get that idea. A study in Journal of Conflict Resolution suggested that TM affected quality of life in Lebanon. This affect is not accepted by the scientific community. So, in conclusion, publication does not imply acceptance. Can you explain why you think that is true? I cannot see how the facts bear you out. Eiler7 22:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Publication in an established journal depends on a peer-review - other scientists. The study could not have been published in this journal without the expressed acceptance of the study by the review board.Does this mean that every scientist in the known world accepts every study? No, but it does mean that the study stands up to the standards established by other well-respected scientists (otherwise they could never be on such a board),and that the procedures, conclusions and so on are diligently scrutinized. That's why peer review is so important, so necessary. Otherwise any research could be touted as significant. Standards have been established, and these studies as peer-reviewed must and do meet those standards. Could there be a group of scientists and others who do not accept certain studies despite peer-review? Sure. For an encylopedia and for the scientific world in general though, the standard of peer -review is the best and possibly only way to establish reliabilty and verifiabilty. The term acceptance does not apply to a general feeling of the public or to other scientists who don't like or can't "buy" the research; it refers to the specific scientific community that scrutinizes a study.(olive 02:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC))

Eilier, we want to be careful not to conflate research on Transcendental Meditation with research on the TM-Sidhi program/Maharishi Effect. The latter is indeed a matter of controversy (not uncommon in science). This Misplaced Pages article is about the former. TimidGuy 10:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not see peer-review as a standard to ensure reliability (although it may help). I have checked some wikipedia pages on science and nowehere does it say that a result is good if published in a peer-reviewed publication. The fact that you think so is not relevant. Science is determined by consensus amongst scientists. TimidGuy, I am not sure what your point is. There has been no conflation. The example I gave was that a result had been published in a peer-reviewed journal and yet was not accepted by the scientific consensus. This is precisely relevant to claims that Randi has been outdated by events. People can try to play the "it's been published so it must be true" card but that is not how science works. One important reason for replication is that peer-review is not intended to catch all mistakes. Science journals with the highest reputation (such as Nature) can insist on replication in order to try to keep out the garbage. One example was a "memory of water" claim which Nature was doubtful about. The replication failed and Nature published that fact too. This is one reason why Nature is in such high regard. Eiler7 11:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Your mention of the article in the Journal of Conflict Resolution seemed to be conflating this research on the TM-Sidhi program/Maharishi Effect with research on the Transcendental Meditation technique. I don't see how it's relevant to Randi's discussion of research on Transcendental Meditation. TimidGuy 11:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It is relevant. It shows that publication does not equal truth or acceptance. Just because an article is published in peer review, it does not make outdated any previous view. This is a general point about science. Now, does anyone have a good argument that Randi's book is said to be inaccurate? Like, for example, a statement by an authority. Just citing a study publication is insufficient. Eiler7 12:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you said. "A study in Journal of Conflict Resolution suggested that TM affected quality of life in Lebanon." I wanted to be clear that this is a study on the TM-Sidhi program/Maharishi Effect.

I feel like i've given many good arguments why Randi's book isn't a reliable source. Including that it is factually inaccurate when it says that TM research has been done without tight controls. All of the NIH studies, for example, have been randomized controlled trials. He claims, without citing a particular scientific studies, that TM is no different from relaxation. Yet several metaanalyses, including one by Dr. Ken Eppley at Stanford, show that the effects are very different from relaxation. He criticizes the EEG research, quoting a scientist who dismisses the notion of brain wave coherence as an artifact of the equipment. Now, 30 years later, this concept of brain wave coherence is widely used by neurophysiologists. The artifacts attributed to the EEG equipment used are moot, given that the research now uses state-of-the-art equipment. He qualifies many statements, saying of decreased lactate, for example, "to date no proof has been shown that such effects are unique or due to TM techniques." Such research now exists. He notes the "pitifully small sample size" of this research (5 subjects) but of course this has now been replicated in many studies involving many subjects. And on and on. Plus, he gives zero citations for his claims. Who knows whether the criticisms that he quotes would have met the standard of peer review. This is just not the way science is done -- finding some critics and quoting them. Science has an epistemology of its own. If a study shows some causal effect, a scientist is free to publish a critique of that study or to see whether the results can be replicated. This is the material from which Misplaced Pages should draw -- the ongoing dialog of science. It shouldn't draw from an outdated book by a magician. And this is, in part, why the guideline suggests avoiding citing the popular press when referencing science in Misplaced Pages. TimidGuy 15:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

"Science has an epistemology of its own" - that is not in dispute. Your argument is that Randi is outdated. And yet, you appeal to publications as if publication implies acceptance by science in general. It does not. Thus, your argument fails because it relies on this particular assumption which you have provided no evidence to support. To reiterate this point so it is clear, publication is not the same as acceptance and does not render any viewpoint previously expressed as outdated. Please read the wikipedia pages on Science and confirm for yourself that publication does not imply acceptance. It is extremely difficult to understand your views since it is not clear when you are relying on your personal opinion about peer review and when you are wishing to rely on science's view on peer review (the two seems to be different). If you wish to make points about peer review, please attribute them to a recognised expert on peer review and not just give your own impression. Eiler7 12:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Eiler.... some thoughts

Peer-review AND the reputation of the publication itself is a generally accepted method, and i think the word general is important here, for acceptance of research studies in the scientific community. This opinion isn’t just held by a few people but is generally accepted. This doesn’t mean that there isn’t heated discussion in the scientific community about the complete and total reliability of all peer-reviews or that good papers are rejected or poor papers accepted. However the concern here can’t be on a discussions of peer-review in the entire scientific community, but rather on what can be used in Misplaced Pages as a way of defining what is reliable and verifiable. In Misplaced Pages, the standard for reliability for cited research is peer-review, and as has been mentioned, the publication itself. Misplaced Pages on Peer-review:

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable publications in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science Misplaced Pages relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world. Items that fit this criterion are usually considered reliable. However, they may be outdated by more recent research

Although one could argue these points either in the scientific world in general or in Misplaced Pages, and the arguments may be legitimate, the standard that Misplaced Pages editors generally should use and have to rely on is peer-review and quality of publication as Misplaced Pages states. Arguments could go on forever about the reliability of peer review as I know they have, but peer-review coupled with the “established literature” defines acceptance by Misplaced Pages standards.

Randi's book is outdated - 30 years is pretty outdated, and the research has been superceded by more recent research. I am wondering why you don't look for more recent research to support your claims.(olive 14:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

Eiler, you begin by quoting me but then your statements seem to address Olive's arguments. If you were intending to characterize my arguments, I don't feel you've accurately done so. Among the points I'm making is that Randi's book isn't a reliable source because it is factually incorrect. And I've listed a number of points that are factually incorrect. TimidGuy 16:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this TG.The real argument isn't about peer-review. Misplaced Pages is pretty definite about the standards . The discussion is about Randi's book as a reliable source, and those are the issues that should be discussed. The peer review issue is realy a

"red herring".(olive 16:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

This debate has been such an education for me, I almost hate to see it end! Thanks, guys. I think when all is said and done, the TM article(s) will win the prize for the most rigorously and thoroughly researched article(s) on Misplaced Pages! Do any other articles receive so much constant attention? Sueyen 19:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Addition to religion section

Hi Aksefgh As you will notice this article has been tagged as controversial and as such editors are expected to discuss any contentious material on the talk pages before adding to the article. The material you added is as the archived discussions might indicate very contentious and as well you add the material without citing a source. I have deleted the material and put it here for now. To be added to the article it should have verifiable, reliable references and should as well be discussed in terms of WP:WEIGHT(olive)

Material deleted from article:

Different religious groups, especially certain Christians, see TM as another dangerous branch of spiritualism, where one is drawn into a world of delusion not unlike the life an initiate of a cult lives. Certain people believe that the repeating of Mantras invokes evil spirits and the deliberate emptying of one’s mind leaves it vulnerable to possession by these spirits, which is why adherents feel an inner change. There are various examples of those who at first found TM as a method that achieved the desired results who later suffered ‘nervous breakdowns’, severe depression and found themselves delving into the occult.

Exspectational effect

Regarding TM-effect on cognitive function: Chalmers did not respond to the Canter/Ernst study in Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift but to an not mentioned editorial of Canter on BMJ. -- Josha52 13:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Josha. I was curious who put that in there, and mysteriously there's no record of its insertion in the edit history. I was just about to delete it but then wasn't sure what the problem is. In his editorial Canter refers to this study and the conclusions he drew.. TimidGuy 15:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right: In one, two sentences he seems to refer also to the Canter/Ernst study (but without any reference). But main subject of Canters editorial are "therapeutic effects of meditation", where the Canter/Ernst study deals with cognitive function. Therefore I think that one should refer to the Canter editorial more detailed in "Effects on physiology", together with a detailed Chalmer reply. On the other side: The editorial is only an editorial, not a study. Relevance? --Josha52 21:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should simply delete the BMJ reference and instead say, "Researcher David Orme-Johnson has critiqued this study, noting errors and omissions." TimidGuy 15:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Davids website is a "only" website. Is it allowed in WP to use it as a source and point of view? --Josha52 18:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right in that web sites aren't generally considered reliable sources. But the exception is web sites of experts who are writing in their field of expertise. David's web site qualifies in this regard. I was once backed up by an Admin on this. TimidGuy 19:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, think I try it in german WP too. --Josha52 21:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding it to this article. I really like the way you worded it. I think we may want to condense the sentences on the Canter & Ernst study. It's a minor review in a minor journal. TimidGuy 16:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

New structure?

It looks to me like the page should be restructured. I would first like to read what TM is about, then about its history. I think the research review should be last of these three. Piechjo 09:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Piechjo, for the suggestion. I guess one reason the research is so prominent in this article is because that's where most of the documentation is -- not only in the academic journals but also in terms of popular media coverage. Are you suggesting to put the "Theory of Consciousness" section first? I'll be eager to hear what others think. TimidGuy 12:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Piechjo makes an interesting point. Stylistically it seems to make more sense to lay out all of the material on the technique, theory, history and follow that with the research . On rereading the article, though, I realized that at this point the article is organized so that the research which has been done on the technique, and not on the theories follows info about the technique. From that viewpoint, the present organization makes sense. I guess I'd leave it the way it is . Although some readers might want info on the theories, others might approach the science side with more interest. So different editors would see appropriate organization of the article in different ways dependent on their interest.At the same time, if a majority of editors want to change the organization of the article I would be fine with that . (olive 17:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC))

If you take a look at Misplaced Pages's featured articles you see that they are structured diffrently starting with an overview and ending with more specific details. I wanted to know more about TM since it has been in the Finnish media due to David Lynch's promotion visit. I was curious to know more about TM and its connection to religion. There's something about it but it seems hidden and pretty vague. In some parts it feels like this article is made like an advert, or maybe it's just the TM way of talking. Whatever works in the Vedic world may not work in Misplaced Pages. First things first, alright? Piechjo (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Piechojo for your comments . Frankly I have no idea what "Vedic" has to do with the layout of this article.I wasn't aware of any such information that in any way has to do with the layout of any kind of article. Perhaps you are aware of such info. There are numerous ways of laying out Misplaced Pages articles and there is no definitive guideline for that. Rightly so, since different kinds of information may require different layouts. However as I said before, I don't think it matters in a general, objective way whether the article is laid out as you suggest or whether it should stay the way it is. I really think this has to do with the subjective approach one brings to the article. I personally don't care one way or the other, but other editors may . There have been many editors working on this article ( the article has been tagged as contentious/controversial) those who are TM supporters and those who aren't so probably a consensus should be reached for the article to be changed in any major way.(olive (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC))

Aha perhaps you are saying the language seems Vedic to you . Again I don't see that, since actually the Vedic language, if one can say that, is Sanskrit. There has been a lot of effort lately to make sure the article reads in a more objective way and there may be more to do. So, I am very interested, as one editor, in hearing that this is your take on the article, and I'd like to work on that. Thanks for the feedback. TM is not a religious practice,but may be a spiritual practice. I think confusion comes out of the fact that in many western cultures we often do not delineate religion and spirituality. They are not the same thing. Some people may use TM or may define TM as a spiritual practice, and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi I believe has described himself as a spiritual leader. Many people as well have used the TM practice for health reasons and/or to help with stress. It seems to have multiple uses/ impacts.As I understand it:

• Spiritual practice can be defined as a practice that some people may use to understand or achieve some higher meaning in their lives. I personnaly have no argument with most of the numerous diverse things people do to live lives with meaning.
• Religion on the other hand, is in actuality, a system of traditions that may give boundaries, form and structure to this desired spiritual life. People of different cultures for example may construct certain practices and traditions around their efforts to live spiritual lives dependent on their cultures.
• Perhaps spirituality could be defined as this rather abstract, vague in some cases, underlying need many people have to live lives with meaning. Human beings may all have a desire to live lives with meaning or spiritual lives but how they deal with or achieve that will be different . TM might be spiritual in that it is one way to deal with a desire for a spiritual life but it is not limited in any way to any one kind of religion,or culture, but rather for some people could underly religious or other practices rather than is a religion or religious practice itself.
• In our western cultures we have not separated these two things very well so the ideas seem vague, mysterious, and muddled together.

My take on it anyway.(olive (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC))

I appreciate different outlooks and ways of expressing oneself. I believe TM can work - that you can develop a technique to practise happiness and emotion. It feels to me like this article differs in its tone and setting from most encyclopaedia articles. One thing to improve it could be to rearrange the sections. I suggest the following:

1. Procedure
2. History
3. Transcendental Meditation communities
4. Theory of consciousness
5. Relationship to religion and spirituality
6. Research on the Transcendental Meditation technique
7. Transcendental Meditation controversies

There should be some changes within the sections accordingly. Piechjo (talk) 10:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Piechjo. Seems like some good ideas here. I'd actually like to move the TM Communities section to External Links. There are no sources on the Israeli communities, and this section doesn't really seem to add to the definition of Transcendental Meditation. This would help shorten the article, too. Seems like the section on relationship to religion and spirituality should maybe remain in the controversies section, since it's a matter of controversy whether it's a religion. Your suggestions nicely dovetail with Olive's suggestions below. For example, a condensed section on theory of consciousness would be more workable in the location that you suggest. Moving the research will help address the issue of tone that you and Michaelbusch noted. I guess one reason it was so prominent is because that's what dominates the sources, both the academic literature and popular media. But as you say, a different structure may be more in line with the typical flow of an encyclopedia article. Too bad Roseapple isn't here. She's likely away for the holiday. I think she's the one who suggested and implemented the current structure. Eager to know what Olive thinks. Thanks, again. TimidGuy (talk) 12:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

COI editing on this article

Several of the major editors to this article admit to being associated with Maharishi and his organization, and in my opinion they are consistently slanting this article to their POV. I request evaluation of this by third-party editors, and if there is consensus on it, I will attempt to re-write the article to adhere to WP:NPOV. My previous attempts to do so met with resistance from the editors concerned, hence the problem. Please consult talk Archive12 for past discussions on the matter, and the immediately above section seems relevant as well. Michaelbusch (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Editors with admitted conflicts-of-interest include User:TimidGuy, User:Sparaig, and User:Littleolive_oil - see here. Michaelbusch (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain what you think is not NPOV? It seems to be an article about a religion, and as such, should be mainly a description of the beliefs. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The lack of mention of any of the controversy surrounding TM in the lead section and the general tone of the article (which strays close to advertisement at points - consider the first paragraph). The description of Maharishi's beliefs, for example, is lengthly, and does not seem connected to the rest - I'd move it to a different article. There is nothing blatant, but the sum total of consistent choices in wording, placement, and emphasis by conflicted editors leads to bias. I would also cut down the total amount of text, which is excessive.

TM is not, and so far as I am aware, does not claim to be, a religion - the article does discuss this. Michaelbusch (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You've got a good point. At the very least, the lead needs to have a new part on the criticism. I would think M's beliefs are relevant. But I'm not really up on this article. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that TM isn't particularly controversial. If you look at mainstream press coverage, the vast majority of articles are completely positive and mention no criticism at all. A huge number simply report the results of research. Already this article verges in violating WP:UNDUE because so much of it is devoted to criticism. It would unfairly skew things to mention very minor criticisms in the lead. Take the lawsuits, for example, TM has been around for 50 years, and there's been one lawsuit claiming fraud. And that lawsuit was inconclusive. The plaintiff sued for $9 million, a lower court awarded $138,000, and the appellate court overturned that award -- and basically took away any remaining grounds for the suit, which was then settled out of court. Mentioning this in the lead would unfairly highlight something very minor. TimidGuy (talk) 12:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Michael, I think you make some important suggestions. I haven't looked at this article in a longtime as a whole unit, and I agree that there is excessive material here that could be contracted. I have argued in discussions that the thing is too long and I believe at one point maybe in mediation this was also identified as a concern. I want to mention that to believe that any one editor consistently selected material so that the thing read in a particular way would be highly erroneous . Remember this article is the result of editing by numerous editors, TM supporters and not TM supporters. That said, I think that some useful changes could be made which would shorten the whole thing and would remove some of the wording that seems to me to be not laymen friendly.

These are the suggestion:

• Remove a little from the intro . I agree with TG in that the TM technique is what we are writing about here, and there are thousands of people who go about their business everyday and who use the technique without concern. Criticism of the technique itself seems to be less than notable, and I think would violate WP:Fringe -"An appearance on Misplaced Pages should not make something more notable than it actually is." and so also WP: Undue Weight. Even in the schools as illustrated in the Malnak v. Yogi case the TM technique itself was not the concern.
• The article lays out TM effects on "mind and body". The mind aspects or more spiritual aspects are contained in the "Theories of consciousness" section, so this as well as the research on that (follows immediately after the theories) should probably be kept. The section could be shortened and contracted considerably though and this would remove some uneasy language.
• I think the history section could be shortened.
• The Malnak v. Yogi case info. could be contracted . I believe one editor did a nice compact version of this and it may be archived so I could dig that up.I'm not sure why that version was never used.
• The final section contains links that are not compliant since they connect to advertising sites. The section itself could be removed since it may not have much importance or just the links could be removed.Adding the price of learning the technique may make the whole article look like advertising so that could be removed too.

At any rate dealing with these issues will go a long way to removing POV language. I want to mention that both TG and I, and other editors as well have spent a fair amount of time on the different TM articles to remove less than laymen friendly language.There are however numerous editors to consider who have contributed over several years of time and this has been a highly controversial article so and one can't just hack away at articles that other editors have spent a lot of time with.We may however be in position to make the kind of changes that will shorten the article and remove less than acceptable language. I am around today so could do some or all of the editing I have suggested . Then we can see where we are in terms of the article. I won't begin of course, without consensus.(olive (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC))

I like your suggestions, Olive. I feel like the article is neutral, but there's something that just doesn't feel quite right about the tone in some places. I hadn't been able to put my finger on it. I think you're getting to the heart of what Michaelbusch is talking about. I'd say go for it. TimidGuy (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

New changes

Since I have not heard from anyone except TimidGuy, and because everyone pretty much agreed that the lead could be changed, I have gone ahead and edited that part of the article to hopefully be more user friendly.I'll wait a few days for other editors to respond since we are going into a holiday period in the US, and if there is still no response, I'll continue editing with the view that no one has objections.(olive (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC))

• Start-Class Alternative medicine articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics