Will Beback (talk | contribs) |
→Citations: wouldn't have to be a long list |
||
Line 278: | Line 278: | ||
::Lately it keeps coming up in the media that this or that famous person does TM. In recent months it's been [[Candy Crowley]], [[Russell Brand]], [[Mehmet Oz]], [[Andrew Sullivan]], [[James Wolcott]], and more. Maybe we should have a section in this article. [[User:TimidGuy|TimidGuy]] ([[User talk:TimidGuy|talk]]) 10:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC) |
::Lately it keeps coming up in the media that this or that famous person does TM. In recent months it's been [[Candy Crowley]], [[Russell Brand]], [[Mehmet Oz]], [[Andrew Sullivan]], [[James Wolcott]], and more. Maybe we should have a section in this article. [[User:TimidGuy|TimidGuy]] ([[User talk:TimidGuy|talk]]) 10:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::The list would be so long that I think it would quickly overwhelm the article. However a standalone list would be fine. As we've discussed before, there are similar lists for other spiritual and religious groups. Because many people apparently try TM but don't stick with it we'd need to make clear that these are people who've learned the technique rather than that they're all current practitioners. Of course, if someone is described as being a longtime practitioner, or any other information, we can add that info as well. Since there's no need for a standalone list to be comprehensive, etc, we can start it and just add new entries as the sources permit without drafting it first and waiting for it to be complete, as we might do with a new article. <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]] [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]] </b> 20:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC) |
:::The list would be so long that I think it would quickly overwhelm the article. However a standalone list would be fine. As we've discussed before, there are similar lists for other spiritual and religious groups. Because many people apparently try TM but don't stick with it we'd need to make clear that these are people who've learned the technique rather than that they're all current practitioners. Of course, if someone is described as being a longtime practitioner, or any other information, we can add that info as well. Since there's no need for a standalone list to be comprehensive, etc, we can start it and just add new entries as the sources permit without drafting it first and waiting for it to be complete, as we might do with a new article. <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]] [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]] </b> 20:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::Prominent practitioners are part of the story of TM, and there are many many examples in mainstream media reports. It wouldn't have to be a long list — just the most prominent current practitioners. It would help add balance to the article, which now seems dominated by the POV of people like Randi, whose point of view is mentioned in five different places in the article. If we had a short section in the article, then we could add something in the lead, perhaps juxtaposing Mehmet Oz with Sagan. [[User:TimidGuy|TimidGuy]] ([[User talk:TimidGuy|talk]]) 11:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Misrepresentation of sources in the lead == |
== Misrepresentation of sources in the lead == |
Revision as of 11:12, 17 April 2010
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other subpages:
Hendel again
I haven't yet been able to look at the lower court judgment, but the appellate court judgment has nothing to do with Malnak. It never once mentions Malnak. According to the appellate court, the issue was statute of limitations, and the court affirmed the summary judgment of the lower court that the statute disallowed Hendel's claim. Why are we saying the in the article that Hendel v WPEC ruled that TM is a religion? The only ruling the court issued was a summary dismissal due to statute of limitations. TimidGuy (talk) 11:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- The Superior Court decision is published and readily available, cite in the article ref. We are saying that the Hendel v WPEC ruled that TM and TM-Sidhi is a religion because that is precisely what the Superior Court ruled. I have already quoted from the decision for you in an earlier thread:
-
- "[T]he causes of action must be dismissed for the reason that the practice of Transcendental Meditation and the TM-Sidhis program is a religion, and the trial of the causes of action herein would involve the court in excessive entanglement into matters of religious belief in contravention of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution". Hendel p 49
- The discussion of TM and TM-Sidhi as a religion begins on page 30 of the Superior Court opinion, and continues through page 48, with the above-cited passage as part of the overall conclusion on p49, so over 1/3 of the decision was on the TM and TM-Sidhi as a religion issue. The Court of Appeals did not address the issue because it was unnecessary for it to do so, as it affirmed on the SOL issue. It would only have needed to reach the religion issue had it reversed on the SOL issue. Fladrif (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Why is this been discussed again? The history of the talk-pages of this article are littered with this none discussion where it is confirmed the findings were that TM is a religion, and added. Then at some point later (when editors who do not live in fairfield have left) the apparent Fairfield socks remove it again based upon the logic they had previously been forced to coincide was incorrect. And so it goes. It is odd that this never takes place with any references included that argue TM is not a religion. Tucker talk 19:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Forgive me if I might appear suspicious, would this re-interest be something to do with this letter here (edited highlights relavant to this new discussion):
- Why is this been discussed again? The history of the talk-pages of this article are littered with this none discussion where it is confirmed the findings were that TM is a religion, and added. Then at some point later (when editors who do not live in fairfield have left) the apparent Fairfield socks remove it again based upon the logic they had previously been forced to coincide was incorrect. And so it goes. It is odd that this never takes place with any references included that argue TM is not a religion. Tucker talk 19:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
William Goldstein’s accusatory email followed:
Dear Examiner Editor in Chief
I write this letter as General Counsel for Maharishi University of Management and the David Lynch Foundation for Consciousness Based Education and World Peace concerning the article in your online publication: examiner Transcendental-Meditation-in-schools-the-David-Lynch-program
I will not comment on the inappropriate statements on the scientific research conducted on the TM program contained in Mr. Mesner’s article. Dr. Orme Johnson’s comments you have received reply more expertly than I could on that subject and I incorporate them [Orme Johnson posted his remarks in the public comments field following the article on Examiner.com]. But there are other false, defamatory and/or misleading statements which need to be identified as such and retracted. The failure to do so continues to damage the reputation of my client organizations which teach and promote these programs, and the individuals involved in those activities.
One court case, over thirty years ago, found a curriculum in the Science of Creative Intelligence which included the TM program to have religious overtones violative of the First Amendment. That “Malnak” case has been mischaracterized and its scope overstated by Mr. Mesner. No court at any time has ever ruled that teaching the TM program alone is impermissible, nor that the student is “assigned the name of a Hindu God to
chant”.
These falsehoods, defamations and omissions compel me to ask you to remove this article from your newspaper to put an end to the continuing damage its publication causes to my client.
Thank you very much for your anticipated co-operation.
William Goldstein General Counsel, Maharishi University of Management and David Lynch Foundation for Consciousness Based Education and World Peace
Telephone 641 472 1183 Fax 641 472 1141 email: bgoldstein@mum.edu
William Goldstein General Counsel Maharishi University of Management Telephone 641 472 1183 Fax 641 472 1141 email: bgoldstein@mum.edu
- [[1]]
Tucker talk 21:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hendel v WPEC was added to the article in recent weeks. It seems important to discuss it and make sure it's accurately represented. Don't you agree? TimidGuy (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- It is not the first time it has been added if you trawl the talkpages and it is not the first time you have argued unsuccessfully for it to be removed, then removing it later when it seemed no one was looking. At least that is how it seems although I am sure that is not the case. Thanks Tucker talk 18:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- No need to trawl: we can search the archives (see the box at the top of the page). This iwas discussed a couple of weeks ago, at Talk:Transcendental_Meditation/Archive_29#Hendel_v_WPEC. Will Beback talk 20:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Since I had alreadly posted a direct quote from the decision which says precisely what the text says, and even offered to substitute the quote in the article, TG cannot have had any legitimate question that it was accurately represented, and the question "Why are we saying this..." does not appear to have been posed in good faith. I cannot believe for a minute, given his repeated consultation with MUM's general counsel, (MIU was the other defendant in the case) that TG cannot readily put his hands on a copy of this decision, even if he doesn't have ready access to the published version. As to Tucker's question, Hendel v WPEC punches a big hole in Mr. Goldstein's arguments about Malnak (an argument, coincidentally, that HickoryBark repeated practically verbatim at ArbCom), so I completely understand that the TM Org is anxious to delete any reference to this more recent decision.Fladrif (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Will, thank you for that. I did not know that was possible. It seems this is it/isn't it argument has been going on longer then I imagined it was [[2]]. This edit by Olive is very funny [[3]] And look at this wonderful re-write by certain editors (in no way indictive of a COI I am sure) [[4]], and this is quaint [[5]] And here is a wonderful discussion about reducing the religion section to decrease the article size and confirm that the mention of religion should not be in TM but in another TM movement article. It is wonderful to see how 3 editors worked so well and quickly together to get this done (that they have now been confirmed to be sock/meat puppets has nothing to do with it I am sure) [[6]] And on and on it goes Truly this is appalling. Is not the PR department of The TM organization embarrassed about this?Tucker talk 22:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Could you add that evidence to the RfAR case? As for the official view, at least one past editor claimed to participate in an official capacity.[7][8] Will Beback talk 23:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Will, thank you for that. I did not know that was possible. It seems this is it/isn't it argument has been going on longer then I imagined it was [[2]]. This edit by Olive is very funny [[3]] And look at this wonderful re-write by certain editors (in no way indictive of a COI I am sure) [[4]], and this is quaint [[5]] And here is a wonderful discussion about reducing the religion section to decrease the article size and confirm that the mention of religion should not be in TM but in another TM movement article. It is wonderful to see how 3 editors worked so well and quickly together to get this done (that they have now been confirmed to be sock/meat puppets has nothing to do with it I am sure) [[6]] And on and on it goes Truly this is appalling. Is not the PR department of The TM organization embarrassed about this?Tucker talk 22:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- It is not the first time it has been added if you trawl the talkpages and it is not the first time you have argued unsuccessfully for it to be removed, then removing it later when it seemed no one was looking. At least that is how it seems although I am sure that is not the case. Thanks Tucker talk 18:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- I will try to get around to adding it but feel I have spent to much of my time on this already. I really did intend only to add the odd comment on the talk-page here before I was forced into taking a greater part first by being added to RfAR case by Kbob, then his attacks on the other users here (claiming I was him) and then the silliness he and other TM editors started accusing me of. To be honest I am simply not that bothered but anyone else can happy add this if they want. Tucker talk 03:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Fladrif, I just don't see how it's accurate to call it a ruling. A ruling means a judgment, right? The judgment was that the case was summarily dismissed. There were apparently at least two reasons given for this judgment: statute of limitations and citing Malkank that TM is a religion. I apologize that I haven't yet gotten hold of a copy of the lower court judgment. But my feeling is that calling it a ruling and making it sound like religion was at issue in the case is a misrepresentation. And it highlights the need for a secondary source. TimidGuy (talk) 12:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- This argument is too frivolous to merit a response.Fladrif (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Let's keep in mind, a number of the TM Orgs websites are or were overtly religious, with numerous pictures of Hindoo gods and goddesses-and the TM pooja, required for learning the practice of TM contains common articles of Hindoo worship (the 16-fold offering to the gods). One of the Maharishi's most popular books is his version of part of the Hindu Bible, the Bhagavad-Gita! These are undeniable facts.
- I believe the magazine from the separation of the church and state folks actually had a recent cover article on the TM religion question. Since that's a recent reference it may be helpful to include.--Kala Bethere (talk) 00:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- This argument is too frivolous to merit a response.Fladrif (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Fladrif, I just don't see how it's accurate to call it a ruling. A ruling means a judgment, right? The judgment was that the case was summarily dismissed. There were apparently at least two reasons given for this judgment: statute of limitations and citing Malkank that TM is a religion. I apologize that I haven't yet gotten hold of a copy of the lower court judgment. But my feeling is that calling it a ruling and making it sound like religion was at issue in the case is a misrepresentation. And it highlights the need for a secondary source. TimidGuy (talk) 12:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Fladrif, why is it frivolous? The text is misleading, making it sound like religion was at issue, and also making it sound like this was the only reason for the summary dismissal. Isn't it the case that they were simply citing Malnak? TimidGuy (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- READ THE DECISION. It is not misleading at all; it is practically verbatim from the decision. Religion was an issue because the judge raised it sua sponte. The other rulings in the case are irrelevant here. No, it did not simply cite Malnak, which you would know IF YOU READ THE DECISION!!!!!Your attempt to construct an argument by inventing an uninformed and specious semantic distinction around the word "ruled" is completely frivolous. If, AFTER YOU READ THE DECISION, you have alternative language that you think is better, let's see it, but UNTIL YOU READ THE DECISION there is no point in discussing this with you. Fladrif (talk) 13:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- And my feeling is that it's wrong to represent it as a ruling. I'm giving thought to better wording. It should say something like, "In Hendel v WPEC a judge summarily dismissed a civil suit, arguing in part that it was disallowed because the practice of TM and the TM-Sidhis is a religion." TimidGuy (talk) 11:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- The ruling was a summary dismissal of a civil suit. A judge can only rule on something that was at issue, whereby the plaintiff and defendant have the opportunity to present their case. The judge's examination of religion is likely considered dicta, that is, judicial opinions on facts and issues not brought before it by the parties. The appellate court which affirmed the Hendel decision made no reference to it. Dicta are "Expressions in a court's opinion that go beyond the facts before the court and therefore are individual views of the author of the opinion and not binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent."[14] "Dicta are judicial opinions expressed by the judges on points that do not necessarily arise in the case."[15] It's not accurate to refer to this as a ruling. TimidGuy (talk) 10:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think that if the appellate court had deemed that the trial court language on religion was something other than dicta, it would have likely referred to it as a basis for its affirmation or entirely or largely dispensed of its other grounds. TimidGuy (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Fladrif, you need to explain why it's wrong. Otherwise, I'll go ahead and change the wording. TimidGuy (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's wrong because the holding of the court was not dicta. You are completely wrong about the power and authority of a trial judge to issue a ruling sua sponte based on principles of law that were not argued by either party. You are wrong that the ruling of the court on TM and TM-Sidhi, which took up fully a third of the opinion, went beyond the facts in the case. It was based entirely on the facts in the case, which you would know if you had bothered to read it. You are wrong that this is not a ruling. You are wrong about how appellate courts operate and why the Court of Appeals did not reach this issue. You are utterly and completely mistaken and/or misinformed about this (am I correct that you are being fed these lines to post here?) These are findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the judge as one of the bases for the order which he entered, which was the dismissal of the case. They are not asides or observations which are not relied upon by the judge for that purpose. To use a case with which you are familar as an example, in Malnak, the concurring opinion of Judge Adams quotes a footnote in Tarasko v Watkins as an example of what is actually meant by "dicta":
- "...The Court then added an instructive footnote:
- "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others. See Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S.App.D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127; Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal.App.2d 673, 315 P.2d 394; II Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences 293; 4 Encyclopaedia Britannica (1957 ed.) 325-327; 21 Id., at 797; Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed. revised by Purinton), 120-138, 254-313; 1961 World Almanac 695, 712; Year Book of American Churches for 1961, at 29, 47.28"
- This note, although dictum, represents a rejection of the view that religion may, consonant with first amendment values, be defined solely in terms of a Supreme Being. Buddhism and Taoism are, of course, recognized Eastern religions. The other two examples given by the Court refer to explicitly non-Theist organized groups, discussed in cases cited in the footnote, that were found to be religious for tax exemption purposes primarily because of their organizational similarity to traditional American church groups. "Ethical Culture" is a reference to the organization in Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S.App.D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127 (1957), which held regular Sunday services and espoused a group of defined moral precepts. Similarly, "Secular Humanism," however broad the term may sound, appears to be no more than a reference to the group seeking an exemption in Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal.App.2d 673, 315 P.2d 394 (1957) which, although non-Theist in belief, also met weekly on Sundays and functioned much like a church. In any event, the Court was willing to concede that these groups, "and others," were religious for constitutional purposes."
- The Tarasco court listing various religions which do not teach belief in existance of God is dicta. That list is not part of the holding in the case, it is simply an observation. It did not "hold" that those religions do not teach that. It is an aside, in a footnote.
- Similarly, Judge Adams himself made several statements that are properly regarded as dicta - for example "Although Transcendental Meditation by itself might be defended as appellants sought to do in this appeal as primarily a relaxation or concentration technique with no "ultimate" significance, the New Jersey course at issue here was not a course in TM alone, but a course in the Science of Creative Intelligence." That is not a holding that TM by itself, without the course in SCI, is not a religion - the issue was not before the court, and it did not decide that issue. The court in Hendel, however, spent a third of its opinion making repeated specific findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting its ultimate conclusion that the practice of TM and TM Sidhi was a religion, and it specifically held that that conclusion was one of the bases for the relief that it ordered. That is not dicta. It is not an argument. It is a holding/ruling/judgment/finding.
- Do you understand the difference now?
- Do not change the language based on your own uneducated and misinformed misunderstanding.
- And, have you, even now, bothered to read the decision? Fladrif (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Lansky
- An "advanced form" called the TM-Sidhi program is taught that purportedly develops the ability of practitioners to levitate, walk through walls and become invisible at will, among other powers.[1][2]
- ^ Lansky EP, St Louis EK (2006). "Transcendental meditation: a double-edged sword in epilepsy?". Epilepsy Behav. 9 (3): 394–400. doi:10.1016/j.yebeh.2006.04.019. PMID 16931164.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help) - ^ Skolnick AA (1991). "Maharishi Ayur-Veda: Guru's marketing scheme promises the world eternal 'perfect health'". JAMA. 266 (13): 1741–2, 1744–5, 1749–50. PMID 1817475.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help)
An editor removed the Lansky citation, writing "refs TM not TM Sidhi".[16] I don't have a copy of the paper. Does it not include the assertions cited to it? FWIW, it was originally added here: [17] Will Beback talk 18:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Neither the abstract nor the article outline refers to TM SIdhi program, but refer to the TM program. If there is mention of the TM Sidhis in the study, I'd be happy to reinsert the source. As well the Scolnick source does not reference TM Sidhis, but says," If the claims of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi prove true, those who follow him soon will be blessed with eternal youth, "perfect health," and the "strength of an elephant." They will be able to "walk through walls," make themselves "invisible," and "fly through the air" without the benefit of machines.
Digging out what is TM Sidhi and what are other claims and inserting this content into the lead article as it is now is problematic and edges on OR. I'm not sure why the TM Sidhi program is in the lead of an article on TM, but if there's a good reason for inclusion, a better source is needed, and there are better sources.(olive (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC))
- Not this again!?! KBob was pushing this falsehood about Scolnick's JAMA article on the TM-Sidhi page months ago, in spite of the fact that the relevant language was quoted for him. The JAMA article repeately identifies TM Sidhi by name, and with the various listed powers. You took part in that discussion, remember?
- One extremely profitable example, reported in The Skeptical Inquirer (1980; 4:7-8), involved the rental of a gymnasium at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst during the summer of 1979 for TM's yogic flying courses. Three thousand students enrolled, one third of whom paid $3000 each to learn the Maharishi's TM-Sidhi program. According to promotional materials, the TM-Sidhi program allows one to master the forces of nature to become invisible, walk through walls, fly through the air, and have "the strength of an elephant." The Skeptical Inquirer article says that the other students learned more down-to-earth TM skills for $800-$1000 tuition and that the TM movement reaped between $ 3 million and $ 5 million, before expenses, from the courses at the University of Massachusetts.
- You have to read further than the first paragraph! Fladrif (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Not this again!?! KBob was pushing this falsehood about Scolnick's JAMA article on the TM-Sidhi page months ago, in spite of the fact that the relevant language was quoted for him. The JAMA article repeately identifies TM Sidhi by name, and with the various listed powers. You took part in that discussion, remember?
- Neither the abstract nor the article outline refers to TM SIdhi program, but refer to the TM program. If there is mention of the TM Sidhis in the study, I'd be happy to reinsert the source. As well the Scolnick source does not reference TM Sidhis, but says," If the claims of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi prove true, those who follow him soon will be blessed with eternal youth, "perfect health," and the "strength of an elephant." They will be able to "walk through walls," make themselves "invisible," and "fly through the air" without the benefit of machines.
Digging out what is TM Sidhi and what are other claims and inserting this content into the lead article as it is now is problematic and edges on OR. I'm not sure why the TM Sidhi program is in the lead of an article on TM, but if there's a good reason for inclusion, a better source is needed, and there are better sources.(olive (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC))
- Actually, I don't remember the discussion, and I did miss the reference when I skimmed the source, but at this point I wasn't advocating removing the content as you erroneously say on the Arbitration evidence page but was simply suggesting a better source, and we do have many good sources. The point still remains why is there content onTM Sidhi in the lead of the TM article. That is a point for discussion, is it not?(olive (talk) 02:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC))
(UNDENT) It is there because it fits logically I would suspect and seems important. It is the next part of the TM program and a brief description is important in the lead. Not to sure why this should be an issue or a continued point of discussion to be honest. Indeed, given that TM is supposed to work because of TMs notion of Natural Law and Scientific creationism (or whatever it is called, SCI?) , I am surprised these two concepts are not also included. Might I ask why these have not been included also Tucker talk 06:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm replying below. Will Beback talk 07:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Great. I just got hold of the study and there is mention in the body of the study on TM Sidhis, so the source would be good and I'll put it back in, If you have any interest in looking at the study I'm happy to email it to you.(olive (talk) 19:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)).
- Thanks for double-checking. I'd love to get a copy of the study too. Will Beback talk 19:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Great. I just got hold of the study and there is mention in the body of the study on TM Sidhis, so the source would be good and I'll put it back in, If you have any interest in looking at the study I'm happy to email it to you.(olive (talk) 19:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)).
- Sure, but not sure how to add an attachment to Wikipedia email.(olive (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC))
- You can't, but we've corresponded before. I'll send you another note so you can attach it to the reply. Thanks again. Will Beback talk 19:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, but not sure how to add an attachment to Wikipedia email.(olive (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC))
Supplemental techniques
- Skipping over that intermediate material to the end. the material on TM-Sidhi now in the lede is a summary of what's in the Transcendental Meditation#Supplemental techniques section in the body. Two points: 1) there may be a better name for that section and it might be expanded to show how TM fits together with other technologies and concepts, like MVAH, TM-Sidhi, SCI, etc.; 2) I think the material in the lede can be, um, resummarized and moved down a bit. TM's connection to "supplemental techniques" is important, but it's not so important that it needs to be in the third sentence or the first paragraph. I'll move it down a little. Will Beback talk 07:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I've moved the sentence down to the last paragraph of the intro and added an indirect mention of the Maharishi Effect:
- In the mid-1970s, the Transcendental Meditation program was expanded to include an "advanced form", TM-Sidhi, which has been said to give practitioners supernormal powers, including levitation, and to generate a peace-inducing field.
- The "invisibility", etc, don't need a mention here since they aren't promoted currently, while the ME is (and it applies directly to TM too). Feel free to improve it. Will Beback talk 07:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Will, I think your change is excellent. Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 10:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Will, I think your change is awful. First, it's terribly weasel-wordy. "Which has been said"? By whom? It is a claim of the Maharishi and the TM Movement. No-one outside the movement says that it does these things. Second, the claims of invisibility, walking through walls, superhuman strength etc were explicitly made by the Maharishi and the movement at the time of the introduction of the program. It is well-documented and 100% accurate. Third, what reliable source supports the notion that TM-Sidhi no longer makes these claims? Sure, we have Hickorybark falsely claiming in Arbcom that the TM Movement never made these claims - how he thought he could sell that nonsense is a mystery to me. I think I read a messageboard post by somebody once that said that it no longer teaches the "invisibility" and "walking through walls" techniques. But, other than doing what is essentially original research, drawing conclusions that the other powers don't seem to be mentioned on the TM Orgs websites, I have no idea what the TM Movement tells prospective students now. Just because they don't advertise it doesn't mean they don't teach it still. There is no reliable source that says that they don't teach it. Fourth, it belongs where it was. Fladrif (talk) 13:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Will, I think your change is excellent. Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 10:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- We can't put everything into a lead that is in the article, and this is a small section which is not about the technique itself, but is what I would consider transitional material connecting another article and other techniques to this one. However Will's change is a good compromise, and I'm fine with it. (olive (talk) 13:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC))
- No,ageement has not been made. I find myself agreeing with Flad regarding this. It is a tad weasly sounding I am afraid. It should certainly not say, it is said that but that TM claims, etc. Also, I have yet to see any reliable source (even from TM) that the advanced techniques no longer allow a person to become invisible, have super strength, become immortal, etc. I do agree, that a brief mention of SCI and Natrual Law is needed however, given how central these are to how it is claimed TM "works" Tucker talk 17:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- I wasn't proposing removing the other supernormal abilities from the whole article, just from the intro. I have done a considerable amount of research into this topic in the past several months and, while I've seen countless references to Yogic Flying and the Maharishi Effect, I haven't seen any other claims about supernormal abilities made within the past 30 years. For that reason I don't think those are important enough to include in the intro. As for who's making these assertions, we can keep tinkering with the wording. However we should try to avoid the word "claim", as it's a "word to avoid" since it implies a skeptical view. Will Beback talk 23:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- No,ageement has not been made. I find myself agreeing with Flad regarding this. It is a tad weasly sounding I am afraid. It should certainly not say, it is said that but that TM claims, etc. Also, I have yet to see any reliable source (even from TM) that the advanced techniques no longer allow a person to become invisible, have super strength, become immortal, etc. I do agree, that a brief mention of SCI and Natrual Law is needed however, given how central these are to how it is claimed TM "works" Tucker talk 17:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Then perhaps TM "has said" will give superpowers, etc would be more true, accurate and without skepticism. I understand that you have researched ths well Will and that TM may not have made a public statement about the superpowers in sometime but that does not mean that these are still not part of "inner" claims of the movement for those that have reached this stage. To think otherwise might be a kind of original research. It is certain that the leader of the movements political and scientific front in the USA (and its chief scientific spokesperson) is still making claims that practicing TM does allow the user to alter the laws of physics and indeed explains to insiders how to explain this to outsiders (see: "The Physics of Flying"[[18]] Tucker talk 07:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- Edit indeed, re-reading the article above it can be seen that TM is still saying that all of the superpowers are obtainable: QUOTE:"For the rest of the TM-Sidhi programme, says Dr Hagelin, "we can consider each and every sidhi described by Maharishi Patanjali in the Yoga Sutras, and understand how through some conscious behaviour, some coherent influence introduced at the microscopic level, we would expect to see the classical laws of nature overthrown according to the predictions of Patanjali" [[19]]
- That document is significant for this article because he does mention TM, but on the other hand he doesn't mention any other specific abilities (beyond making flipped coins always come up heads) and it appears to have been written some time ago. "...Hagelin, Chairman of the Department of Physics at Maharishi International University..." MIU isn't called that any more and he's no longer the physics chairman. Getting back to "brass tacks" - this article should include all significant points of view with weight according to their prominence, and the lead should summarize the article with appropriate weight for each issue. If we're asking the question of how can we most improve the intro by adding 10 words, I can think of other issues that are more important than invisibility. For example, the fees controversy, or its context of being the center of a movement that includes political parties and Ayurvedic remedies. I just think we need try to summarize the article as best as possible in the intro. Will Beback talk 08:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree, if I was considering learning a scientifically validated form of meditation (proven with research in peer reviewed journals) I would want to know if by practicing it I could become invisible or walk-through walls. Seems like a selling point to me. On a side note: in Irish mythology a Sidhi is a hill or mound under which fairies live. I have an interest in etymology. Tucker talk 19:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't understand your point. This article isn't meant to educate people who are considering learning TM - it's for the general reader. While "ignore all rules" is a Wikipedia policy, it should only be invoked when necessary. Otherwise we should follow the policies and guidelines, and those would seem to indicate that less important issues should receive less weight. The ability to turn invisible is not among the most important factors in a four-paragraph overview of TM, which is what the intro should be. Can we compromise on this, and keep it in the body of the text instead? Will Beback talk 19:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- But its only 2 words, hardly seems to take a massive amount of space and very briefly defines for the reader what sort of special powers are available to the TM practitioner as they quickly progress their meditation, along with world peace, etc. Also, not to sure what this has to do with ignore all rules to be truthful. But if it must go only in the body then I would expect it to be expanded, along with far more prominence to "natural law" and SCI which are central to how it is claimed TM works Tucker talk 20:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, we're talking about 14 words: "walking through walls, becoming invisible at will, and have superhuman strength, among other powers". As for the content in the body of the article, let's start a fresh thread to discuss that. Will Beback talk 20:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- But its only 2 words, hardly seems to take a massive amount of space and very briefly defines for the reader what sort of special powers are available to the TM practitioner as they quickly progress their meditation, along with world peace, etc. Also, not to sure what this has to do with ignore all rules to be truthful. But if it must go only in the body then I would expect it to be expanded, along with far more prominence to "natural law" and SCI which are central to how it is claimed TM works Tucker talk 20:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't understand your point. This article isn't meant to educate people who are considering learning TM - it's for the general reader. While "ignore all rules" is a Wikipedia policy, it should only be invoked when necessary. Otherwise we should follow the policies and guidelines, and those would seem to indicate that less important issues should receive less weight. The ability to turn invisible is not among the most important factors in a four-paragraph overview of TM, which is what the intro should be. Can we compromise on this, and keep it in the body of the text instead? Will Beback talk 19:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree, if I was considering learning a scientifically validated form of meditation (proven with research in peer reviewed journals) I would want to know if by practicing it I could become invisible or walk-through walls. Seems like a selling point to me. On a side note: in Irish mythology a Sidhi is a hill or mound under which fairies live. I have an interest in etymology. Tucker talk 19:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
14 words hardly seems excessive to explain the central doctrine of TM (including basic introductory TM), that it gives you the ability to perform paranormal abilities including brining world peace and being able to influence things/events at a distance [[20]], [[21]], [[22]], [[23]][[24]], [[25]], [[26]], [[27]], Tucker talk 22:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's 14 more words than we need. The proposed text would say, TM-Sidhi has been said to give practitioners supernormal powers, including levitation, and to generate a peace-inducing field. So we're not talking about excluding the existence of these powers, and we'd list the two most famous ones. We're just talking about leaving out three obscure ones. Will Beback talk 22:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- "Has been said" Has been said by who/what? One would need to be more specific, would one not? Tucker talk 22:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- That's already modified to "...that the movement said could give practitioners supernormal powers..." I get the feeling we're talking in circles here. No one has presented any evidence that invisibility, etc, are significant enough to merit mention in the intro. I'm just going to go ahead and remove them again. Will Beback talk 22:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
TM and the TM Sidhi program are distinct programs. One doesn't learn anything but how to do a simple mediation technique when learning TM. There may be a legitimate reason to include information in the body article on techniques which may or may not follow TM, but I would tend to agree the lead should reference the larger issues in the article that refer specifically to the subject /topic of the article, TM. (olive (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC))
- That simply isn't true. The advertising materials for and introductory lectures for TM cover much more than that, and quite explicitly introduce the concepts of SCI, Hagelin's ideas about Consciousness and the Unified Field (a video lecture by him is a part of the presentation, is it not?), that TM is just one aspect of MVAH, and the TM Org is creating world peace through TM and TM-Sidhi, which is repeatedly referred to. Not to be flip about it - OK, to be plenty flip about it, while there's no explicit mention of the most Xenuish esoterica of the TM-Movement at the outset, there's plenty of the "humankind is simply materialized color operating on the 49th vibration" stuff from the very outset of TM instruction.Fladrif (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- Even to the extent that is true, the supernormal powers besides Yogic Flying and the Maharishi Effect do not get much attention from anyone inside or outside the movement. The shorter version mentions the existence of other powers, but why do we need to list them in the intro? Will Beback talk 22:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- My comment is specific to Tucker's points. TM is a technique that can be taught distinct from any philosophical, theoretical, ideas and premises. The TM Sidhi program is another set of techniques. We can't conflate the two techniques. Although one has to be a TM practitioner to learn the TM Sidhis, I do not have to learn anything else to become a TM practitioner.
- The lead should summarize what is in the article, so although mention of the TM Sidhis may be a point needed in the lead, perhaps details of the techniques is information that is too specific for a lead, and is best left in the article body.
- Good call, but I'm not guessing. Just reading what is described on TM-Org websites on what is included in the current version of the lectures. So, I'm not even relying on any unauthorized transcripts from any skeptic sites which may or may not be out-of-date. Fladrif (talk) 00:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- But I think you are referring to the overview of the course while I am referring to specifics... Its probably moot anyway.(olive (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC))
- Yes. I am referring to summaries/overviews that are on official TM Movement sites. It is clear from those summaries/overviews that basic instruction in TM is not confined to the technique itself. I am utterly baffled by your contradictory statements. In one post you assert that instruction in TM involves X but not Y, and in the next you disclaim knowing what instruction in TM involves or doesn't involve. Which is it? Fladrif (talk) 04:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- But I think you are referring to the overview of the course while I am referring to specifics... Its probably moot anyway.(olive (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC))
- The TM technique is a simple, mechanical technique that can be taught without information on any underlying philosophical information or with out information on its benefits and effects.
- The technique is taught in seven steps - proprietary information
- The web site gives an overview of the technique and its benefits and effects, not necessary to its teaching but beneficial to its understanding and the continued practice.
- The TM Sidhi program is another set of techniques whose teaching steps are proprietary
- Its effects and benefits are also discussed publicly
- Since I am not a TM teacher I am only familiar with the public information, and with information that is given to the person learning the technique. I am not familiar with the details of the proprietary information.(olive (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC))
- The material conveyed during the initiation doesn't really seem relevant to this discussion. Will Beback talk 09:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Paranormal Powers
The lead at present says that the TM org only says that it is the Advanced techniques that give the TM user paranormal powers, however, I have already directed to the main TM websites that state basic TM will also give the user paronarmal powers. Might I ask why this has not been included? Tucker talk 01:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- Could you repeat the point you're referring to? Which powers are we talking about? Will Beback talk 03:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
" By enlivening this most fundamental level of Nature during Transcendental Meditation, a person automatically creates a powerful influence of harmony and coherence in their environment. Extensive scientific research has repeatedly demonstrated that when even a small fraction of the population is practising Transcendental Meditation, improvements can be measured in society as a whole, as indicated by reduction of negative tendencies and growth of positive trends." [[30]] Invincibility for society Improving the environment and creating world peace [[31]] Tucker talk 13:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
At the moment, the lead states that this takes place due to advanced techniques only, obviously this is not correct according to the movements most upto date marketing material [[32]], [[33]], etc. Tucker talk 13:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- user:Tuckerj1976 has been blocked as a sock of a blocked user. Will Beback talk 09:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Is there any Wiki policy about reverting edits made on a article by a "outed" sock of a blocked user? --BwB (talk) 09:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Banned users may not edit, and any edits they make under false identities may be reverted. It's not entirely clear if The7thdr was banned, or merely blocked. Will Beback talk 09:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, it is entirely clear. 7th was blocked, not banned. There was no community discussion or ArbCom proceeding to ban 7th. Fladrif (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Rather than arguing the point, it's probably safe to say that any editor may raise questions about any content added by Tucker. If Bwb would like to remove material promoted by Tucker then anyone who restores it takes responsibility for it, which they shouldn't do reflexively. This isn't the best place to discuss the details of 7thdr. Will Beback talk 09:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, it is entirely clear. 7th was blocked, not banned. There was no community discussion or ArbCom proceeding to ban 7th. Fladrif (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Banned users may not edit, and any edits they make under false identities may be reverted. It's not entirely clear if The7thdr was banned, or merely blocked. Will Beback talk 09:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Is there any Wiki policy about reverting edits made on a article by a "outed" sock of a blocked user? --BwB (talk) 09:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
EEG research
I've revert Kala's gross misrepresentation of the material in the Cambridge book. I'll outline the errors on the TM-Sidhi talk page, where this discussion has been taking place. TimidGuy (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Maha Media
I just came across "Maha Media". According to the "Maharishi Institute of Vedic and Management Sciences", Maha Media is the "largest NEWS AGENCY and PORTAL of India, connecting 185 different countries and offering latest News in multilingual options".[34] Its "Editor-in-Chief" is "Brahmachari Dr Girish Verma Ji".[35] It has at least two other editors.[36] It would appear to be a news service run by a nephew of the Maharishi. Despite the claim, I don't see any evidence that it's the largest news agency of India, but it does at least appear to be a something like a self-published secondary source, reliable at least within that limited context. Thoughts? Will Beback talk 10:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- My thoughts are: why bring such an irrelevant topic into this already too-large article? Who cares about a news agency anyway? Is your motivation just your delight in discovering it? That wouldn't be much of a rationale. David Spector (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- Of course I'm delighted to find a new source, especially for under-represented views and facts. The source appear relevant to this and other articles because it covers TM and other aspects of the TM movement. Will Beback talk
- I would wonder if such a source is actually a true case of a non independent source. I can't see how a newspaper, given that newspapers are sometimes given to non accurate journalistic writing, controlled in good part by Maharishi's nephew could be considered in any way a reliable, useable source. What am I missing here?(olive (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC))
- I don't understand the "source/reference" versus "inclusion of content" distinction. We (should) derive all of the article's content from sources. Maha Media is probably a reliable source for Verma's views, and possibly also for the views of the TM movement in India. Those views may not always be the same as those of other elements of the movement, and NPOV calls on us to include all significant views. We deem Orme-Johnson's views to be significant. Does anyone argue that the views of Girish Verma are less significant? He is also a Ph.D. and he is the head of a large TM-centered school system. Will Beback talk 19:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how this became a NPOV issue? The issue is the source and its reliability. We've had numerous conversations about independent sources. If this newspaper is slanted towards Varma's views and opinions its not a neutral source, is it? He's Maharishi's nephew. I assumed the independent source supporters would see this as a movement based source. Orme Johnson is used once in the TM article and he comments on research that is not his own. He 's not giving an opinion he's summarizing, and he is highly credentialed on the area of research is speaking about. I can see us using Varma to comment on the Maharishi schools in India, the area of his expertise presumably, but aren't we going to get a slanted, non-neutral view since he runs those schools. If he says these are the best schools in the world is that a neutral view. At any rate this seems somewhat confusing(olive (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC))
- Many of the sources we use for this article aren't neutral. TM.org, for example. Mahamedia would certainly be a non-independent source, as is MUM Press, etc. Varma comments on TM and other issues related to TM. As a leader of the movement, those views would seem to have value. Or are only the views of Western members of the movement worth including? NPOV calls on us to include all significant views, and the Indian views seem under-represented. Will Beback talk 20:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how this became a NPOV issue? The issue is the source and its reliability. We've had numerous conversations about independent sources. If this newspaper is slanted towards Varma's views and opinions its not a neutral source, is it? He's Maharishi's nephew. I assumed the independent source supporters would see this as a movement based source. Orme Johnson is used once in the TM article and he comments on research that is not his own. He 's not giving an opinion he's summarizing, and he is highly credentialed on the area of research is speaking about. I can see us using Varma to comment on the Maharishi schools in India, the area of his expertise presumably, but aren't we going to get a slanted, non-neutral view since he runs those schools. If he says these are the best schools in the world is that a neutral view. At any rate this seems somewhat confusing(olive (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC))
- "Or are only the views of Western members of the movement worth including?" Why would you even make this kind of comment?
- TM.org is the official site for the TM. org world wide. We have used it to define how that organization defines significant aspects of itself, and we have also used other independent sources to define TM. I am agreeing that Varma may be used with in the limited context you suggest above. We have to be careful how we use it as we would withy any self published source. I' m not sure why you continue to argue NPOV. (olive (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC))
- I am also not sure what point Will is trying to make. --BwB (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Not trying to make any point- just asking for input on using MahaMedia as a source. Will Beback talk 11:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- I am also not sure what point Will is trying to make. --BwB (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- TM.org is the official site for the TM. org world wide. We have used it to define how that organization defines significant aspects of itself, and we have also used other independent sources to define TM. I am agreeing that Varma may be used with in the limited context you suggest above. We have to be careful how we use it as we would withy any self published source. I' m not sure why you continue to argue NPOV. (olive (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC))
A clean start?
I see that the German version of this article (Transzendentale Meditation) is much shorter and more readable than this article. It still reflects both POVs but would represent a clean start. I'm thinking of translating the German article into English and storing it under my User page and formally proposing that it replace the current article. Before I do this work, do any of the other current editors support this? David Spector (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- That article is about 4200 words long. It covers material that we have spread across at least five articles: Transcendental Meditation (6814 word), TM-Sidhi program (6262 words), Transcendental Meditation movement (4062 words), Organizations associated with the Transcendental Meditation movement (3047 words), and Maharishi University of Management stabbing (998 words). Total of those English articles: about 21,183 words. If we look at only the parts of the German TM article that address topics not covered in those other articles, then there are probably only about 1200 relevant words, about 1/5 of the length of this article. Cutting it down like that would certainly save on printing costs!
- On the other hand, the German article contains a number of interesting issues not covered anywhere in the English Wikipedia. The "Politik" section is a good example, and there's also material in "Kontroversen" that we don't mention. So rather than making the article shorter, that's a reason for making it longer. We can always split off a section if length is a problem. I've previously suggested splitting off the research section, and the history section could also stand alone. Will Beback talk 18:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- A number of people, including me, have commented in the past that the German Wikipedia article on TM is at once shorter, more comprensive, more readable, and more neutral than the comparable English Wikipedia articles at the points in time that the comments were made. If you want to make the effort to translate it and propose the translation as a fresh start, no-one is going to stop you. The worst that can happen is that the proposal won't achieve consensus. Not like it would be the end of the world if that happened. Fladrif (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- I agree it would not be the end of the world. But I've got lots of other things to do in life; rewriting the TM article is not something I'm ready to undertake with such weak support. Do any of the pro-TM editors have an opinion? David Spector (talk) 04:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- It is unrealistic to expect to obtain consensus in advance for a major rewrite. That's not really how Wikipedia works. As I wrote above, your idea isn't a new one. Your proposal has considerable merit, but if you look back at the talk archives, you'll get a flavor for the blowback you can expect.[37][38] [39][40][41] The best you can expect is that people will consider the specific language that you propose after they've seen it, in English, in black and white. Fladrif (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Natural Stress Relief/USA
The most viable international alternative to and competitor of Transcendental Meditation, Natural Stress Relief, has just been granted Federal 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, retroactive to our founding in January, 2006. David Spector (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Congratulations. Will Beback talk 02:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Squire Fridell practices Transcendental Meditation
Actor Squire Fridell (spokesperson for Toyota in the 1970s who has reappeared in current ads):
“ | More than thirty-five years ago (how the time flies!) I did one of the most intelligent things I've ever done that helped my life and my career: I started Transcendental Meditation (TM).[1][2] | ” |
Citations
- ^ Acting in Television Commercials for Fun and Profit, Squire Fridell, p.247.
- ^ Anchorage Daily News, Sept. 19, 1977 (upper right corner).
David Spector (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- If there's ever a "notable practitioners" list or article then this can go there. Will Beback talk 01:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Lately it keeps coming up in the media that this or that famous person does TM. In recent months it's been Candy Crowley, Russell Brand, Mehmet Oz, Andrew Sullivan, James Wolcott, and more. Maybe we should have a section in this article. TimidGuy (talk) 10:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- The list would be so long that I think it would quickly overwhelm the article. However a standalone list would be fine. As we've discussed before, there are similar lists for other spiritual and religious groups. Because many people apparently try TM but don't stick with it we'd need to make clear that these are people who've learned the technique rather than that they're all current practitioners. Of course, if someone is described as being a longtime practitioner, or any other information, we can add that info as well. Since there's no need for a standalone list to be comprehensive, etc, we can start it and just add new entries as the sources permit without drafting it first and waiting for it to be complete, as we might do with a new article. Will Beback talk 20:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Lately it keeps coming up in the media that this or that famous person does TM. In recent months it's been Candy Crowley, Russell Brand, Mehmet Oz, Andrew Sullivan, James Wolcott, and more. Maybe we should have a section in this article. TimidGuy (talk) 10:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Prominent practitioners are part of the story of TM, and there are many many examples in mainstream media reports. It wouldn't have to be a long list — just the most prominent current practitioners. It would help add balance to the article, which now seems dominated by the POV of people like Randi, whose point of view is mentioned in five different places in the article. If we had a short section in the article, then we could add something in the lead, perhaps juxtaposing Mehmet Oz with Sagan. TimidGuy (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Misrepresentation of sources in the lead
The lead says that the claimed science behind TM has been described as pseudoscience by Sagan and Randi. Neither source actually says this. In his examples Sagan is specifically talking about the Maharishi Effect and the TM-Sidhi program. Randi is specifically talking about the siddhis and the Maharishi Effect, and his "crackpot science" comment is referring to an analogy he says Maharishi has used comparing the structure of an atom to that of the solar system. TimidGuy (talk) 11:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Your point is ill taken. Neither source is limited in the manner you claim. There is no mispresentation. Randi states of the Science of Creative Intelligence, which is the foundation of the theory behind TM:
- Study of the siddhis is an aspect of the Maharishi's “Science of Creative Intelligence,” which has no scientific characteristics at all. Though wide claims have been made for the effect of TM on the world, none of the claims have stood examination. One of the Maharishi's attractive analogies——in which he equates the solar system with the structure of the atom——is not only crackpot science; it is very bad crackpot science.
- Sagan says specifically:
- We are talking about science. SCI as the source says is not a science nor does SCI refer to research. Its a way of naming a philosophical underpinning and shouldn't be confused with science. However, the real issue is that the sources are not being referenced accurately. Both Randi and Sagan are making very specific references. We should just say simply what is in the sources. If we have to extrapolate that's not an accurate reference. If Randi and Sagan are used a sources, we must quote them accurately.
- Randi:
- "Though wide claims have been made for the effect of TM on the world, none of the claims have stood examination. One of the Maharishi's attractive analogies——in which he equates the solar system with the structure of the atom——is not only crackpot science; it is very bad crackpot. " [42]
- Sagan as Fladrif's quote shows is referring to the TM technique ("the Hindu doctrine") rather than the research on the technique.
- "Perhaps the most successful recent global pseudoscience—by many criteria, already a religion—is the Hindu doctrine of transcendental meditation (TM)[43] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs)
- I believe that you are misreading the sources. You want to distinguish between three things, and perhaps more if I add in TG's claims: (i) the "science" behind TM; (ii) the practice of TM as a technique alone; (iii) research studies on the effects of TM. I see no reasonable reading of Sagan's comment on the Hindu doctrine of TM to be talking about the practice of TM as a technique alone divorced from its underlying "science" nor from the research on its effects. The full quote from p 16 is as follows:
- Perhaps the most successful recent global pseudoscience—by many criteria, already a religion—is the Hindu doctrine of transcendental meditation (TM). The soporific homilies of its founder and spiritual leader, the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, can be seen on television. Seated in the yogi position, his white hair here and there flecked with black, surrounded by garlands and floral offerings, he has a look. One day while channel surfing we came upon this visage. "You know who that is?" asked our four-year-old son. "God." The worldwide TM organization has an estimated valuation of $3 billion. For a fee they promise through meditation to be able to walk you through walls, to make you invisible, to enable you to fly. By thinking in unison they have, they say, diminished the crime rate in Washington, D.C., and caused the collapse of the Soviet Union, among other secular miracles. Not one smattering of real evidence has been offered for any such claims. TM sells folk medicine, runs trading companies, medical clinics and "research" universities, and has unsuccessfully entered politics. In its oddly charismatic leader, its promise of community, and the offer of magical powers in exchange for money and fervent belief, it is typical of many pseudosciences marketed for sacerdotal export.
- Both sources are correctly summarized as stating that the science behind TM - which is undeniably SCI - is pseudoscience. The analogy Randy refers to is one made by the Maharishi in the SCI lectures. The Maharishi said that SCI was the link between modern science and Vedic science and the foundation of all knowledge. The TM technique and TM_Sidhi are promoted as the practical applications of SCI. The Maharishi claimed it was a science. So, I was initially puzzled by your statement that it's not a science, since its developer claimed repeatedly that it is. Official TM-Org websites, including those promoting MUM and the Maharishi School in Fairfield say that it is a science, and designed their curriculums around the concept that it is the foundation of every academic discipline taught at those institutions. But, on more careful reading, I take it that you are trying to distinguish between theoretical underpinnings and research on effects.
- Sagan and Randi both state that there is no real evidence to support Maharishi Effect claims (which are made both for TM and TM-Sidhi), but that is a separate point from the criticism of the theory of TM/SCI. The current language accurately summarizes the sources. Fladrif (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)