Littleolive oil (talk | contribs) →2005 British Elections: no you are not neutral |
→2005 British Elections: clarify please - focus on content |
||
Line 632: | Line 632: | ||
::This is inconsistent with your comment about Allen Green. Green appears in a prominent Canadian newspaper. A newspaper that comes out of the provincial capital is a notable newspaper in Canada, but I believe you said this wasn't notable. I guess I don't see that we have any consistency here. I have asked repeatedly that we set a standard. Looks very much like if I do it its not right, but if you two do it is. Interesting dilemma. If you add this to the article you do it without a real consensus. I note Will's comment on the COINB "So if there are, for example, five "pro" editors and two "anti" editors, the "pro" editors can't claim consensus as an excuse for violating NPOV, even if talk page discussions show a clear preference for one version over another." You both believe you are neutral, I don't believe you are , and your addition of this information while innocuous indicates a clear and deliberate attempt to override what ever I have to say or suggest as has been the case through out all of these discussions . Yet Fladrif has refused to be available for mediation . That is his prerogative. Yet, don't try and tell me that either of you cares about the neutrality of this article above what you '''believe''' is neutral. If you make this addition at this time you risk an edit war.([[User:Littleolive oil|olive]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 21:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)) |
::This is inconsistent with your comment about Allen Green. Green appears in a prominent Canadian newspaper. A newspaper that comes out of the provincial capital is a notable newspaper in Canada, but I believe you said this wasn't notable. I guess I don't see that we have any consistency here. I have asked repeatedly that we set a standard. Looks very much like if I do it its not right, but if you two do it is. Interesting dilemma. If you add this to the article you do it without a real consensus. I note Will's comment on the COINB "So if there are, for example, five "pro" editors and two "anti" editors, the "pro" editors can't claim consensus as an excuse for violating NPOV, even if talk page discussions show a clear preference for one version over another." You both believe you are neutral, I don't believe you are , and your addition of this information while innocuous indicates a clear and deliberate attempt to override what ever I have to say or suggest as has been the case through out all of these discussions . Yet Fladrif has refused to be available for mediation . That is his prerogative. Yet, don't try and tell me that either of you cares about the neutrality of this article above what you '''believe''' is neutral. If you make this addition at this time you risk an edit war.([[User:Littleolive oil|olive]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 21:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)) |
||
:::"Its notability has not been established." Huh? Can you explain, especially what you mean by "notability" and "established". |
|||
:::Also, I think this discussion would benefit by concentrating on content issues and avoiding discussions of editors. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 21:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== References (please keep at bottom) == |
== References (please keep at bottom) == |
Revision as of 21:54, 26 March 2009
Alternative medicine Start‑class | |||||||
|
Alternative Views Start‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Removal fee section
I actually removed something earlier if I remember, that 7th had wanted removed. I'm happy to remove the "fee" material, Fladrif mentioned though. Makes the thing sound less like an advert. If someone really wants it in please revert I'm not attached.(olive (talk) 04:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC))
Seems like good logic to me. Who wants to read an advertisement? ChemistryProf (talk) 07:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know what section you're referring to, since there doesn't appear to be a "fee section". However the fees charged for TM are part of the controversy surrounding it. I don't recommend removing all mention of the fact that significant fees are charged. NPOV requires that all views are included, so this needs to be covered one way or another. Will Beback talk 08:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- This refers to Fladrif's comment on the fact that the first two lectures are free -"fee material" from the Procedure section, and was not a controversial entry or edit.(olive (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC))
- So where are the fees discussed? Will Beback talk 09:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- This refers to Fladrif's comment on the fact that the first two lectures are free -"fee material" from the Procedure section, and was not a controversial entry or edit.(olive (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC))
- In the current version of the article,the only mention of fees was the couple of words on the first two lectures being free. Olive has now removed that. I don't have any problem with those being removed - it did sound a bit like an advert.
- If you go back in the archives for the article, editors have gone back and forth on whether a discussion of the level of fees currently being charged for instruction is appropriate or not. The arguments for including it would seem to be that: there was considerable controversy generated when the fees were very rapidly increased from less than $500 to $2500 (more recently reduced to $2000, if I understand correctly), leading to a number of developments (i) many TM teachers refusing to charge the high fees, breaking away to teach on their own (ii) the registration of TM as a service mark and efforts of the service mark holder to enforce the service mark, including re-certification and re-training of TM teachers; (iii) TM instruction being suspended in some countries as a result of the foregoing; (iv) questions as to whether high fees in "first world" countries were subsidizing activities in third world countries, (v) whether the fee increases contributed to the rapid decline in new TM enrollments in the mid to late 70's etc... The "con" arguments would seem to be that discussing fees gets into the article looking promotional and that these other issues aren't really notable or appropriately sourced. I don't really know where I come down on the notability argument or whether it really goes in an encyclopedia article, but it did look to me like most of this stuff was appropriately sourced, or could be reliably sourced given just a bit of Googling. Fladrif (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Here's the difffrom last December when olive deleted the section on "Issues of Cost" as "redundant". I don't understand why the deleted material, which was contained nowhere else in the article, is redundant. Fladrif (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC) It does not appear, from a cursory review of Archive 18, that there was any discussion of removing that information on the Talk page at the time of that edit.Fladrif (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Taking a quick look on Google, I see this book: The Future of Religion By Rodney Stark, William Sims Bainbridge, University of California Press 1986, [1]. It has a lot of information about fees in the 1970s. Exploring new religions By George D. Chryssides, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2001, [2] also mentions the fees, plus has quite a bit on mantras and initiations. Here's a paper that touches on fees, "The Secular Selling of a Religion"[3]. I'm sure there are more. There are many scholarly sources for this topic. Will Beback talk 18:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. The editing practices/disputes/discussions/whatever that led to these categories of information being excised from the article predate my involvement on this page. But, while a review of the Talk page archives reveal various claims from time to time that the material lacked reliable sources, those claims do not appear to have been well-founded or legitimate arguments for the deletions that occurred. Fladrif (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Will I had a quick look at the book Exploring new religions By George D. Chryssides. I haven't had a look at the other two but will do so when I get a chance...I thought his section on "Is TM a religion?" was quite good...he presents reasons for why TM might be considered a Religion and why it might not. There didn't appear to be any substantial info on the price of TM though. In regards to the price one of the questions in the past has been that since TM is priced differently from country to country should one just list the USA fee or all the fees or some of the fees or none of the fees.--Uncreated (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- "Redundant" referred to the fact that a suggestion had been made to move information about fees to the procedure section. The links on fees in the issues of cost section were spam links and either before or just after that were removed from the ref section as well with consensus and under the direction of Ronz who seems to specialize in links. Some of that ongoing discussion is here[4][5] Once a more general note was added in the procedure section the info in the bottom section was redundant ... Note also I made the change to see what it looked like with the comment that it could certainly be removed. The mantra bit was not referenced, and as it was really had no place unless referenced. Discussion on mantra has been ongoing in this article and could be visited again as far as I'm concerned if the topic is considered notable enough for inclusion.(olive (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC))
- Since this is a contentious topic, it might be better to wait for a response on a talk page rather then making the edit and inviting people to revert it. As for the fees, another source, which meets the requirements for an RS even if it's not ideal, is The Complete Idiot's Guide to World Religions. It says, "Its insistence on fees for initial instruction has left some wondering at its motives, but the movement is not, to all appearances, an exploitative one."[6] It'd be better to track down the source for that, but it can also be used directly. Will Beback talk 19:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm concerned that some of these discussions and agreements, such as those listed by Olive, appear to be among editors who share a viewpoint on this topic. That's why NPOV policy is described as non-negotiable. In other words, an agreement by editors to delete material required for NPOV doesn't mean that the material should be deleted. It looks like TimidGuy proposed that the key areas of disputes about TM were not "major controversies" and so could be omitted, and then a couple of editors agreed with him. If that's what happened then it was probably inconsistent with good editing practices. Will Beback talk 19:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Last comment for a while. I feel that the fee section needs to reinserted. A number of TM teachers - as is well documented - left the movement for the very reason of rising fees - resources available all over for those that want to look. This is why many of them - while believing TM worth while - offer none official training at lower costs. There use to be a discussion of this including alternatives listed. This is important and I feel reintegrated to the article. It is certainly noteworthy The7thdr (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- The refs 7th refers were links to sites advertising techniques and so are not appropriate references but are considered spam. If the topic is considered notable enough I have no problem adding some information with appropriate refs.(olive (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC))
- See the refs I found. TM has been thoroughly covered and there are plenty of sources available. Would editors please draft a replacement section to cover this controversy? Will Beback talk 06:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- The refs 7th refers were links to sites advertising techniques and so are not appropriate references but are considered spam. If the topic is considered notable enough I have no problem adding some information with appropriate refs.(olive (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC))
- I'm piecing together bits for this. Here is one bit that I'll park here for further use:
While interesting that teaching was temporarily suspended in Bermuda, I wouldn't think that was particularly relevant in regards to being a reflection of what goes on in the Global TM Organisation or that there was any wide spread dissent about the price of teaching TM. After all it was only temporarily suspended and not stopped...I'm surprised this made a newspaper, it must have been a slow week.--Uncreated (talk) 02:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree. In and of itself, perhaps not. But it is indeed indicitive, being just one example, of what did happen worldwide when fees were dramatically increased. The complaint voiced by these teachers - that the fee increases were incompatible with the concept that TM should be for everyone, and that it make it look that TM was now only for the wealthy - was widely expressed, and is part of the controversy over the fees. It led to the defection of many teachers, who decided to offer instruction separately from the TM organization at lower, or in some cases, no cost. The article also touches on the related controversy over charging subtantial differences in fees mandated by the TM organization from country to country. I parked this article here pending assembly of more reliable sources, of which there are many.
- Remember, what is trademarked (actually servicemarked) is not the TM meditation technique. That can't be trademarked or patented. The servicemarks "Transcendental Meditation" and "TM" only covers instruction in the technique. Anybody can teach TM, they simply can't call it TM. Fladrif (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- At the scale you are talking about it would relevant, so it would be interesting to see any sources you have to suggest this happened. One or two teachers here or there who get the pip with the TM movement and air it in a newspaper seems more sensational to me than anything substantial...and after all they did start teaching again a few months later. Just to keep some perspective I understand TM Literature describes about 40,000 TM teachers having been trained by the TM Organisation. However like I said it will be interesting to see your other sources.--Uncreated (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've already provided other sources. This is a topic of controversy concerning the TM movement and it should be covered in this article, per WP:NPOV. Will Beback talk 18:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- At the scale you are talking about it would relevant, so it would be interesting to see any sources you have to suggest this happened. One or two teachers here or there who get the pip with the TM movement and air it in a newspaper seems more sensational to me than anything substantial...and after all they did start teaching again a few months later. Just to keep some perspective I understand TM Literature describes about 40,000 TM teachers having been trained by the TM Organisation. However like I said it will be interesting to see your other sources.--Uncreated (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind including something about the cost of starting TM. Uncreated, though, makes a fair and legitimate point. WP:Weight says "In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all." Every organization is full of controversy large and small. What has to be discerned is the "size" of the controversy and that can't be any of our opinions but has to be measured in terms of mainstream views. This may be difficult to do in this instance since what we are measuring are press reports where mention is made of the fee structure against all of the other articles on TM where no one says anything. For this reason I doubt there is a definitive on this. For that reason I'd be willing to put in a mention but relatively short. Since a couple of other issues have been brought up I wanted to add a comment for accuracy of information purposes.
- One can not say that one is teaching the TM program or Transcendental Meditation program unless licensed to do so as they are federally registered service marks and that would be a violation of federal and state statutory and common law service mark law. Further, an unlicensed person can not teach that program as all those who have received the requisite training, certification and licensing to teach the named techniques have agreed contractually that they will not teach the program without license and have agreed that the training and instructional information and materials are proprietary and will not be used unless approved by the licsensor of those service marks.
- As a practical matter, if one can not say one is teaching the Transcendental Meditation program how would anyone else ever know they were teaching or practicing the TM program?
- Natural Stress Relief is not TM as they note here[7], and their site is commercial in nature.
- I've seen this argument in the archives here, I think on the medical studies. I'll paraphrase: "There are hundreds of studies showing meditation is great, and only one saying it isn't, so it gives undue weight to the one unfavorable study to mention it at all, unless we mention all 800 favorable studies, so let's not say anything about the unfavorable study." That's not what WP:WEIGHT means. I see a lot of posturing here, laying the groundwork for objecting to what someone might propose to say in the article, which seems like jumping the gun, and not a lot of effort to actually do some constructive editing.Fladrif (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think there is consensus that something should be mentioned about the fee, even if its only the price or a range of prices in different countries it costs to learn TM...but at this point it is still unclear to myself what additional information should be added that is constructive.--Uncreated (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Since Fladrif brought up the issue of Trademark, material has been added here, to if possible, help clarify those points. Since the issue of refs for a section on fee structure has been brought up, material on NSR which was linked in the past was also added as information. I note the difficulty in assessing the weight of the article in this particular topic area because so little information exists that discusses the fee structure except in a negative light. However weight must be discussed and some standard reached. Not sure what archives you are talking about and actually would prefer to just stay with the here and now of this article if at all possible. Ground work has to be laid when editing in collaborative editing so everyone can arrive on the same page in terms of agreement/consensus. Every editor does what they think needs doing. In my mind, AGF means we just accept others contributions as appropriate for them.(olive (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC))
- Whatever we say has to come out of a source, sorry that's obvious I guess... so however that is worded... and commenting on the fees considered by some to be too high. I actually wouldn't want to get into fees structures for different countries ... where would you stop and what is representative is unclear given the fees' range in different part of the world. A preliminary thought.(olive (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC))
- I have no problem with a sentence about the fees for TM. I don't see the need for it, but if the consensus it to have it in, then its OK with me. I do object however, to commentary and opinions about the fee unless the are shown to be widespread, notable WP:NOTABILITY and solidly sourced. --Kbob (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Is that the same standard used for all material in this article? I'd be surprised if it is. It's important to be consistent. There is no requirement that views of a topic be widespread, simply that they be significant. Almost any viewpoint that appears in a reliable source (aside from a passing mention) is likely to be significant. WP:NOTABILITY applies to whether WP should have a standalone article on a topic and isn't relevant to this discussion. Will Beback talk 01:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- I have no problem with a sentence about the fees for TM. I don't see the need for it, but if the consensus it to have it in, then its OK with me. I do object however, to commentary and opinions about the fee unless the are shown to be widespread, notable WP:NOTABILITY and solidly sourced. --Kbob (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Here's another source for the importance of fees inthe TM movement:
- ...Transcendental Meditation movement turned toward increased emphasis upon unusual supernatural compensators, thus increasing its tension, after recruitment of new members collapsed. Most dedicated members were teachers of the TM meditation technique, and their hopes for increased financial rewards and social status depended upon a steadily increasing flow of students. So when the students practically stopped coming, the movement grew in tension rather than in membership.
- The Sociology of Religious Movements By William Sims Bainbridge, Routledge, 1997 ISBN 0415912024 p. 82
- ...Transcendental Meditation movement turned toward increased emphasis upon unusual supernatural compensators, thus increasing its tension, after recruitment of new members collapsed. Most dedicated members were teachers of the TM meditation technique, and their hopes for increased financial rewards and social status depended upon a steadily increasing flow of students. So when the students practically stopped coming, the movement grew in tension rather than in membership.
- So he appears to say that the fees were integral to the movement and its most dedicated members. Will Beback talk 21:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Here's another source for the importance of fees inthe TM movement:
- Unfortunately, this is so erroneous as to be laughable. TM teachers at the best of times did and do not make a lot teaching TM. Financial rewards and status is equally ridiculous. Most are dedicated to the people they are teaching and to what they consider to be something of value. I think that if you look in the mainstream press you'll find very little mention of fees, maybe a handful of comments and very few articles dedicated to the issue of cost... and what the heck is a "supernatural compensator".
- Another way of looking at the flow of students is to note that at times when students increased substantially was after publicity such as the Merv Griffin show, than as happens when the publicity faded things slowed down. Well I believe Bainbridge is so far off the mark as to be absurd, but i am not against including something about cost... I think some editors are saying lets talk about the rise in fees others are saying lets talk about the fees themselves. Of note fees in the US are very different than fees in other countries especially third world countries. So I would think that the "cost of TM controversy" is limited to some of the Western countries and is not a constant. I guess that of there are controversies, true controversies, there would be a lot of it in the press but there isn't so.....one has to ask what is controversy and what is opinion and Wikipedia isn't about listing every opinion. That said I don't at the moment know how to deal with this particular topic but will think about it along with everyone else, I guess.(olive (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC))
- It isn't helpful to say that eminent scholars are so wrong as to be laughbale based only on our own personal experience. Bainbridge doesn't say that there was much income from the fees, but rather that dedicated members saw the fees as a way of of producing financial rewards. It appears to me that a problem with this article is that editors aren't doing sufficient research. I suggest that the best remedy would be to collect research on individual topics, like fees, on a subpage of this talk page. After a comprehensive survey of material on the issue has been prepared then editors can summarize the sources. Will Beback talk 22:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- You're right it isn't helpful and I apologize for taking this lightly. Things are not necessarily pleasant over here so lightness seemed a nice break. This eminent scholar is voicing opinion and its not accurate and is far enough off for me to say its absurd. However, that is a personal comment on the material, and although I think its fine to comment every now and then it may not be helping the article. Bainbridge has some pretty obvious biases so I'm not excited by using him but I didn't say at this point remove him.
- I'm not willing to judge anyone on this page in terms of what they are doing, and I hope other editors will extend the same courtesy to me.(olive (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC))
Deletion
In 1989, the Vatican released a document which was sharply critical of Transcendental Meditation, Zen and Yoga, saying it can `can degenerate into a cult of the body and can lead surreptitiously to considering all bodily sensations as spiritual experiences.' [8] User:Littleolive oil
- This has been widely reported:
- The Vatican today cautioned Roman Catholics that Eastern meditation practices such as Zen and yoga can "degenerate into a cult of the body" that debases Christian prayer.... The 23-page document, signed by the West German congregation head Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, was believed the first time the Vatican sought to respond to the pull of Eastern religious practices. Ratzinger told a news conference that the document was not condemning Eastern meditation practices, but was elaborating on guidelines for proper Christian prayer. ... By Eastern methods, the document said, it was referring to practices inspired by Hinduism and Buddhism such as Zen, Transcendental Meditation and yoga, which involves prescribed postures and controlled breathing. Some Christians, "caught up in the movement toward openness and exchanges between various religions and cultures, are of the opinion that their prayer has much to gain from these methods," the document said. But, it said, such practices "can degenerate into a cult of the body and can lead surreptitiously to considering all bodily sensations as spiritual experiences." Attempts to combine Christian and non-Christian mediation are "not free from dangers and errors," the document said.
- Vatican sees perils in yoga and Zen; [FIN Edition] (AP). Toronto Star. Toronto, Ont.: Dec 14, 1989. pg. A.3
- The Vatican today cautioned Roman Catholics that Eastern meditation practices such as Zen and yoga can "degenerate into a cult of the body" that debases Christian prayer.... The 23-page document, signed by the West German congregation head Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, was believed the first time the Vatican sought to respond to the pull of Eastern religious practices. Ratzinger told a news conference that the document was not condemning Eastern meditation practices, but was elaborating on guidelines for proper Christian prayer. ... By Eastern methods, the document said, it was referring to practices inspired by Hinduism and Buddhism such as Zen, Transcendental Meditation and yoga, which involves prescribed postures and controlled breathing. Some Christians, "caught up in the movement toward openness and exchanges between various religions and cultures, are of the opinion that their prayer has much to gain from these methods," the document said. But, it said, such practices "can degenerate into a cult of the body and can lead surreptitiously to considering all bodily sensations as spiritual experiences." Attempts to combine Christian and non-Christian mediation are "not free from dangers and errors," the document said.
- The Vatican represents the hundreds of millions of Roman Catholics. It has a significant point of view and this should be mentioned, at least briefly. Will Beback talk 06:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. This belongs back in the article. I strongly object to simply reverting reliably-sourced relevant information under the guise of "lack of consensus". It is a highly problematic practice. The better practice is to leave reliably-sourced relavant information in the article unless and until there is a genuine consensus to remove it. I'm putting it back in pending that discussion.Fladrif (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- This has been widely reported:
- You might want to include something from Father Jeremy Davies, exorcist for the leader of Catholics in the UK, - who has published in one of his books that Yoga, Zen and TM can lead the practitioner being possessed by devils and demons also . A very popular book. Intriguing reading http://www.amazon.com/Exorcist-Tells-His-Story/dp/0898707102 http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2008/09/christian-yoga-doorway-to-demonic.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 20:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that if there is an appropriate comment from the Catholic Church it should be included.
- There is already information in the article from the RC church. Two comments may be undue weight. I would suggest one or the other.
- The Transcendental Meditation technique is a mental practice and does not include postures and controlled breathing so the Vatican document mischaracterizes the technique. Does any one care about that?
- To create NPOV, the article should have the more extended information on, priests, and rabbis other religious who find the TM technique does not intefere with their religion and is not a religious activity. This is a fair balance to all of the additions recently added indicating the technique is religious. This creates neutrality.
- I see from the revert of the Vatican information which I removed because there was no discussion, consensus, nothing, the standard I thought we were operating under here, that this is no longer the case. So any one can add anything without discussion or comment as long as its sourced even poorly sourced and then wait to see if everyone agrees or not. I was operating under the old rules. Discuss first, reach agreement then add. This is no longer in effect as far as I can see.(olive (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC))
I agree that it's best to discuss text before we rush into adding it. While the Vatican's view is significant, it isn't about TM in particular. The last bit of quoted text may be the best for these purposes. How about something like, In 1989, a Vatican council published a warning that mixing eastern meditation, such as TM, with Christian prayer could lead to "dangers and errors". The Vatican is more authoritive speaking about the relationship of TM with Christianity then it is on the topic of TM alone. Will Beback talk 05:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Good points, Will. The way you have phrased the sentence makes it more relevant. The only point I would make, however, is that we already have a statment in the article from the Catholic religion
- "For example, Jaime Cardinal Sin, then Catholic Archbishop of Manila, said that some concepts taught by Maharishi conflict with Christianity."
- If some editors would like to take the Cardinal Sin statement out and replace it with your sentence from the Vatican, I would have no objection.--Kbob (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's not an eithor/or situation. Why should the Sin comment be removed? Will Beback talk 00:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe Kbob made a good point above, that two statements from the Catholic religion is giving a definite Catholic twist to the discussion. In other words, it is promoting a point of view that is at odds with other religions and especially with many of the priests, rabbis, and ministers of those religions. That is what I understand to be his reason for eliminating one of the points, and I find it hard to argue with that logic. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- The statements are not exclusive, and can even be combined into one sentence. If there are conflicting views then we should include those too. I'm checking the refs for the other views and one of the books seems to be obscure. According to Worldcat, there are only three copies of A key to the kingdom of heaven: A christian understanding of Transcendental Meditation by Adrian B Smith in all the libraries in the U.S.[10] NPOV calls on us to give views their weight based on their prominence. The views of an archbishop with tens of millions in his archdiocese should have more prominence than those of a minor author, which may represent a less significant minority. Will Beback talk 04:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- comment moved down to match reply - Will Beback talk 20:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- As a suggestion:
- Jaime Sin, a cardinal and the Archbishop of Manila, wrote in 1984 that neither the doctrine nor the practice of TM are acceptable to Christians. In 1989, a Vatican council published a warning that mixing eastern meditation, such as TM, with Christian prayer could lead to "dangers and errors".
- I think that's a better summary of Sin's statement. The two statement together don't amount to excess weight, since the comments are made by representatives of very large groups (circa 70 million Catholics in the Philippines, and over a billion worldwide). By comparison, an obscure writer and a rabbi quoted in a provincial newspaper seem much less significant Will Beback talk 21:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced we have things right on this topic. First the concern the RC church(Vatican statement) has to do with breathing and body movement and not meditation itself, so if this statement was used it would have to summarize that concern. Second that the Vatican characterizes TM as a concern in terms of body and breathing is incorrect to begin with.... Why would we include a statement that is based on non reliable information when we know it to be unreliable. Third, It would be easy enough to say oh well its just a sentence lets put it in, but the reception section is now full of bits and pieces on religion and TM that editor's have added, and I just don't think religion is the issue we are making of it. TM has been around for about 50 years and there are topics that have come up and disappeared over time... around the Malnak time there was the religion concern but there's not much in the press on that anymore. Both these possibpe additions(Vatican and Sin) are at least 20 years old.
- Concerning Adrian Smith's book which I have by the way, Wikipedia does not say as far as I've ever seen that a book's verifiability and reliability depends on the number of libraries the book is in in the US, especially since the book in question was written and published in the UK. The publisher seems to be legitimate. Books aren't required to be best sellers to use them as references.
- One of the concerns I have is that we don't agree on what the controversies are, how important they are (weight), how to define them, and how to add them. Right now we are at an impasse on this topic. The reception section has been skewed to deal mostly with religion and TM... that isn't right and violates Weight. More discussion needed.(olive (talk) 17:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC))
- The section is about religion and TM, so it's appropriate to discuss it there. We could move it to a section titled "outside views" or "reception". As for Smith's book, it may be reliable even if only one copy exists. But when it comes to WEIGHT, views should be given weight according to their prominence. An obscure book is far less prominent than an official document from a committee at the head of a billion people, written by the future head of that organiztion. As for errors in those views, they certainly may exist but they don't matter if we're simply reporting them as views. This article isn't about TM in 2009, it's about TM from its beginning to the present day. It's certainly possible that things would change over that period, both the movement itself and the perceptions of it. We should try and report as much of that as we have sources for. Getting back to the proposed text, any specific objections? Will Beback talk 19:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, not trying to be difficult, but I object. I've listed my objections in several places. We don't need two references to the Catholic church in this section.This skews the article. As well, as I said the Vatican document uses TM as an example but its fundamentally incorrect.... its not part of a view, its a mistake... In the document proper no techniques are mentioned. The document itself is a general reference to techniques that use movement and breathing. TM does neither. The document,then, isn't about TM. In the footnotes, techniques that use body and breathing are cited as examples of what is said in the document ... TM is cited. Its not a correct example. We all know that... Why would we give the reader this kind of wrong information..Its not what the document is about.I don't see this as the usual argument about verifiability and truth, I see this a document that is not about TM at all but in whose footnotes an incorrect example is added. There's a point where judgment has to come into play. The Cardinal Sin document is certainly a strong enough document. There's a point where an editor has to say this isn't about TM so lets use something that is about TM. I would mention that the Pope and those who speak for him do not represent Catholics they represent the Church and speak to Catholics. (being Catholic myself)
- My concern also is that including this information further skews a section that is already skewed through additions of material that were added without discussion first. I'm interested in neutrality and in reflecting TM in the way its viewed in the mainstream press for starters. If one does a search on "Transcendental Meditation research" or"Transcendental Meditation study" in Google News archives, it results in 2,780 articles. Virtually none of them mention any controversy. TM is simply accepted as a mainstream form of meditation for improving health. Here's the search result:[11]
- I would like to make some suggestions. Take the Reception section and paste it here and lets work on it here. Let's list the information we want in that section and attempt to create balance. Lets decide what that balance is ...If this doesn't work we need formal mediation.(olive (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC))
- If editors feel they cannot come to an agreement to include all significant points of view, as required by NPOV, then the first step of dispute resoltuon would be to either post an RFC here, or request input at the relevant noticebaord, in this case probably WP:NPOV/N. Will Beback talk 21:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Will,that these are significant points of view is an opinion, and that writing the article one way is NPOV. Including one reference to the RC church is neutral, two is over the line ... that's how I see it, and that's how I would characterize NPOV and that's my opinion... so let's be neutral as well, in how we see this dispute.(olive (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC))
- FWIW, the text I propose above is 47 words long. By comparison, the paragraph summarizing William Sims Bainbridge's views is 88 words long. Yet some folks here are saying that 47 words would be excessive weight. If we are concerned with the weight issue, are we saying that Bainbridge's views are twice as prominent as those of Cardinal Sin and Cardinal Ratzinger? What evidence do we have for the prominence of Bainbridge relative to Sin and Ratzinger? Will Beback talk 21:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- I certainly didn't OK the Bainbridge entry at all, nor did I ever have a chance to edit it or replace it...Weight also refers to impact of a statement... two comments about the RC Church is "heavier" than one. If we show that there are views that see TM as non compatible with Christianity then in terms of neutrality we should add for balance views that show its also compatible and acceptable. Bainbridge's quote only adds more to the non compatible side since it indicates the technique itself is religious.
- What we have in this section is a dumping ground for opinions that are now for the most part cast TM in a negative light. Topics are mixed up and there is no flow from one topic to the next. It might be a good idea to rewrite the section after a discussion of what we want in it, then add subsections so that material clearly sits in the right area. Just a thought.(olive (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC))
- I don't know what you mean about not having a chance to OK, edit, or replace the Bainbridge material. I also don't know why short comments by two people carry more weight than two longer comments from a single person, or why equal weight shouldn't be given to Catholic leaders as opposed to obscure writers. All significant points of view should be included. If that ends up being a "dumping ground" then it should be organized better rather than being deleted. Will Beback talk 23:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- What we have in this section is a dumping ground for opinions that are now for the most part cast TM in a negative light. Topics are mixed up and there is no flow from one topic to the next. It might be a good idea to rewrite the section after a discussion of what we want in it, then add subsections so that material clearly sits in the right area. Just a thought.(olive (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC))
And I don't why you're comparing the two Catholic comments to Bainbridge as if I wanted the lines there when I think Bainbridge is rubbish and would have added a better source, less material or non at all since how many times do we have to say hindu and puja... so I guess we're even:o)... Yes that's my idea to as I said above to reorder the section.(olive (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC))
- What do you mean by "a better source, less material or non[e] at all"? Please explain. Why shouldn't we include Bainbridge's view? He's a notable scholar. Will Beback talk 00:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Will... everything in front of the smiley face is my uncensored opinion, discussion of lack of understanding about what you are saying, peppered with a bit of a joke and has nothing to do with what should or should not be in the article. I know that what Bainbridge is saying is not true, however he may very well be reliable and verifiable and I'm not disputing that....nor am I seriously suggesting removing him.... I'm saying I'd like to but I am held by Wikipedia standards which I do uphold religiously pun intended, so until those standards are disputed in the case of the Bainbride entry, he, in my mind, stays. I've been on here too long... later.(olive (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC))
- Will, in my mind the entry we have for Bainbridge isn't particularly informative...it simply states his opinion, not how he arrived at why he thinks TM is a religion. I thought Exploring new religions By George D. Chryssides would be a better source to site because he explains why TM might be considered a Religion and reasons why it might not be considered a religion. --Uncreated (talk) 02:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've ordered the book, though much of it is available on Google. It appears to be a high quality source that could be used throughout the article, not just the part about religion and spirituality. As you say, Chryssides might be worthwhile too. Will Beback talk 04:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for continuing this overly long conversation, but important loose ends should not be left dangling. Of all the things said here, one of Olive's most relevant statements has not been responded to by anyone. She pointed out clearly above that what Ratzinger said, as quoted above, is not true of TM because he incorrectly included TM in what he called methods of "breathing and body movements." If other editors insist on including in the TM article what we all know to be wrong, where is the legitimacy in that? What WP rules uphold that? So when the discussion has degenerated to this degree, how can we even carry on? ChemistryProf (talk) 07:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Overly long? Since there's no agreement the discussion is far from over.
- The point that Olive and ChemistryProf are making does not appear to me to be consistent with Wikipedia norms. If Ratzinger bases his concern about TM on it being a breathing exercise then we don't decide, on our own authority, that he's in error and so delete his view of TM. If we think that he is in error we can either cite a reliable source about the error or, and this is at the limit of original research, juxtapose it with a source that says TM is not a breathing or motion discipline. As an example, imagine that a very prominent clergyman made a widely reported comment condemning a politicans for supporting abortion rights. But we also may also have sources showing that the same politician has supported right to life. That doesn't mean that we should ignore the prominent viewpoint entirely. A sufficiently prominent view must be reported, even if we believe it to be based on a faulty premise. Remember, we aren't saying that it is true. We're just reporting that it was expressed. That's what NPOV is all about. We report all of the significant viewpoints without deciding which are correct or incorrect. Verifiability, not truth, is the Wikipedia standard. Will Beback talk 08:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Will's discussion of verifiability and truth and I am generally rigid about its use. I believe this is a slightly different situation which is why I'm digging my heels in.
- TM is not mentioned in the document itself. No technique is.
- The document is very specifically about and refers to methods /techniques that use breathing and body movement.
- TM is used as an example in the footnotes.
- TM does not use breathing and body movement but is a mental technique.
- In effect by adding this to the article we are saying TM uses breathing and body movement. This isn't accurate and gives the reader wrong information.This isn't an opinion or viewpoint, its just obvious wrong information, and we know its wrong.
- If in the document proper TM had been specifically cited, then this would be a different situation, and would be an opinion.
- Note Jimbo Wales' comment: "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information."
I realize there two ways of looking at this . My point is that there is a point where we just don't have to give out wrong info. and in my mind this is it.(olive (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC))
- What false info? The comments about TM by Ratzinger are definitely opinions and are well-sourced. We aren't making them up. The title of the work is "LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON SOME ASPECTS OF CHRISTIAN MEDITATION". Section 2 says:
- The ever more frequent contact with other religions and with their different styles and methods of prayer has, in recent decades, led many of the faithful to ask themselves what value non-Christian forms of meditation might have for Christians. Above all, the question concerns eastern methods.[1]
- Footnote 1: The expression "eastern methods" is used to refer to methods which are inspired by Hinduism and Buddhism, such as "Zen," "Transcendental Meditation" or "Yoga." Thus it indicates methods of meditation of the non-Christian Far East which today are not infrequently adopted by some Christians also in their meditation. The orientation of the principles and methods contained in this present document is intended to serve as a reference point not just for this problem, but also, in a more general way. for the different forms of prayer practiced nowadays in ecclesial organizations, particularly in associations, movements and groups.
- I don't see where the document calls TM a breathing and body movement. Instead, it calls TM an "eastern method" of meditation. That seems accurate. Will Beback talk 22:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- OK I've read the document over several times and I think you're right. I think my reading of the body/ breathing aspect is quite overstated and I may have conflated that with the newspaper article I'd read. I'd be willing to put something into the article on the Vatican statement but I'm still reluctant to have two comments from the Catholic Church...Not completely against it but reluctant. If I had to choose one the Vatican document would seem to be more inclusive and from a higher authority. I wouldn't mind a statement that is more in the spirit of how the Vatican document speaks about Eastern meditations.
one can take from them what is useful so long as the Christian conception of prayer, its logic and requirements are never obscured.
- This statement seems neither negative nor positive and very general and inclusive of what the document says. Of course other editors may not agree with me but its a discussion.... and it would appear comments about my research may be deserved :o).(olive (talk) 01:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC))
- The Catholic Church has a billion members, so it's a prominent viewpoint. Pennington is a Catholic too. Is Smith a Catholic priest? The letter from Sin is about TM directly, so it's worthwhile. 47 wrods (as proposed) does not appear to be excess weight. Can we settle this so we can move on? Will Beback talk 16:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- I guess by settle you mean you want me to agree with you ... I don't necessarily, and I have compromised on my position. You don't seem to want to compromise on your position. WP: Weight doesn't just refer to number of words. Far from it. This decision isn't just yours and mine either.
- As we discussed, I am writing something about Pennington and realized that do so without considering the section as a whole would be to just chop the section up more than it is already. So what I have started to do is rewrite the section and expand it to include concerns other editors have. I'll post it here. I hopefully will have that finished in the next couple of days . Maybe the rewrite will settle the problems we are having(olive (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC))
- What's the compromise proposal? Sorry if I missed it. Will Beback talk 16:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Also, please note that what I suggested was a compromise from using the "cult of the body" language. Note further that the statement, one can take from them what is useful so long as the Christian conception of prayer, its logic and requirements are never obscured is in reference to "great religions", not eastern forms of meditation. The "dangers and errors" language directly refers to eastern forms of meditation. Will Beback talk 17:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- This is relevant, reliably-sourced information, the inclusion under Will's proposal does not give it undue weight. Olive appears to have withdrawn her earlier substantive objection based on a more careful review of the underlying document. I agree with Will that it should be included as he has proposed. The consensus process does not give any editor veto power over what goes into an article. Fladrif (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
No one is exercising veto power. Several other editors have commented.
This where I stand. The quote I suggested, in reference to the Vatican statement, I think obliquely refers to the practices in the great religions, that the document talks about, but it may not be direct enough. I'm fine with something else. I would though, include a comment on the Vatican document as a summary statement rather than a quote so the spirit of the document is clear and so we are not trying to summarize the whole document with one quote. I would include the Sin statement but with the following understanding.
This part of the section was meant to describe views as to whether TM compatible with other religions, and before it was reduced contained comments such as Sin's comment as well as comments from other religious clergy. I think the article could do with a slightly more extended section on this topic. It would be easier to clarify both sides and would probably be more interesting than what is there now which reduces the material so much as to be meaningless. In this case the Vatican and Sin document would be balanced evenly with other comments. Since I am working on Pennington I could add this. I am trying a rewrite the whole section to paste here and we can see if it addresses concerns from both sides. It will take a day or to to complete the rewrite.(olive (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC))
- The Vatican document answers the question of compatibility in the negative, as does Sin's letter. So long as that is made clear in the article there are different ways of presenting it. I would expect that their views would be give appropriate weight relative to Pennington, for example, seeing as they were senior leaders and Pennington holds a much less prominent position. I look forward to seeing Olive's draft. Will Beback talk 01:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Still slugging away
Still working on Reception section ... including puja, mantra too, now.... delayed today with concerns with an older friend who is ill, but hope to have it ready for your perusals soon.(olive (talk) 04:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC))
- I've moved this up to the other thread concerning the material. If Olive's draft is going to take much longer I suggest we add the compromise text I proposed above. We can always change it again later to something better. Will Beback talk 18:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
NPOV and WP: Weight
I wanted for reference purposes to add here my understanding of NPOV and its connection to WEIGHT. As I said on the COINB, NPOV is not an absolute but is determined per the article by the editors present to the best of those editors’ abilities and knowledge. NPOV does not and cannot exist in isolation from Weight and minority view points. Wikipedia should represent the subject in the same manner that it's represented in the academic literature and the mainstream media. These are sources that Wikipedia values. What is a minority view and how weight in an article is distributed especially in a contentious article must be discussed and is not the purvue of any editor or of any opinion. This article must mirror how TM is viewed mainstream, and we have to ascertain that. We haven't.
Judging editing practices by going back into archives is difficult if not impossible to assess, especially if that judgment is based on an opinion of what should or should not be in an article.The process I employed in adding material to the article was entirely correct and appropriate given the environment, mature and collegial, and was included with the caveat that the material could be deleted if any editor saw fit to do so with the implication that I would not revert.(olive (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC))
- I agree, NPOV and WEIGHT are two important aspects of any nuetral article. We need to consider these carefully especially when evaluating, discussing and editing the Religion and Spirituality section.--Kbob (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oddly, I would agree, but the problem for TM is that in the "general" in the media - and indeed a lot of academic media - TM is seen in what TM would consider a "negative" light. Going down this road might not be good for "pro" TM editors. Its this issue of weight also - it is closely tied to WIKIs policies on referencing in "medical" articles or "medical" issues in general articles. Generally at the moment, a large percentage of this article is filled with "medical" research yet to follow WIKI policies on this much of this would need to be removed. Firstly, much of it is repeated studies on the same physiological processes - does it really need so many studies on the same subject and does this not help to "hid" the critiques of said studies. A different sort of "weight" but an important one. However, of greater concern to me - and the reason that I "hang around" this article is the AGE of much of this research. per referencing standards in the medical literature - and as per WIKI guidleines ( see here: [[12]] ) except under unusual circumstances no study should be cited that is older than 5 years. This fact is clearly not reflected in the article at the moment. The7thdr (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Good points 7th. There are hundreds of newspaper articles on TM and scientific research. However, it would be good to research the weighting of that and if we have too much space devoted to the research we should cut it back. I will check the Wiki guide on age of the research. I had not heard of that before. If the article is outside the guideline certainly we should discuss how to bring it into line with Wiki policy. Enjoy the weekend. --Kbob (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- "Weight" is a relative valuation and is ultimately a judgment call. It is hard to say that an article definitely violates NPOV on account of weight, except in extreme cases. Weight is almost never a good reason for deleting all mention of an issue that has been reported in reliable sources. On a related note, there is apparently considerable scientific research on TM, so much so that it may be worth splitting it off into a separate article to avoid overwhelming the main article. Will Beback talk 21:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- I am curious about several things The7thdr said and would like to follow up on some of these. The statements above about "medical" articles and "medical" statements sound intriguing, but where can I find discussion of these in the guidelines? AS for the "age" of some of the research cited, I can agree on one level, namely, that many newer studies exist that might be more important to cite than the older ones. However, I am puzzled about the 5-year rule or any rule about age of articles. There is nothing wrong with citing old articles if they are particularly relevant. In an article on Einstein, for example, it would be entirely appropriate to cite his 1905 article on the theory of relativity (or whatever it was) if that is the place the theory was introduced. So, I would question a year limit on an article's age. A better criterion would be how important that article is to the topic. Maybe this issue needs more attention in the TM article, and I appreciate your bringing it up. AS for the question of having a separate article on the TM research, that idea has considerable merit, but even if we did so, it seems to me that because the research is by far the most written about aspect of TM in the media, it should be significantly represented in the article. Maybe one way to do it would be to limit the research to those studies most relevant to understanding the nature and effects of the technique. These are central issues for the general article on TM it seems to me, and I would like to see more work done in this area. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- See WP:SUMMARY. When articles get too long discrete chunks can be split off, leaving a summary of the information. Will Beback talk 05:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Chemprof: A Chemistery Professor who isn't aware of the 5 year rule? Shame on you ;-) Within the context of WIKI see here [[13]]. The point you make regarding our dear old Albert is valid but that is not the same as here and the reason for 5 years in medicine is very important. In simple terms, this is a field that is developing in its knowledge base rapidly and research cited from even 7 years ago may have been completely superseded in the last 5 - never mind research done 30 years ago as some of this here was conducted. For example, the junior doctors bible, Oxford Handbook of Clinical Medicine, ten years ago would have said that duodenal ulcer symptoms - and the ulcers themselves were mainly the result of psychosomatic origin - "stress" been the main one - and would have advised - except in certain cases - that the patient, especially under the age of 40 was sent home with some "anti-acids" perhaps some H2 antagonists and perhaps with some instructions to take up some from of meditation to ease "stress". however, it is now understood that 90 percent - perhaps more - of duodenal ulcers are actually caused by H. pylori infection and that combination of Amoxicillin, Metronidazole and Rabeprazole will actually kill the little blighters and help resolve the issue. Equally, 30 years ago, when a lot of this research was done, pregnant women and their unborn children would have been subjected to - to anyones horror now - high dosage abdominal X-rays to assess certain complications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 03:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Consistency, contentious, and discussion
The material I deleted last night should be removed again on principle for now:
As has been noted this is a contentious article and nothing should be added without discussion and consensus. The onus is always on the editor adding the material to justify adding it especially on a contentious article not the reverse as suggested There was no discussion, no justification given, and no consensus. Allowing another dump of material into the article just because it is sourced is inconsistent with the standards for editing on this article. Note the source in place is not WP:Reliable although there are other better sources.
Reception section: This section has become a dumping ground. There are now several edits of either new or rewritten material that were placed here without discussion or agreement. What is added must be added with NPOV and Weight per mainstream, in mind per weight of the article, and per weight of the section. This requires discussion. I do not support any of these non consensus additions on principle first of all because there was no discussion but also weight is being violated in multiple ways. The standards for editing on this article must be consistent and they aren’t now. I don't have issues with including some of this material, but weight is not being considered at all. I would like to suggest that a section on reception be rewritten here so that weight can be judged and so the section can be seen as a whole rather than just dumping whatever comes up into the actual article.(olive (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC))
In 1979 the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the US District Court of New Jersey that a curriculum in the Science of Creative Intelligence/Transcendental Meditation, was religious activity within the meaning of the Establishment Clause and that the teaching of SCI/TM in the New Jersey public high schools was prohibited by the First Amendment.[63][64] The court ruled that although SCI/TM is not a theistic religion it deals with issues of ultimate concern, truth, and other ideas analogous to those in well-recognized religions. The court found that the religious nature of the course was clear from careful examination of the textbook, the expert testimony elicited, and the uncontested facts concerning the puja[65] , but also largely determined by apparent involvement of government. The court also found state action violative of the Establishment Clause because the puja involved "offerings to deities as part of a regularly scheduled course in the schools' educational programs".[64]
In 1989, the Vatican released a document which was sharply critical of Transcendental Meditation, Zen and Yoga, saying it can `can degenerate into a cult of the body and can lead surreptitiously to considering all bodily sensations as spiritual experiences. [6
Professor Jeffrey K. Hadden pointed out that the "...meditation techniques taught by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi are clearly grounded in the teachings of Hinduism [55] and that the claim to be scientific and not religious produce controversy at a number of levels..."
In The Sociology of Religious Movements, Willaim Sims Bainbridge has found TM to be a "...highly simplified form of Hinduism, adapted for Westerners who did not posses the cultural background to accept the full panoply of Hindu beliefs, symbols, and practices." ,[56] Going on to note that TM is an example of a "missionary" religious group which distills the essence of its own religious traditions to make itself more acceptable to its intended audience''
Consensus Procedure
It is my understanding that at the present time we have a consensus policy on this article. This means that we reach consensus on any addition or edit to this article only after proper dicussion to evaluate its weight, neutrality, quality of sources etc. Support for this kind of a policy has been expressed by all active editors on this article: Will Beback, Kbob, Fladrif, the7thdr, Olive and Uncreated. To substantiate this understanding I have copied posts made previously by all of these editors expressing their support for this kind of a procedure. The comments below were made between the period of March 2-6, 2009 (except for the very last two). If as a group we would like to dicuss and amend this policy then let us do so now. In the meantime I have reversed ADM's recent addition to the article re: comments from the Catholic church. I understand that this was an innocent mistake on ADM's part since he is new to the current discussions of the past month. If we want to make progress on the article we need an agreed procedure for edits. If some of us don't like the policy as I have outline above then let's discuss it and create an amended version. Thanks for you input and discussion on this and we welcome ADM to the article. Peace. :-) --Kbob (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- it'd be better if you didn't make that edit without discussion first. It'd be better to provide all the significant viewpoints on this matter. Will Beback talk 22:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- On Wikipedia we don't decide which POVs are correct and which aren't - instead we report the dispute and give all sides. Will Beback talk 23:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- I would also like to suggest that we have a gentlemen's and gentlewomen's agreement that for the time being, we discuss and then post new copy suggestions here on the discussion page first and get consensus on the wording and placement before putting them in the article. This will help to avoid any editing wars as no one feels good when their edits are reverted. What do you think? Peace! --Kbob (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2009
- [in response to above post] Sounds good to me.--Uncreated (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- In general I think it will be easier for everyone if we discuss changes here and then post suggested copy and after it is agreed upon, enter it in the article. This includes any new content regarding the mantra. Can we agree on this also? Thanks. --Kbob (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- [in reponse to above post] I can't speak for everyone else Kbob, but yes, that sounds like a very good idea :) Now, I'm off for a while; meditating to do - really :) The7thdr (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Also, do not remove anything - until it is discussed. Three TMers saying "take it out" without discussion is not agreement. The7thdr (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Unilateral actions like that are far more likely to invite conflict than consensus. Fladrif (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Since this is a contentious topic, it might be better to wait for a response on a talk page rather then making the edit and inviting people to revert it. Will Beback talk 19:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- I see from the revert of the Vatican information which I removed because there was no discussion, consensus, nothing, the standard I thought we were operating under here, that this is no longer the case. So any one can add anything without discussion or comment as long as its sourced even poorly sourced and then wait to see if everyone agrees or not? I was operating under the old rules. Discuss first, reach agreement then add. (olive (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC))
End copies of previous posts on Consensus. --Kbob (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC) (Moved)Fladrif (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
This is not a correct view of Wikipedia policies. Consensus is important, but it does not override core policies such as WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, or WP:V. Perhaps most important for this page, NPOV requires that all significant viewpoints about a topic be included. While editors here can agree amongst themselves the best way of including those viewpoints, they cannot decide to exclude them. WP:WEIGHT is a component of NPOV, and while editors may disagree about exactly how much weight to devote to a topic, it should not be used as an excuse to delete it outright. Likewise, editors may not decide that otherwise unsuitable sources are reliable for the purposes of this article, and they should be careful about excluding sources that meet the general requirements of WP:V. If there are any questions about how to interpret those policies there are noticeboards devoted to each one. Requests for comment are another good way of gettig outside input. To summarize, consenuss is an important part of editing on Wikipedia but adherence to content policies is more important. Will Beback talk 00:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Very good points Will. This is what I alluded to in my sentence above ("This means that we reach consensus on any addition or edit to this article only after proper dicussion to evaluate its weight, neutrality, quality of sources etc.") I was assuming that once the addition/deletion is evaluated in light of Wiki policies that a consensus of agreement to follow the Wiki policies would be automatic. But that may not always be the case. So your point about consensus is well taken. Consensus does not override Wiki polices and guidelines, its not a democracy. However, what I was trying to say, and I thank you for clarifying, is that this is a contentious page and we need discussion first before adding or deleting and that discussion should evaluate the suggested addition or deletion in the light of Wiki policies, many of which you mention in your post. Thank you for clarifying my post.--Kbob (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I agree completely with the view of NPOV as it is being described here and I think some issues are being conflated so I thought I'd add my sense of it. Again this is another ground laying point, so that we are all understanding where the others are coming from. As Kbob outlined we had a standard for editing that had been established on this article. It either applies to everyone or to no one. If that is to change that's fine but it changes for everyone and for everything , otherwise we set up control /power situations and wander into the territory of WP:OWN-not good on any article but especially a contentious article. This is one kind of consensus but not WP:consensus, and might be better called as Kbob said a gentleman's agreement for this article.
- Wikipedia must be neutral. How that neutrality is achieved depends on the policies and guidelines as they are needed and come into play. NPOV is a pillar content policy. Consensus is a pillar "code of conduct"/ behavioural policy. Deciding what is NPOV is not always apparent nor a definite in which case a general agreement among editors on the article comes into play. One doesn't override the other so much as they operate at different points and levels of editing discussion. If NPOV cannot be decided then WP:DR comes into play--- mediation for starters.
- Weight cannot be separated out from NPOV, and one is actually a subset of the other. Weight is a means of making sure that NPOV is being upheld especially with minority vs majority views. "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well." and "In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all." Obviously there are subjective and varying views on this discussion page about what are majority and minority views. In such cases in my opinion anyway, no editor's view is correct, but the group must go to the code of conduct, behavioural policy for an editing community, and reach some agreement... consensus. In "proportion to their representation in reliable sources" can be judged somewhat by using GOOGLE NEWS, although it not something I've done myself.(olive (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC))
- An observation - the issues of "Weight" and NPOV are beginning to "drown" the discussion in this article. The talk page here is about TM not NPOV or Weight. Perhaps those interested in this subjects could go to the relevant WIKI articles and boards. If these need to be discussed within the context of certain sections than this is fine, but once again, discussion here is is losing focus as it wonders off in tangents in other sections. In the past this has meant that the article simply remains the same - until everyone loses interest; people "move on" and then editors with obvious "POV" - on both sides - end up editing the article directly anyway.
- So, specific discussion of WEIGHT and NPOV should be held within the discussion of "contentious" - or even none contentious - edits if necessary. But entire sections dedicated to this discussion do not belong here. If editors cannot come to agreement regarding the weight or POV of specific edits than WIKI has many boards where impartial advice can be requested from.
- Hi Olive - I'm presently listening to Sony's re-mastering of Szell's Mozart recordings - under Sony's "Original jackets" series (if you enjoy Mozart then I would recommend this set). Ten CDs - with extras above and beyond the original old vinyl albums. Szell's interpretations of Mozart are far different to the neo-romanticism of most of his peers during the 50s and 60s. Indeed, he once said:
- "There is a difference between the chaste sensuality of Mozart or Haydn and the lascivious sensuality of Richard Strauss. One cannot pour chocolate sauce over asparagus." :-)
- He also said, that his interpretation of each piece of music was specific to that piece, that his thoughts on one might differ to another given context, meaning, historical, biographical information, etc. The same applies to WIKI guidelines - there is some fluidity to them and this "fluidity" defined by each situation. Any agreement here regarding "Weight" or NPOV will once again be rediscussed as each new issue arrives. It is wiser to treat these areas as they arise within the context of specific points here. Let us keep the general discussions of this things to the sections of WIKI where such discussion takes place :-) The7thdr (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- The argument that googling a subject in the news archives to decide how much prominence it should be given in an article is absurd on its face. But, let's play along: If I Google "Transcendental Meditation" in the news archive, I get 7,750 hits; if I Google "Transcendental Meditation" and "medical research", I get 31 hits. Clearly, by the logic of this argument, the mainstream press view of TM is that it has virtually nothing to do with medical research, yet fully one half of the article as presently constituted is about medical research. In contrast, combining TM with "controversy" gets 146 hits - nearly five times as many; "fees" 323 - 10 times as many; "catholic" 375 - 12 times as many; "religion" 930 hits - 30 times as many. Do you really want to continue to play this game? "cult" 394 hits; "flying" 425 hits; "ridicules" 111 hits;....and my favorite "robots" 32 hits. So TM has as much to do with robots in the popular press as it does with medical research! I'm going to start right away writing about 25 paragraphs/1800 words on TM and robots to achieve an appropriate balance with the medical research section! 14:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC) Fladrif (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- This is used on Wikipedia as a way to measure news and media prominence. If I use google news I get 11,800 hits for Transcendental Meditation, 2,930 hits for Research Transcendental Meditation Technique, 897 for medical research, 1,650 for health benefits. We don't seem to be getting the same results.
- I'm putting the words "transcendental meditation" in quotes, searching for the phrase rather than the individual words. Hence the difference in the number of Google hits. Your method is producing Google hits like this for transcendental meditation or this for transcendental meditation medical research, neither of which have anything to do with TM.Fladrif (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Final Approval Needed: TM-Sidhi/Yogic Flying Addition
We are very close to a consensus on this (I think) so I am moving it down here (see below) so we it doesn't get lost. Please approve or suggest changes to this final proposal for the Origin section. This change was originally suggested by the7thdr. Please note that I have removed the words 'of what' which appeared after the word 'development' in the last sentence.--Kbob (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
In 1955, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (born Mahesh Prasad Varma), an Indian ascetic[7], began teaching a meditation technique that he said was derived from the Vedic tradition[8] and which came to be called Transcendental Meditation. Initially the TM technique was taught individually as a basic technique but later various other techniques became available. For example, in 1975, Maharishi began teaching advanced mental techniques in what he called the TM-Sidhi Program and that included a technique for the development he termed Yogic Flying.(Shear, Jonathon, Editor. The Experience of Meditation:Experts Introduce the Major Traditions. Paragon House, St Paul, MN, 2006.)
- Needs to also mention the so called "Maharishi Effect" which led the "Sidhu" program, peace palaces, invincibility, et al. The discussion of the Maharishi Effect" would need to be continued on in a separate section I would suspect - including the "research" The7thdr (talk) 01:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
In the early 1970s, Maharishi undertook to establish one Transcendental Meditation teaching center for each million of the world's population, which at that time would have meant 3,600 Transcendental Meditation centers throughout the world. Initially the TM technique had been taught individually as a basic technique, but later various other techniques became available. For example, in 1975, Maharishi began teaching advanced mental techniques such as the TM-Sidhi Program, that included a technique for the development of what he termed Yogic Flying.(Shear, Jonathon, Editor. The Experience of Meditation:Experts Introduce the Major Traditions. Paragon House, St Paul, MN, 2006.).
In 1990, Maharishi began the coordination of the teaching of the Transcendental Meditation technique from the town of Vlodrop, the Netherlands, through an organization he called the Global Country of World Peace. This group reports that more than 6 million people worldwide have learned the Transcendental Meditation technique since its introduction.
- Good point from RoseApple about keeping the chronlogy. I think Olive is aware of that. I like this version and give it my full approval.
- 7th, regarding the Maharishi Effect. As you know there was some discussion on that point and we can certainly continue. But I would like to get this sentence approved and then we can add another sentence on the Maharishi Effect if everyone decides that its good to add that also. Sorry to put you off. I just don't want to put off concluding this current sentence. As you know its not easy getting something finalized with so many editors so let's complete this and then consider the Maharishi Effect. OK? Thanks! :-)--Kbob (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- I added the two sentences on the TM-Sidhhi techniques to the article as discussed and agreed above. Some editors have suggested we also add Maharishi Vedic Observatory and the Maharishi Effect. So if someone wants to begin a new section to discuss these please go ahead. Just keep in mind that there are more than a dozen advanced techniques and programs such as vedic astology, vedic architecture etc. and these are already listed on the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi page. So we will need to evaluate what is really vital and relevant to this article on Transcendental Meditation. Also, it might be too redundant to list them all here don't ya think?--Kbob (talk) 03:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Basil Pennington
- Does anyone have Pennington's book? In this article he seems to contrast TM with Christian meditation.[14] While he doesn't say that they are incompatible, he makes it clear that they are different things. Can someone quote the text we're citing? Will Beback talk 05:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- (moved from #deletion above) Will Beback talk 20:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I have Pennington 's book, but I'm not sure I understand your question. Perhaps you could clarify. I don't see the specific reference to Pennington in this article although there was one there at one time,I think. Pennington describes TM as not belonging to a "particular religion", as a way to Christian prayer,"and the quieting and rest prepare him well to enter...into more traditional forms of affective or meditative prayer" There is a chapter devoted to TM and Christian prayer (olive (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC))
Oh I see. I missed the ref because I was reading the diff rather than here on the talk page. So he doesn't say much in that article,although he elaborates quite extensivley in his book. I would say he describes TM as a preparation for prayer since he says it brings one to the state in which true prayer can occur. Sorry about the misunderstanding.(olive (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC))
- Sorry, but this continuous "branching" of topics within topics is very confusing. I have no idea what book you are referring to, could this be re-inserted into the original discussion please? For the sanity of us that don't read every single comment here? ;-) The7thdr (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry 7th, this is standard Wikipedia. Its a new topic and a new thread. Will asked for information on Basil Pennington. I am offering the information. There is no discussion on Basil Pennington so far. This is the beginning. For your ease I'll insert the diff of Will's question here.Enjoy [15](olive (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC))
- Does Penningotn refer to "TM" (proper noun), or to transcendental meditation (general concept)? Could the editor who added it quote the text we're citing? Will Beback talk 20:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry 7th, this is standard Wikipedia. Its a new topic and a new thread. Will asked for information on Basil Pennington. I am offering the information. There is no discussion on Basil Pennington so far. This is the beginning. For your ease I'll insert the diff of Will's question here.Enjoy [15](olive (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC))
I may have added but actually can't remember if it was already there or I put it in later. I believe whatever was in the article is meant to serve to summarize a nine page chapter.
" Maharishi Mahesh Yogi insists rather strongly that TM is not something that belongs to a particular religion. And he is right. It is as he says, a very simple natural technique....as he hands on the technique he tries to hand on also a certain respect for the venerable tradition out of which it comes. This in itself is good -the basic human virtue of pietas, of gratitude, But the technique can stand on its own."
I don't think there is a TM general concept unless its used incorrectly. TM is simply a mediation technique, and especially so in this article.(olive (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC))
- Is that a quote from Pennington? What does it have to do with Christianity? Will Beback talk 19:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes its Pennington... You asked how he referred to TM. These are his exact words. I'm not sure what you are asking . You didn't say anything about Christianity.(olive (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC))
- We assert that:
- Other clergy, including Catholic clergy, have found the Transcendental Meditation technique to be compatible with their religious teachings and beliefs.
- And we cite Penningotn as one of those Catholic clergy. So what I'm asking is what does he say on the topic of the compatibility of TM with Christian teachings and beliefs? Will Beback talk 21:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- In general we are summarizing a chapter in which Pennington talks about the fact that the Christian can do TM and also be Christian. The two exist side by side .... that is they are compatible. Pennington also describes in detail how TM adds an aspect of readiness to Christian prayer, assists the Christian in prayer,and how an understanding of TM coincides with the Christian understanding of prayer. He parallels words by MMY and Thomas Merton. Does this help. I'm happy to provide more, if needed. Maybe what I can do is write something for other editors to look at, that describes this and integrates it into the section/ article (olive (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC))
- Thanks, that does help but it doesn't answer my questions. Does he refer only to TM (the teaching of Maharishi), or to the generic concept of transcendental meditation? In his other article he appears to refer to the latter rather than the former. Also, does he use the phrases "compatible" or "side by side"? What is his actual statement on the compatibility of TM and Christian teachings and beliefs? If we want to expand the space devoted to Catholic views of TM then a longer treatment of this source may be warranted. Will Beback talk 22:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- We assert that:
- I guess I assumed that in his other article he was referring to TM so that's why I probably misunderstood what you wanted. The book's chapter is completely on the TM technique as taught by MMY. And no "side by side" and "compatible" are my words in attempts to summarize.He never uses the words Catholic he refers exclusively to "the Christian". Within the chapter he draws numerous parallels of the TM technique to Christianity noting its usefulness, its likeness to... I'm not sure how else to say it.... but I maybe see your point. It is obvious from the nine pages he finds the technique to not only be compatible but helpful to Christian prayer but he doesn't actually use the words compatible so this little line in our article may be a pretty subtle form of OR. I guess I would suggest rewriting the line in the article . Since I have the book I could do that.(olive (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC))
- Maybe that would be a good idea. Could you please post a fresh suggestion here? Ideally, it should summarize his views of TM. Will Beback talk
- I guess I assumed that in his other article he was referring to TM so that's why I probably misunderstood what you wanted. The book's chapter is completely on the TM technique as taught by MMY. And no "side by side" and "compatible" are my words in attempts to summarize.He never uses the words Catholic he refers exclusively to "the Christian". Within the chapter he draws numerous parallels of the TM technique to Christianity noting its usefulness, its likeness to... I'm not sure how else to say it.... but I maybe see your point. It is obvious from the nine pages he finds the technique to not only be compatible but helpful to Christian prayer but he doesn't actually use the words compatible so this little line in our article may be a pretty subtle form of OR. I guess I would suggest rewriting the line in the article . Since I have the book I could do that.(olive (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC))
Religious Movements website
The Religious Movements website was a project of Jeffrey K. Hadden at the University of Virginia. The bulk of the articles there were produced by his students under his supervision. The project was mostly taken down after Hadden's death in 2003.[16] We access the previous contents using the Internet Archive. Using the archived cointents as a source, we have this quotation:
- Professor Jeffrey K. Hadden pointed out that the "...meditation techniques taught by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi are clearly grounded in the teachings of Hinduism and that the claim to be scientific and not religious produce controversy at a number of levels...".[55]
First, there's no evidence that Hadden wrote that. The page is authored by Amy Karasz and Meaghan Midgett, not by Hadden. Second, "pointed out" is not a neutral formulation, because it implies that he is simply pointing to an obvious fact rather than making an assertion. Third, the quote does not appear on the page in the form we're quoting. The actual text reads:
- The meditation techniques taught by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi are clearnly grounded in the teachings of Hinduism. This, notwithstanding, the Yogi, the World Plan Council, scholars who work within the tradition, and many other individual members argue tenaciously that TM is not a religion. They argue, rather, that the heart and soul of the meditation techniques developed by Maharishi are grounded in scientific priniciples. On the one hand, the proponents of TM have made scientific claims that are highly vulnerable to disconformation. On the other hand, other claims that are made under the imprimatur of science simply are not amenable to disconformation by scientific methods.
Fourth, if we deem this to be a reliable source there would be better ways of summarizing it and there is other information in the paper that would be relevant. For example, there is footnote that reads:
- Several TM members have written to the webmaster of the Religious Movements Homepage and expressed strong disapproval of the sociological perspective as well as the content of an earlier version of this page. When asked for assistance in checking the accuracy of the contents of the page, Mr. Hadden was advised to take the page down. Any treatment of TM as a religion, they argued, was tantamount to bigotry.
In summary, I think it is probable that this website does not meet the standards for sources. In that case it'd be better just to delete it as a source. If editors believe that it is relaible, then we shold review how we summarize it. Will Beback talk 21:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes I was aware of this and mentioned it earlier. If we have to mention origins of the tradition I think there may be better sources.(olive (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC))
- Will, I agree there should at least be a review of how we summarize the websites findings if indeed it meets the standards of a reliable source. The origins of TM is discussed in the origins section of the article already so perhaps the need to include something from this site is not necessary anyway.--Uncreated (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see anyone defending the use of this source. If there isn't a reason to keep it I'll remove it tomorrow. Will Beback talk 01:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Permission to Add A Few Words
I would like to add the words in [brackets] to the sentence below, which currently appears in the article.
For example, Jaime Cardinal Sin, then Catholic Archbishop of Manila, said [in 1984] that some concepts taught by Maharishi conflict with Christianity.[60]
Is it alright? --Kbob (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I wouldn't worry about seeking con on a purely cosmetic edit Kbob - just do it :) The7thdr (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion for discussion
There are so many threads started on multiple topics, that progress seems to be difficult. Is it possible for us to take one point/topic at a time, deal with it, then move on.(olive (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC))
- Sounds good to me. Can you give us a list of what topics you feel are currently under discussion?--Kbob (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
The TM Book
I'm wondering about the addition of the TM Book to the "Read Also" section of the article. I think its perfectly appropriate to have books by Maharishi and the TM organization itself as a way of self defining, but this book even though a best seller seems somewhat slanted. Would not a more scholarly publication be more appropriate?(olive (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC))
- I'm the one who added it. My impression is that it is an official publication, published by the "Fairfield Press" of Fairfield, Iowa. It appears to advocate the practice of TM and it makes a number of assertions about TM that we may want to include in this article. When that happens it would move from the "further reading" section into the references. Per your suggestion above, perhaps we should try to settle some of the other unresolved disputes before starting a fresh thread, unless this is really a major problem. Will Beback talk 01:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Fairfeld Press is not TM organization press, and not sure what constitutes an official publication or honestly what that is... It wasn't published by the university, as far as I know . However, the writer is highly educated, and an expert in this field so the book would seem to be Wikipedia compliant.(olive (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC))
- There are dozens of towns across the good ole USA called Fairfied. Does anyone know which Fairfield town, that Fairfield Press was named after? (assuming the town was the reason for the name) I did a Google search for the company in Iowa and it doesn't seem to exist. --Kbob (talk) 03:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- My guess is that this was the only book they published. If that's the case then it may be a questionable source. However, the first version was published by Warner Books, a major publishing house. I'll see if I can get hold of a copy of that edition. I also see that the main author, Denniston, is on the faculty of MUM.[17] Further, the book seems to have been cited in a scholarly paper,[18] as well as a non-published paper by a scholar. [19] It's also listed as a source in this book.[20] Those tend to increase its reliability. Will Beback talk 03:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- There are dozens of towns across the good ole USA called Fairfied. Does anyone know which Fairfield town, that Fairfield Press was named after? (assuming the town was the reason for the name) I did a Google search for the company in Iowa and it doesn't seem to exist. --Kbob (talk) 03:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Fairfield Press, Fairfield Iowa, is owned and operated by Denise Gerace, a MUM faculty member, which promotes "The TM Book" as a part of the TM organization's Public Awareness Campaign. Previously, the book was published and promoted by Three Rivers Press, which Gerace also owned and operated. As Will pointed out, Gerace was also the author. [21] If that isn't an "Offical TM Publication", I have no idea what is. But, more to the point, it is definitely self-published and thus is not WP:RS complaint. Fladrif (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- As further information. Gerace no longer lives in Fairfield, and is only adjunct at the university. She wasn't on faculty here in 1975 although involved with the TM organization. The book I've looked at was was printed by Versemonger,1975. My understanding is that the 1975 edition was the original printing and that later Gerace decided to reprint herself. The book was also a best seller which makes it notable.(olive (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC))
- Thanks for that research. One of the editions is listed in Worldcat as having been published by Warner Books.[23] If that's correct then that edition would qualify as a reliable source. The book is being sold by MUM Press.[24] If they are actually publishing it then it's self-publishe by the movement and would be a reliable source for the views of the movement. However I can't tell from the webpage if that's the case. Will Beback talk 18:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- One assertion in The TM Book that caught my eye is regarding the effect of simultaneous mass mediation on crime and war. Which other sources cover that? I don't see anything about it in the article now but it's a very significant claim. Will Beback talk 18:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- That is actually also known as the Maharishi effect. There was a little research done the Maharishi effect as regards to the TM technique but was discontinued when the TM Sidhi program was developed. The TM Sidhi program according to the theory has a more powerful effect with less people than the TM technique program.... so research shifted to the more powerful technique.... as I understand it.I think there has been discussion about including a comment in this article about the Maharshi effect as it pertains to the TM technique. I'm not sure how much research there was on it. I'd have to check.(olive (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC))
- The TM Book includes graphs, so I presume some research was done. I realize the book may be dated, but it's important for us to include the views and claims of the movement in the 1970s as well as the present day. Will Beback talk 19:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- That is actually also known as the Maharishi effect. There was a little research done the Maharishi effect as regards to the TM technique but was discontinued when the TM Sidhi program was developed. The TM Sidhi program according to the theory has a more powerful effect with less people than the TM technique program.... so research shifted to the more powerful technique.... as I understand it.I think there has been discussion about including a comment in this article about the Maharshi effect as it pertains to the TM technique. I'm not sure how much research there was on it. I'd have to check.(olive (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC))
Medical Research and The Wiki Google Test
The comments below were in the Consensus Section where they didn't belong, so I have moved them down here.--Kbob (talk) 02:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- The argument that googling a subject in the news archives to decide how much prominence it should be given in an article is absurd on its face. But, let's play along: If I Google "Transcendental Meditation" in the news archive, I get 7,750 hits; if I Google "Transcendental Meditation" and "medical research", I get 31 hits. Clearly, by the logic of this argument, the mainstream press view of TM is that it has virtually nothing to do with medical research, yet fully one half of the article as presently constituted is about medical research. In contrast, combining TM with "controversy" gets 146 hits - nearly five times as many; "fees" 323 - 10 times as many; "catholic" 375 - 12 times as many; "religion" 930 hits - 30 times as many. Do you really want to continue to play this game? "cult" 394 hits; "flying" 425 hits; "ridicules" 111 hits;....and my favorite "robots" 32 hits. So TM has as much to do with robots in the popular press as it does with medical research! I'm going to start right away writing about 25 paragraphs/1800 words on TM and robots to achieve an appropriate balance with the medical research section! 14:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC) Fladrif (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- This is used on Wikipedia as a way to measure news and media prominence. If I use google news I get 11,800 hits for Transcendental Meditation, 2,930 hits for Research Transcendental Meditation Technique, 897 for medical research, 1,650 for health benefits. We don't seem to be getting the same results.
- I wanted to mention that if a user (name) here is also using an IP because they are another computer .... the standard is to mention it on the page otherwise the IP could be confused with a sock puppet of the user (name).(olive (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC))
- I'm putting the words "transcendental meditation" in quotes, searching for the phrase rather than the individual words. Hence the difference in the number of Google hits. Your method is producing Google hits like this for transcendental meditation or this for transcendental meditation medical research, neither of which have anything to do with TM.Fladrif (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Not me, but have to say that only a tin foil hater would think that was a sock puppet - so I wouldn't worry Olive :-) The7thdr (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oh no misunderstanding...Not accusing... just wanted to mention the convention in case the user is not familiar with it.(olive (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC))
- Not me, but have to say that only a tin foil hater would think that was a sock puppet - so I wouldn't worry Olive :-) The7thdr (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm putting the words "transcendental meditation" in quotes, searching for the phrase rather than the individual words. Hence the difference in the number of Google hits. Your method is producing Google hits like this for transcendental meditation or this for transcendental meditation medical research, neither of which have anything to do with TM.Fladrif (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- I wanted to mention that if a user (name) here is also using an IP because they are another computer .... the standard is to mention it on the page otherwise the IP could be confused with a sock puppet of the user (name).(olive (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC))
- This is used on Wikipedia as a way to measure news and media prominence. If I use google news I get 11,800 hits for Transcendental Meditation, 2,930 hits for Research Transcendental Meditation Technique, 897 for medical research, 1,650 for health benefits. We don't seem to be getting the same results.
"Reporting all significant viewpoints"
If we are to report all significant viewpoints, is it not appropriate to include some information from, or at least mention of, sources like the following?
Sites like these have been excluded, as references and from external links, based on WP:RS. I'm not up on the interpretation of this policy, but it seems to me that the viewpoint represented by these sites is underrepresented in the article. Rracecarr (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
These would not represent Wikipedia compliant sites: Down the TM Rabbit Hole is a personal site/blog. Skeptic's dictionary admits to being a site that is not meant to be neutral. Knapp's site is a personal, commercial/advertising site. Scholarly/mainstream media refs are available on most topics so if needed we can go there.(olive (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC))
- Good question, Racecarr, but I agree with Olive, these web sites are organized by private individuals or groups with a single agenda ie. to criticize TM (and/or programs like it). I also agree that they are not reliable sources and that is why they were removed from the External Link section by Ronz some time ago. There are thousands of reputable, media articles, books etc which cover all aspects of TM and provide a variety of viewpoints. I think we should stick to those.--Kbob (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- James Randi is a noted skeptic, and his point of view would be legitimate to include. His website is a sufficient source for that view, but it amy also be included in his published materials. Anything we used from him should be attributed, for example, "Skeptic James Randi has described TM as ..." It'd probably be suitable in a "reception" section. Will Beback talk 17:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- I just had a quick look at Randi's entry about TM on his website...he doesn't seem to actually say much about Transcendental meditation and what he does say could be sited from more authoritative sources. --Uncreated (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Skepdic.com can be used as a reliable source for a skeptical viewpoint, as I believe can Randi's encyclopedia (http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/Transcendental%20Meditation.html). Skepdic is obviously the better source with its thorough references, some of which might be used directly as well. --Ronz (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- I just had a quick look at Randi's entry about TM on his website...he doesn't seem to actually say much about Transcendental meditation and what he does say could be sited from more authoritative sources. --Uncreated (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm afraid, I would have to disagree. Randi is not and expert in meditation nor a scholar. TM is a mediation technique and not "occult or supernatural". Skepdic. does not attempt to present neutral information and so cannot be considered reliable. We have multiple reliable, verifiable scholarly sources for skeptical viewpoints on TM and have no need to go to this kind of poor source. (olive (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC))
- "Randi is not and expert in meditation nor a scholar." Irrelevant. He's a noted scientific skeptic.
- "Skepdic. does not attempt to present neutral information and so cannot be considered reliable." Irrelevant. It's a noted source of reliable and well researched skeptical analysis.
- I suggest a re-reading of WP:NPOV and WP:RS, or taking it to one of these noticeboards. --Ronz (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm afraid, I would have to disagree. Randi is not and expert in meditation nor a scholar. TM is a mediation technique and not "occult or supernatural". Skepdic. does not attempt to present neutral information and so cannot be considered reliable. We have multiple reliable, verifiable scholarly sources for skeptical viewpoints on TM and have no need to go to this kind of poor source. (olive (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC))
For us to take Randi as a source because he is a noted scientific skeptic cannot be relevant. We are talking about a meditation technique. Because the man has commented on TM doesn't either make him an expert or even knowledgeable. If he comments on prayer or ice cream or dogs is he now a reliable source in those areas. We take a source for the quality of the reliable verifiable information that source offers, and we back that up with the qualifications of the writer. Being a skeptic does not automatically qualify anyone for any topic they decide to speak on. NPOV does not come into it. I am presently rewriting the reception section using strong Wikipedia compliant material for both sides of the discussion on TM. Why add something that weakens the credibility of the article. I'm afraid I don't see the point here. Skepdic cannot be considered reliable if the author disclaims his own site by saying its a deliberate skeptical view. How is that a reliable source. And again we do have strong compliant sources. (olive (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC))
And Randi was a magician. I don't accept his qualifications to deal with science. If we want to talk about science better get a scientist with academic qualifications.(olive (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC))
- Sorry, but I strongly disagree. NPOV most certainly comes into it. We report "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". Failure to do so is a violation of NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- But of course... Thing is, we first need to decide what is the significant view then find the source, not the other way around. We don't find the source then see that as a significant view. We have other sources, that are reliable, for whatever the significant views are. Why would we go to a less reliable source to reference those same views.(olive (talk) 03:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC))
- Rracecarr suggested three sources. Will Beback suggested another. I pointed out that from my experience with other controversial articles ans WP:RSN, that some of these sources are perfectly acceptable here. So, we've found some significant viewpoints to include.
- It would be helpful to be more specific when discussing what similar sources and viewpoints we already have. --Ronz (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- But of course... Thing is, we first need to decide what is the significant view then find the source, not the other way around. We don't find the source then see that as a significant view. We have other sources, that are reliable, for whatever the significant views are. Why would we go to a less reliable source to reference those same views.(olive (talk) 03:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC))
- I'm rewriting the Reception section and I'm trying to include all viewpoints that have been discussed ... within reason. If everyone doesn't mind holding on for a day or so, I'll post what I have .... maybe tonight... then we can see if it satisfies everyone. We can go from there. Thanks for your patience. I started by just working on one part of the section but realized it would be a bandage when what was needed was something larger. So its taken longer than I anticipated. With respect Ronz, and I do very much respect the work you've done here, there are several other editors working on this article so what is significant is open to discussion and consensus. What is significant here on this article may not be what is significant somewhere else and vice-versa. Thanks again for your patience.(olive (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC))
- In effect, the discussion on the four sources you are suggesting is not really a source issue but is an issue about significant viewpoints and content. RSN doesn't deal with content, so what we may need is formal mediation and the input of a truly neutral editor to oversee this article for awhile.(olive (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC))
- I'm kind of surprised you are even advocating these sources since you led a discussion that supported removing some of them from the links section recently as not even compliant there(olive (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC))
- I second the motion that we consider a formal mediation. The reception section is the most controversial portion of this rather contentious article. Already there have been many pages written by several editors over the past month without much consensus. In addition there seems to be some variation in opinion as to the interpretation and application of some Wiki guidelines regarding point of view, weight, notabiliy, reliable sources, search engine test, consensus etc. So maybe a formal mediation for some time might be a good thing for all concerned.--Kbob (talk) 02:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Rewrite reception section
I've attempted to balance this pretty evenly between the pro and con sides of TM. I have still to find a comment about the puja saying it is no longer connected to Hinduism came out of the Vedic tradition and is now used in a secular fashion which is the official position of the organization and should be included. I had a source for that but can't seem to find it ... so when I find it I'd like to add it to make sure the puja section is complete and neutral. The bold on the Malnak section is a part I feel seems to "weight" that subsection so I would remove it especially since there is material on puja in other parts of the section. I think this is something we can discuss. With all of you I reserve the right to critique my own work should I see that something I've done is not properly balanced(olive (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC))
I think another weakness may be that we need to add comments from from other religious groups non Christian and especially non Catholic.(olive (talk) 03:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)) Probably should have put this in a sandbox.(olive (talk) 04:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)) I wasn't sure about adding Markovsky's comment on schools and religion. Looking at the section on schools a couple of things could happen. The Malnak section could be moved to the legal case section, and a single sentence added to the school section referencing the case then adding Markovsky. Or we could leave in the Malnak case add Markovsky and expand the positive aspect of TM in the schools which is very positive these days. As is, the section is pretty "weighty" and adding anything else to it would tip the balance I think.(olive (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC))
- I've moved it to a sandbox, /Reception draft. Will Beback talk 18:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm just starting to look it over, but two questions come immediately to mind: what is the meaning of "considerations" in the section title? And what happened to the "Cult issues" section? Will Beback talk 18:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sheesh. Missed the cult issue section probably because I wasn't thinking of doing anything with it ... It should just be added at the end. The only thing I have concerns about with the cult section is that Wikipedia doesn't like the use of the word "cult" and the more I read the more I realize its not a word that is used by serious academics to describe anything except as a kind of cliche term. Maybe there's another term we can use ... maybe not. "Considerations" may be a little too general . I was looking for a word that would allow us to include the several issues some editors have with certain topic areas.... so that we could cover them easily and not worry about somehow trying to connect these different topics .... I'm not attached to the word except in so much as it is neutral ...Thanks for moving to a sandbox. I should have taken care of it last night but was too tired.... so greatly appreciate the help.(olive (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC))
- OK, I duplicated the "cult issues" section so that the proposal will be clear. WP:WTA concerns situations where Wikipedia uses a word for a topic. So it discourages us from saying things like, "Peoples Temple was a cult group in the 1970s" or "The cult then moved to Guyana". It does not prevent us from reporting on assertions by reliable sources that the Peoples Temple was a cult. As for "considerations" - is it a synonym for "issues"? If so, then maybe it'd be better to leave it off, find a better word, or perhaps split the "consideration" topics into a separate section with a sharper definition. Will Beback talk 19:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sheesh. Missed the cult issue section probably because I wasn't thinking of doing anything with it ... It should just be added at the end. The only thing I have concerns about with the cult section is that Wikipedia doesn't like the use of the word "cult" and the more I read the more I realize its not a word that is used by serious academics to describe anything except as a kind of cliche term. Maybe there's another term we can use ... maybe not. "Considerations" may be a little too general . I was looking for a word that would allow us to include the several issues some editors have with certain topic areas.... so that we could cover them easily and not worry about somehow trying to connect these different topics .... I'm not attached to the word except in so much as it is neutral ...Thanks for moving to a sandbox. I should have taken care of it last night but was too tired.... so greatly appreciate the help.(olive (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC))
I'm mystified why the section on the Catholic viewpoint is now much longer in this draft even though the same editor previously argued that a much shorter version gave excess weight to the topic. I'm not sure why the text is completely different. Could the drafter please explain the reasoning behind this part of the draft? Will Beback talk 22:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Olive you have done a great job of creating a draft that covers all the bases. I have made a number of edits in an effort to clarify your existing points. I hope I have achieved that. There is one sentence that puzzles me though. The last one in the puja section which mentions 'philisophical concepts'. Do you mean concepts utilized in the puja? Anyway please take a look at it and maybe make it more specific. --Kbob (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Are we sure that this "covers all the bases"? In other words, is this really a full summary of all significant viewpoints concerning the "reception" of the topic? I haven't done a lot of research, but have the other editors done a sufficient survey to make sure that this really covers everything? If not, perhaps that would be a prerequisite. Will Beback talk 23:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- in regards to covering all the bases, maybe something more should be said about transcendental meditation in schools around the world where it is practised and the improved academic outcomes that schools have enjoyed. Also I understand that over 100 corporations in Japan implemented the tm program and that the Japanese Ministry if labour was very impressed with it and sponsored additional research into TM in the work place. At this point the article covers the reception of TM in science and Religion/Spirituality...it would be good to see how it hows been received in education and business. This is a link to a page talking about TM in corporations http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-9244531_ITM --Uncreated (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
To clarify. I argued strongly that there did not need to be two comments from the Catholic Church that were negative to TM, and two in the length of the article as it was then would be undue weight. After long discussion I felt the Vatican document in the end was probably the better, and I agreed to enter it into the article. I never wanted two statements but I'm trying to compromise here. If I add two negative comments, I added two positive to balance it .... That those two comments were Catholic was simply a matter of the sources I had.... And I mentioned in the comment I made at the beginning of the rewrite that I thought other comments for other religions would be appropriate . You 'll all notice i guess that this whole section is much longer than what we had before. Thus undue weight shifts its balance and there is room for more of everything.
I have attempted to add material based on the discussions to this point in time in which editors were concerned that certain topics they considered to be notable were missing. I note that in googling these topics in Google News Archives, they would appear to be for the most part less notable than thought, and in an effort to satisfy the NPOV notions of everyone, I entered what I could find in strong reliable sources on these topics anyway.
I wouldn't add any new topics to this right now. My preference would be to deal with what we have and then see if it can go into the article. Then after that add other new information with discussion.
Kbob, whatever I have added are not my not my ideas but a summary of text by the author,so I really can't change the words too much. Because of the contentious nature of the article and of the discussions, I am sticking very closely to the wording of the references I cite. Thanks very much for your copy editing :o)...I'll look at the sources and see if I can find a way to clarify the words that are unclear.(olive (talk) 03:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC))
- I think there's a misunderstanding about the principle of "balance". If there are prominent sources that say the sky is blue, and minor sources that say the sky is grey, we don't give equal weight to both viewpoints. Olive brought up WP:WEIGHT before. Giving equal weight to a Cardinal and to a pariah priest is inappropriate and does not gives us NPOV. Please re-read WP:NPOV and try again. Will Beback talk 03:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Which is why I gave more space and material to the cardinal and the Vatican. Will I understand NPOV very well .... and I'll say again, NPOV is not an absolute but is decided on the article by the editors working there in as much as those editors can determine what is notable and what is mainstream for that article and in terms of the media and references. With all of the talk about NPOV here I added material I know is not as notable as some editors think it is ....just to collaborate and compromise so we can move on. I've tried to create some kind of fair balance . If it doesn't suit, say so. Either this rewrite is better than what is in place or its not. If it is not, say so and lets move on. If it is. Put it in place.... and lets move on. and by the way the sky is gray and it is blue. If you live in the Netherlands its mostly gray...So you can see how NPOV can be different for different editors. That's why there is collaboration and community consensus and policies, guidelines...Because there are no absolutes, but there are a lot of opinions ..... It has to be worked out every time :o)..(olive (talk) 04:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC))
- No, NPOV is not negotiable. The majority of editors here seem to share a common viewpoint, but their agreement is not sufficient to override Wikipedia policies. I came to this page because of complaints at WP:COIN, and I was assured that there wasn't a problem. What I see is that major controversies are omitted, and efforts to correct the problem are being stonewalled. I advise mediation, and if not this may need to go to other dispute resolution. From what I've seen, there are very serious problems and I don't believe that the currently involved editors can fix it on their own. Will Beback talk 05:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- I am happy to go to mediation , but I am truly amazed and astounded at your comment. I have just spent hours writing an entire section attempting to include specific sub sections on viewpoints that have been absent from this article... mantra, puja, with a format that allows for more of the same if and when this rewrite is added.I attempted to use the sources from the original reception section, except Markovsky which seemed a non sequitur, and Heddon because you were ready to remove him from the original article. But I am open to including them again of there is agreement to do so. I took the original sources and used a more summary style which is preferred on Wikipedia as I'm sure you are aware of and have attempted to make sure there is a balance from the negative and the positive views. I have used only the best academic sources I could find deliberately excluding any TM organization material such as Gerace's book except in the first subsection where TM is self defining. I have been completely and totally open to any changes, points, discussions, to throwing my rewrite out or using the old version ... anything....I have yet to see a specific point from you that indicates in anyway what you don't like or disagree with, what we can change , what you want o get rid of, except that you keep talking about NPOV. I myself discussed the comments for the RC church and I would think there is some agreement to add comments from other religious leaders. I have spent a lot of time with policy and working on the policy pages, and I understand it well.... I have never said that NPOV is negotiable . I am saying that what is NPOV on any given article is not predetermined by some nebulous abstract principle or by the opinions of editors working there, but must be determined by what is available about the topic in the sources, and is as well, a "working" policy in which editors have to work at deciding what the NPOV is going to be in that particular article. What major controversies are being omitted. I added puja. I added mantra, and am obviously open to discussing anything else. There is room for anything else with discussion in the format of the rewrite I did. I can't even begin to see how you can say I stonewalling when I spent the hours I did rewriting this section so that we could include topics discussed in this article. Who is stonewalling when you have yet to give me a single point that you would like changed or any direction at all in terms of what is wrong with this rewrite or even whether you like it or want to go with the old version. Your comments are unfair and untrue. But hey, if you want to go to formal mediation, I will be happy to.(olive (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC))
- Exactly. (I'm agreeing with Will, not olive) The "reception" section does not cover all of the issues, and doesn't even deal with reception. I would think that a discussion of reception of TM would include (i) that when MMY first tried to introduce TM to the West under the "Spiritual Regeneration Movement" umbrella, it was not well or widely received because it was being promoted and understood as a religious ( or if you prefer, spiritual) practice; (ii) a change in emphasis, promoting TM for alleged health benefits and de-emphasising it as a spiritual practice including a change of name of the organization, occurred in the mid-sixties, the promotion of TM through college meditation societies @ $35, the as well as interest in TM from various celebrities, led to an increase in interest and participation; (iii) that interest largely collapsed in the late 1970's coinciding with disaffection from TM of the same celebrities, increases in fees, the ruling of the court in Malnik that TM was a religion, cutting off government-sponsored school based TM programs, and increasingly incredible and extravagant claims of the benefits of TM - flying, invisibility, the ability to reduce crime, the ability to affect the weather, etc..... leading to the perception that it was a cult. Additional issues would include criticism of the TM organization from Hindu sources that it was an inappropriately sanitized and simplified version of Hindu practices created for Western consumption, that mantra meditation should not be taught separately from an understanding of its religious underpinnings and was not appropriate as a beginning technique for those not practiced in other spiritual practices, and that it was wrong to charge money for teaching meditation techniques. This leads to the fees issue, which include (i) that charging any fee is inconsistent with the traditions on which the technique is based, and inconsistent with the notion that TM is for everyone, and not just reserved for the wealthy; (ii) the dramatic increases in fees over time, leading to a number of TM teachers defecting in protest, offering to teach the technique at reduced prices or for free, or writing books teaching people the technique; (iii) efforts of the TM organization to register and enforce its service mark, leading to retraining and recertification of all TM teachers and in some cases the suspension of teaching in some countries (as an aside, one might also cite MMY's announcement banning the teaching of TM in the UK in reaction to its foreign policy). There is the German government report classifying TM as a cult. Lots more. TM claims that there are no adverse side effects to TM, but there are several scientific studies showing that a significant population of long-time meditators have significant and severe adverse side effects. It's all properly sourced. The Mantras are assigned solely based on age and gender, and while the students are not told this, they are invocations of Hindu gods; advanced mantras in TM_Sidhi are explicitly invocations of Hindu gods. Etc, etc.... Any time anyone has tried to include any of it, it gets excised by a group of editors with direct ties to the TM organization, acting in concert. No neutral or disinterested editory is likely to have the time or inclination to deal with such a group, dedicated to pushing their POV on this and related articles. 13:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fladrif (talk • contribs) Fladrif (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Write and source it...and it can be discussed... and by the way check Patanjali for TM Sidhis ...and what else is opinion and incorrect, I wonder.(olive (talk) 15:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC))
- I was assured that the editors here were following NPOV and therefore including all significant points of view. Any text or draft which doesn't include major issues, like the mantra controversy, isn't NPOV. I hope that editors will act quickly to fix the article and bring it into compliance with Wikipedia policies. Will Beback talk 04:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Write and source it...and it can be discussed... and by the way check Patanjali for TM Sidhis ...and what else is opinion and incorrect, I wonder.(olive (talk) 15:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC))
- OK, you are right, the draft, doesn't cover all possible topics but it does cover many of the Religion topics and viewpoints that have been discussed the past month or so on these pages. Its a very good summary and starting point for editing and discussion in my opinion. If there are other viewpoints that are well sourced than as always we can discuss them and include them in the appropriate section of the article. I am also open to the mediation process if that will make everyone feel more comfortable.--Kbob (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Staying On Point
If we want to accomplish anything on this article we need to stay focused and do one thing at a time. Olive has spent a great deal of time creating a proposed Reception section that includes many of the points that have been brought up over the past few months on these discussion pages. She has posted it for discussion and further editing by the group. I commend her for her time and effort. I would like to remind everyone that we should limit our comments to the "content not the contributor" and that discussions of COIN are best taken up on the NoticeBoard. --Kbob (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Responses From Religious Communities Draft
Responses to Transcendental Meditation from religious leaders varies. For example: In 1989, The Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith released a document to Bishops of the Catholic Church on “…Some Aspects of Christian Meditation” outlining concerns that the personal and communicative aspects of Christian prayer could be lost in trying to fuse Christian prayer and eastern derived meditation techniques such as Transcendental Meditation, and that such techniques be continuously scrutinized to ensure “syncretism” does not occur. [24] In 1984, Jaime Cardinal Sin, then Catholic Archbishop of Manila, released a pastoral statement in which he outlined concepts taught by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi that he believed conflicted with Christianity.[25]
Basil Pennington a Cistercian Monk describes the Transcendental Mediation technique as a simple technique that can stand on it own, but whose deep rest can act as a preparation for more traditional prayer. [26] Adrian B Smith, a Catholic Missionary priest describes that the Transcendental Meditation technique in itself is not taught in the context of any religion, but that it can enrich the spiritual aspects of life. [27
- I don't think this is an optimal summary of the sources, nor does it give appropriate weight based on the prominence of the viewpoints. I had already proposed shorter, tighter language to cover the RC position:
- Jaime Sin, a cardinal and the Archbishop of Manila, wrote in 1984 that neither the doctrine nor the practice of TM are acceptable to Christians. In 1989, a Vatican council published a warning that mixing eastern meditation, such as TM, with Christian prayer could lead to "dangers and errors".
- Why is the text in Olive's draft preferable?
- As for Pennington and Smith, how prominent are their viewpoints relative to those of Ratzinger and Sin? Olive's proposal devotes 92 words to the official RC position, and 67 words to the views of a monk and a priest. That appears to give excess weight to their views. Why not keep it simple:
- Some individual Catholic clergy have written that they believe TM is compatible with Christian prayer.
- Combined with the other text, that'd be much shorter than what Olive wrote, and more in keeping with NPOV's requirement all significant points of view are included, and weighted according to their prominence. Will Beback talk 21:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- My draft, in my mind is not the preferred draft. We seem to be arguing about degree of prominence based on word count. I placed the two more notable comments in the lead of the subsection giving them weight . They were longer and more explanatory again giving them weight. They are balanced by two comments from priests/ monks which actually looking at it should be worded differently. There are many religious people who do TM, and see it positively. These two comments are meant to represent those many. Your wording is not really accurate to what they are saying, and each is saying something different, although both are positive.Perhaps a combination of both your draft and my draft would work.
- With the expansion of the section I felt we could expand on the material in this subsection giving a clearer explanation and more interesting and informative reading.(olive (talk) 02:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC))
- What is the text from Smith that we are summarizing? Will Beback talk 22:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- I am summarizing the book as a whole. Smith describes TM in light of a Christian understanding, and how TM enriches the Christian life and the spiritual life. The chapters are more specific explanations of this. Pennington explains in detail the impact of TM on Christian prayer, but is also describing prayer in its larger definition.(olive (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC))
- You've written that my summary is incorrect. Please quote the text you're summarizing. This is an obscure source. If it's a widely held view maybe we can find it expressed by a more prominent writer. Will Beback talk 23:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- I am summarizing the book as a whole. Smith describes TM in light of a Christian understanding, and how TM enriches the Christian life and the spiritual life. The chapters are more specific explanations of this. Pennington explains in detail the impact of TM on Christian prayer, but is also describing prayer in its larger definition.(olive (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC))
- I've summarized the book above and also in my rewrite ..... This is also a source for Smith and is more notable. [25]. I don't have this but might be able to get hold of it. The issue it seems to me is that within the hierarchy of the Catholic church we have two documents discounting the TM technique. We also have numerous Catholics including priests as well as religious leaders from other religions practicing the technique, and supporting its use. Smith quotes some of these in his book. Others may be found on the official TM site, and David OJ's site. Just using the Vatican and Sin documents does not give a neutral or correct sense of the technique and how it has been received. To be neutral we have consider how to do that.(olive (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC))
- The other book you mention is also hard to find, 7 copies in U.S. libraries versus 3 for the other one. I just don't see why we're quoting this obscure priest. There was a previous complaint about giving the RC official documents excess weight, but I don't see how adding this material helps that. If there are numerous other Catholics clergy who have expressed their views in reliable sources then I'd be interested in seeing them. Will Beback talk 01:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've summarized the book above and also in my rewrite ..... This is also a source for Smith and is more notable. [25]. I don't have this but might be able to get hold of it. The issue it seems to me is that within the hierarchy of the Catholic church we have two documents discounting the TM technique. We also have numerous Catholics including priests as well as religious leaders from other religions practicing the technique, and supporting its use. Smith quotes some of these in his book. Others may be found on the official TM site, and David OJ's site. Just using the Vatican and Sin documents does not give a neutral or correct sense of the technique and how it has been received. To be neutral we have consider how to do that.(olive (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC))
Sorry Will. I don't buy these arguments. The last book I mention is a published collection of papers given at a Catholic conference. The book has been translated in to several languages according to the inside cover introduction I have of, A key to the Kingdom of Heaven . Is Cardinal Sin's document published in any book and is it in libraries in the US .... the Vatican document? Harlequin romances might be in libraries but that sure doesn't make them notable . My point is that in accessing sources several aspects need to be considered.If your criteria is its not in the libraries then you have to apply that to all sources unless we agree that there are different ways of accessing the importance of a source for an article, and what is needed to make sure an article is NPOV.(olive (talk) 01:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC))
- If it is not in libraries, and if those who wish to add it to the article won't share the material they're summarizing, then it is very hard to verify. Is there a problem with uising verifiable sources? Sin's entire letter is published by the Archdiocese, who can be considered a reliable source. Ratzinger's statement was widely reported and the official document is also available on line. I just don't get why two official statements need to be "balanced" with such obscure, unverifiable sources. But let's put Smith and Pennington aside for a moment. Can we get an explanation for the summary of the officIAl RC view? Will Beback talk 02:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Come on Will ... What do you want me to do summarize an entire book in detail ...."won't share the source" ... that's not fair not even close. I've explained the general view of the book and I've summarized it ... do you expect me to type it all out.
- These issues are being conflated here: What do we have so far: Two negative comments about TM from the Catholic Church. They are in place in the article. They are also relatively old- 20 years old. They represent the official, at that time, position, of the church. They do not represent what Catholics are doing in their churches nor do they represent other religions. How do we present that or are you suggesting not presenting it at all.How obscure is Sin's statement or the Vatican document statement to anyone not Catholic; two statements twenty years old. You use the numbers in libraries as a test of notability but you don't apply that test across the board, which by the way I agree with. Thing is you won't apply the openness to the other side of the coin, the positive side of TM and the church. How do you plan to create neutrality in that subsection? I'm out of discussion points.(olive (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC))
- What does age have to do with it? Do we think that the RC position has changed now that Ratzinger is no longer head of the council on theology and is the head of the whole church? As for primincne of a view, how do you propose we judge them? And again, why did you summarize the Sin and Ratzinger comments the way you did? For Ratxinger, not only do we have the document, but we also have third-party reports on it and a press conference. It'd probably be best to use those relatively "secondary" sources as our guide to the key phrases in the text, which is why I suggested quoting the "dangers and errors" line. How did you decide that "syncretism" was the key point instead? Will Beback talk 17:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- These issues are being conflated here: What do we have so far: Two negative comments about TM from the Catholic Church. They are in place in the article. They are also relatively old- 20 years old. They represent the official, at that time, position, of the church. They do not represent what Catholics are doing in their churches nor do they represent other religions. How do we present that or are you suggesting not presenting it at all.How obscure is Sin's statement or the Vatican document statement to anyone not Catholic; two statements twenty years old. You use the numbers in libraries as a test of notability but you don't apply that test across the board, which by the way I agree with. Thing is you won't apply the openness to the other side of the coin, the positive side of TM and the church. How do you plan to create neutrality in that subsection? I'm out of discussion points.(olive (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC))
- I could conjecture on the pope's position but I won't since I can't use it, and it would be OR. In fact how alternative movements such as TM and NAR (New Age religions )are viewed changes signicantly with time. As an extreme example Lutheranism was once a new religion. That a document is 25 years old is relevent to the context of the document.
- We are discussing in circles. I noted earlier that the Malnak document is a primary source and that there were good secondary sources, and that Wikipedia suggests secondary sources are preferable. That comment was received, in shall we say, a less than positive light. I rewrote the Malnak subsection including some info from those secondary sources but nothing came of that exercise. In rewriting the reception section if had I made only a short reference to the Malnak primary document and then referenced the secondary sources as Wikipedia suggest would be appropriate, I wonder what would have happened. In writing the Sin/Vatican sections I attempted to summarize the entire documents. Primary sources .... Yes indeed. What might have been the response to me using secondary sources? The original Reception section used the primary sources. I stayed quite close to that to rewrite, again , to attempt to compromise, collaborate put something together that everyone could agree on.
- The overarching concern with Eastern meditation methods and Christianity as stated in the Vatican document is that the two become mixed together "syncretism". I attempted to summarize the document. There was no "instead". I was simple re writing a subsection trying to make it work.
- Actually, I have very little else to say, here . I will not agree to putting anything else into this article at any point without some agreed upon method for determining what is significant. We need to agree on a consistent way of dealing with information. If we are using secondary sources as is my preference since I like to stick closely to policy/guidelines we'd better be consistent. My rewrite was done in good faith as an attempt to create a space for inclusion of many of the topics that have come up for discussion. That that rewrite is now treated as if I am attempting to push some POV is unfortunate. I will be applying for Formal Mediation in a day or two. Perhaps some outside help can help us through this.(olive (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC))
Archiving BOT
The archiving bot is sending the older discussions to Talk:Transcendental_Meditation/19 rather than to Talk:Transcendental_Meditation/Archive_19, and it doesn't show up in the the Archive List or in the Archive Index at the top of the page. How does this get fixed?Fladrif (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for catching that. I've moved the already created archives and I think I've fixed the bot. Will Beback talk 17:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
2005 British Elections
This is fascinating, but I'm at a loss to decide if it goes better in this article, the MMY article, the NLP article or somewhere else. I'm inclined to say here, since this is supposed to be about TM and the instruction in it, so MMY banning the teaching of TM in the UK would seem to belong here. It is definitely notable.
- In 2004 Maharishi Mahesh Yogi directed his followers at the Maharishi village, complete with golden meditation dome, at Skelmersdale, Lancashire to meditate with the aim of influencing the British electorate into overturning the Labour government. The day after Tony Blair's Labour Party won reelection in May 2005 despite these efforts, the Maharishi ordered that all instruction in TM cease in the UK. [2][3] The ban was lifted in August 2007, two months after Blair resigned as Prime Minister. [4]
Where should we put it?Fladrif (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC) One more detail. Fladrif (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- This may be interesting, but notable is another issue. As I said to Will, until we can decide on some standard for what is significant or notable, I don't agree to put anything else into this article. I don't intend to make this discussion difficult but i also feel we are wasting our time talking in circles since we have no baseline of agreement on standards for this article.(olive (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC))
- Being noted in prominent, mainstream newspapers is a good indication of notability. The fact that it had an impact on the teaching of TM in a large country is another indicator of notability. The material is well-sourced and neutrally presented. I can't see any reason not to add it to the article, and I don't see any policy-based reason given here to omit it either. Will Beback talk 21:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- The addition is not worded in a neutral manner. Its notability has not been established.
- Mediation provides a neutral party. If you were truly neutral you would consider the opinion of another editor here when she asks for a simple discussion to establish consistency instead of pushing through this change at this point in the discussion. I am asking fot a freeze on this article until we can come to some agreement. Neutral editors would honour that. You aren't either of you .
- This is inconsistent with your comment about Allen Green. Green appears in a prominent Canadian newspaper. A newspaper that comes out of the provincial capital is a notable newspaper in Canada, but I believe you said this wasn't notable. I guess I don't see that we have any consistency here. I have asked repeatedly that we set a standard. Looks very much like if I do it its not right, but if you two do it is. Interesting dilemma. If you add this to the article you do it without a real consensus. I note Will's comment on the COINB "So if there are, for example, five "pro" editors and two "anti" editors, the "pro" editors can't claim consensus as an excuse for violating NPOV, even if talk page discussions show a clear preference for one version over another." You both believe you are neutral, I don't believe you are , and your addition of this information while innocuous indicates a clear and deliberate attempt to override what ever I have to say or suggest as has been the case through out all of these discussions . Yet Fladrif has refused to be available for mediation . That is his prerogative. Yet, don't try and tell me that either of you cares about the neutrality of this article above what you believe is neutral. If you make this addition at this time you risk an edit war.(olive (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC))
References (please keep at bottom)
- ^ Greening, Benedict, "TM courses halted as fees soar", The Royal Gazette August 15, 2003)
- ^ "All you need is love and peace - but not in destructive Britain, so the Maharishi pulls out" The Guardian (August 15, 2005
- ^ "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi" The Telegraph (February 7, 2008)
- ^ "The mystic who inspired The Beatles: The town that lost its guru" The Independent (February 7, 2008)