Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Removing the German's study: self-published source.

Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources in articles about themselves. A person or an organization website (or any other self-published source) cannot be used as a source, unless the information is about the person or the organization. Even then the sourced content can only be included in a WP article about that person or that organization. They give the example of the StormFront (a white activist organization) website. --Lumière 13:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

In a study, called "the Various Implications Arising From The Practice of Transcendental Meditation,", conducted by the INSTITUT FÜR JUGEND UND GESELLSCHAFT Ernst-Ludwig-Straße 45 6140 Bensheim which received some funding from the BUNDESMINISTERIUM FÜR JUGEND, FAMILIE UND GESUNDHEIT, 76% of the participants developed adverse mental side-effects including: depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation. 25% experienced a nervous breakdowns and 20% experienced suicidial feelings. Only 9% of the these participants had received theraputic care previous to this study. There conclusion was: "Psychological illness already present before the TM phase worsened considerably. TM can cause mental illness or at the very least prepare the way for the onset of mental illness." [1]. The study group was 67 persons with direct or indirect connection with TM. 27 of the group had practised TM, with the others either parents or spouses of a practitioner. According the paper, the subjects all either reported a negative experience with the practice of TM or had rejected the organization of the TM and its representatives.[2]

This is the paragraph that was removed. Moreover, the Skeptic organization website only reported that study without any form of review. The reputability of the skeptic organization website as a publisher can reasonably be disputed and we will need a consensus about whether or not it is a reputable source before we can accept it for inclusion. Typically website do not count as a reputable source. In other words, the report of the Skeptic organization can also be considered as a self-published source: it is their own report in their own website. They do not count as a valid third-party publisher. --Lumière 13:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Beyond just wrong, you don't understand WP:V and WP:NPOV. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This did not help me to change my mind. --Lumière 14:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The full version of the study only seems generally available at www.agpf.de - a German anti-cult website - which has no connection with the authors of the original study. The Inst for Youth etc was a christian youth group - the group may well still exist but does not have its own website. It seems there were only very limited copies of this DIN A4 brochure and it is no longer available from the authors. - Paul

That's not a self published source. Please review [3]. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It was "published" as a DIN A4 brochure. Cannot say how many were printed, but there seem to be almost no surviving examples. Its stated purpose was to give assistance to those advising people who felt they needed help after giving up TM.The website agpf.de has nothing to do with the INSTITUT FÜR JUGEND UND GESELLSCHAFT. The website is a German "anti-cult" site. The youth organisation may well still exist since it was a church youth group.- Paul

Who was the publisher? A print is a publication if it is brought to the public attention. I am not sure that an internal report is really a way to bring a study to the public attention, and thus I dispute the fact that it is a publication. However, even if we consider it as a publication, we have a bigger issue here. The policy is specific that it must be a credible third-party publication. --Lumière 14:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not accurate. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, it does not matter that you archived. You cannot prevent a refactorization of the talk page this way. I can still do the refactorization and put it back here. I think that there too much useful information in the archive not to refactorize it and make it directly available in the current talk page. --Lumière 14:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Take whatever you want out of the archive and put it here. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so you do understand. Fine. This is what I was saying. --Lumière 14:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi... all this technical stuff is a bit beyond me :-) but if I can help clarify in any way then please let me know. - All I was originally concerned about was that it stated that it was a study by the German Govt (false) and that findings were qouted without any kind of reference to how they were obtained (very weighted!!!). The German Church has a long history of discriminating against any group that does not "belong" to the church - at last count over 250 groups and individuals were on their black-list. Interstingly enough in 1999 a German Govt Commission came to the conclusion that at present cults presented no danger to soceity (Chapter 6.1 page 374).Paul

Thanks a lot. This is indeed very useful. Editors are encouraged to evaluate the credibility of sources. Original research is not accepted in an Wikipedia article, but evaluating the credibility of the sources is not original research and is in fact necessary. Very useful! --Lumière 15:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to be "nit-picking" but I disagree with the statement "According the paper, the subjects all either reported a negative experience with the practice of TM or had rejected the organization of the TM and its representatives." The document clearly states that the starting point for all those questioned was a negative experience etc" Here is the wording from the original "Die gemeinsame Ausgangslage für alle war eine negative Erfahrung mit der Praxis der Meditation oder ihren Folgen bzw. eine ablehnende Haltung zur Organisation der TM und ihren Vertretern. " Ausgangslage means "starting point" or "Initial position". I think it should be included that they all had this position before taking part in the study. - Thanks ..Paul

Though this study does not have a reputable source and thus is not acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia in accordance with WP policy, I am interested to see what it really says. What would be your proposed sentences? Are you suggesting to add a sentence or to modify the current sentences? --Lumière 15:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Please demonstrate that the society for youth and culture is not a reputabble source.Sethie 15:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The society is most likely a reputable society in Germany otherwise it would not have received money from the German government. The issue here is not the reputability of the society, but whether it can be used as a source. The policy is very clear that, if you want to include the view of an organization, irrespectively of the reputability of this organization, this organization must have published its view in a reputable third-party publication. This means that self-published source are not accepted as reputable source. The exception is when the view is about the organization itself. In this case, this view can be included in an article about the organization. --Lumière 17:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not what the policy says. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

One thing is true for sure. If the policy would only say as much as you say, it would not be useful. Can you expand? Just saying that you disagree doesn't help the discussion. --Lumière 17:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested in discussing this with you - suffice it to say that you do not understand the policies, and I do. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Refusing to discuss the problem isn't constructive. According to your user page, you are aspiring to be a model Wikipedian. That includes working with other editors to try to reach a consensus. Please remember the policy on civility and don't try to shut down discussion simply by saying others don't understand. Kafziel 17:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Review Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability and Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view for the rationale for not having substantial policy discussions with this user. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi .. I just feel that since the authors state in Section 2.2 of their profile of those that responded to their questionaire that they already had a negative view of TM, then this should be included if this source remains. It certainly shows that this was not a neutral study. Something like "At the start of the study all those questioned expressed negative experiences of TM or its organisation ". Thank you for accepting the correction to the source of the study. With regard to the study it was a self-published broschure. - Paul

Refactoring the talk page.

I suggest that we do as suggested in wikipedia:refactoring_talk_pages. No one can prevent it from hapening. One can ignore it, but not stop it. --Lumière 14:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No. The 216kb talk page was no longer active. The only active section is directly above. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It is as if you were saying that editors are not allowed to write in the talk page something they believe is important and relevant to the article. Forget about the fact that it is a refactoring. Me and others are allowed to write what we think is useful in this talk page. You could argue that you do not want the active version to be refactored (because you like it long and you don't want anything to be cut), but now that you have archived it, you cannot object to it anymore. Creating an archive for the original version is a part of refactoring. You just helped the process. Thanks! --Lumière 14:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I created the page Talk:Transcendental meditation/Refactoring. Please feel free to extract any important point from the archives to this refactoring page. Read wikipedia:refactoring_talk_pages for instructions about refactoring. Once we have something interesting, we will move it back here. Remember that the goal is to have a shorter talk page that contains all the important points. This will be very useful for those who come visit the page and want to find out the important issues. --Lumière 15:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Please remove the paragraphs about the German's study

These paragraphs about the german study clearly violate WP:verifiability policy. If there is an edit war (say with Hipocrite that keeps putting them back), be careful not to remove these paragraphs more than three times in 24 hours because you will violate the three-revert rule (WP:3RR). Also, carefully check for discussion in the talk page. The goal is to achieve a consensus. If there is a consensus either way, go with the consensus. However, right now Hypocryte is simply acting without discussing in the talk page. Therefore, do not hesitate to remove these paragraphs while respecting the 3RR rule. --Lumière 15:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The booklet was published, it is noted in the german government statements. It is certainly verifiable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I have listed this article at WP:3o Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Even if we were to accept that it was published, this would not be enough in accordance with WP:verifiability. Why do you say it is certainly verifiable? Perhaps you misinterpret the term "verifiable". Verifiable means published in a reputable source. There are specific sections that explain that a self-published source (by a person or an organization) cannot be a reputable source. The only exception is when the sourced information is about the person or the organization, but it does not apply to our case. --Lumière 15:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This Paul person seems to be able to verify it, he got his hands on a copy! Sethie 15:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow Sethie! The fact that he has his hands on the copy is completely irrelevant, and I guess that you know it. You must be joking. --Lumière 16:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability does not require publication by a reputable source. Please review WP:V, paying specific attention to the section titled "Sources of dubious reliability." While I deny this is a source of dubious reliability, "Sometimes a statement can only be found in a publication of dubious reliability, such as a tabloid newspaper. If the statement is relatively unimportant, remove it. If it is important enough to keep, attribute it to the source in question. For example: "According to the British tabloid newspaper The Sun ..." The article says who published the study - specifically, it reads "conducted by the INSTITUT FÜR JUGEND UND GESELLSCHAFT" Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but all the sections of the policy are complementary. What is acceptable lie at the intersection of all the sections. A tabloid is not a self-published source, so the section that you mention has nothing to do with the current issue. --Lumière 16:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no self published source here. You should wait for the results from 3o, or file an RFC. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Give me an example of what you understand is a self-published source by an organisation, and tell me what is the difference with the report of the Skeptic organization. Hello! The skeptic organization is not a third-party publisher here! It is not like a tabloid, and certainly not like a credible third-party journal. There are obviously two sides here: the TM organization on one side and the skeptic organisations, especially those of TM-ex, on the other side. This report is a self-published source from one of the side. Even if the skeptic organizations would claim that they are neutral, the messengers of the neutral point of view, Oh wow, they are still not a third-party publisher. Yes, we will wait for more opinions here. --Lumière 16:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The report was not written by the skeptical orginization. Even if it was, it's fine to include that information. As explained to you before, Wikipedia is not a nomic, and the rules are defined by how they are applied, not by a legalistic reading of the text. I know you want to wikilawyer the rules to exclude all opinions from sources you don't ideologically agree with, but that's a violation of NPOV, and it's just plain bad faith. Give up, already. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If some organization has a view, it must publish it with the help of a reputable third-party publisher before it is acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Whether or not I disagree with this view is irrelevant. --Lumière 16:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Lumiere for a very clear expression of what you would LIKE wikipedia to be. Please see WP:V for a clear expression of how wikipedia currently IS.Sethie 21:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I know what Verifiability says. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources in articles about themselves and give me your understanding. --Lumière 22:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Now I understand why you are confused! You think self-publshed applies here! Sethie 00:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course it does apply. There are only two possibilities: self-publishing or third-party publishing. If an organisation does not use a third-party publisher, then it is self-publishing. This is the case for both the German society and the skeptic organization. Very simple. --Lumière 02:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I've just spent some time looking over the two references cited for this study. One is on the website of a man claiming to "rescue" people from cults and mind control (definitely not an unbiased source). The second cite is not in English, which goes against the Wikipedia style guide because the subject of the article itself is not a German topic, and there are no relevant maps or charts that can be discerned from the information provided. I'm no big proponent of meditation or anything, but this seems like clear bias to me. If there are more English-language references or examples, you should feel free to put them in, but in this case the verifiability is extremely shaky and the section should (in my humble opinion) be removed. Kafziel 16:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to express just common sense, which turns out to be policy! --Lumière 16:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Could Hipocrite please give me the references to support his statement that "The booklet was published, it is noted in the german government statements". I know of know German Govt statements concerning this study. The study was done by a German Christian Organisation who published their own findings. Unfortunately for most of you the only reliable copy of this is available in German on the site of the leading anti-cult veteran Ingo Heinemann, who had nothing to do with the research. I can confirm that he has on his website a copy of the original research, but as I said elsewhere you will need it translating. Its scientific basis and conclusions are debatable since it was undertaken with a small group of people already dissatified with TM and some of the conclusions are based on people's opinions. - Paul

Bundesverwaltungsgericht ruling May 24, 1989 in Case number 7 C 2.87. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see this as being verifiable. If it's so important to the article, surely some media somewhere has talked about it. Fagstein 18:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It#s important in that it claims this study was included in Govt statements which would appear to give it significance .. in response to that here is my answer .. and if the discussion about this study carries on then I suggest someone gets an independant German speaker who can follow all my sources .. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

The process you mention did not mention this study, neither did any of the others relating to this case.. It seems you may have just taken information off a website in English that carries only limited facts. In 1980 the TM organisation successfully won a case against the German Govt prohibiting it from presenting false, negative statements about TM. This was based on testimony of independent expert witnesses who found no danger in TM. In 1989 the Govt appeal case (which is the one you mention here) had this decision revised – not on the basis of any new information that TM was dangerous , but based on the Govts claim that it had reduced its warnings about TM but retained the right to warn unstable people that TM may be dangerous for them (even though nothing was presented to support this.) Since the Govt no longer warns the TM organisation has not pursued its own outsatnding appeal against this revision. The Govt gave no more warnings about TM and in 1999 a German Govt Commission came to the conclusion that at the present time cults in the country present no danger to society. It seems your source just mixed up information from different sources. 1+1 =4 Source http://www.agpf.de/Bundesverfassungsgericht-1BvR881-89.htm - easier than the complecated journey thriough the Bundes site .. Paul

Great input, Paul, thank you. So legitimacy can't really be lent to the government's decision because a) since it was an appeal, clearly the courts have varied their rulings in the past, b) the government, although winning their appeal, has still not resumed warnings so evidently they don't feel too strongly about it, and c) even the government's eventual victory is on yet another appeal. If this subject is going to be used at all, it should only be to state that TM is a contentious issue in Germany (and perhaps sum up the situation as you did, above). Kafziel 19:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that we can talk about what happens in between the TMO and the German govt, but the scientific study should not be the main point because it has no reputable source. --Lumière 22:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, now someone has taken the whole thing out and replaced it with "In a 1989 decision, the Bundesverwaltungsgericht of then-Western Germany made a determination that Trancendental Meditation can "cause psychic defects or destruction of personality."

This was not the ruling at all!! Also it was not the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (deals with administrative law)but the Bundesverfassungsgericht (deals with constitutional law). In other words the Govt did not appeal to the normal courts (where it had already lost) but to the constitutional court and argued under its rights as a Govt. As I stated above the ruling was that the Govt could warn unstable people that TM could cause psychical damage in the same way as other life events could... the Court specifically mentions other life events for such people as being "engaement, marriage, armed service, job loss and also TM" (Der Ausbruch der Erkrankung setze eine entsprechende Disposition voraus (sog. vulnerable Individuen). Auslösendes Element könne jedes Ereignis sein, das die ganze Person in Anspruch nehme, eine Verlobung, eine Heirat, eine Niederkunft, ein Militärdienst und auch TM. ) In all honesty can that really be interpreted as it now stands on the intro page? I would suggest contacted someone familiar with German law before allowing such a layman's interpretation to be included. - Paul

Paul, what is your relation to the TM organization? Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I said in one of my earlier postings that I practise TM. I live in Germany and am very familiar with events here. I have tried to just focus on the facts concerning the issue .. I had no objection to either the Bensheimer study being mentioned or the court case, just that the information was not correct in my opinion. All the best Paul

I've changed the wording of the German section with a large warning tag stating that we need sources (English ones, particularly). I've kept the German link there for now, for lack of a better option. At this point I have no reason to believe Paul's summation is untrue; it can certainly be reviewed by other German speaking Wikipedians. The section seems pretty NPOV to me at this point, but still lacks verifiability (in English, at least). Kafziel 20:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

We would be against policy to include the German study only on the basis that it was published somewhere. It must be published with a credible third-party publisher. A WP article is not just a place to provide all information that we feel is true and seems relevant. It may seem that we will obtain a nice NPOV debate, with all sides presented, but NPOV is not the only criteria. Every side must be carefully checked agaisnt No Original Research and Verifiability. If as a result, one side loses some content, let it be so because it just means that this content was not well sourced and was perhaps simply wrong. This is not against NPOV. It is not up to us to evaluate whether the content is accurate and fair. This is the job of the publisher, and this is why it must be a reputable third-party publisher. --Lumière 22:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

In principle I have no great objection, except that, to my knowledge there is no Govt list and the warning only applies to certain unstable people who could be affected in the same way by marriage etc .. it is not that marriage, engagement or TM are on any list but that these were mentioned in the court ruling. So maybe it still needs some tweaking to reflect thsi.Also in 1999 the Governments own Enquete Commission into "Cults" in general (TM was also included in their survey) found that cults do not present a great danger to soceity at this time Enquete-Kommission

"Sogenannte Sekten und Psychogruppen" - can be downloaded as pdf at http://www.bundestag.de/ftp/ftp_archiv_13.html#enqsekten. (English version also available) Since that time the Govt has kept a low profile in such matters. - Paul

I've changed the wording so it doesn't imply that there is some official "list". I also included the cite to the decision about cults, etc. I think this section is starting to look halfway decent. What say we all take a little break from the frantic editing of today, stand back a little bit, and see if we can get a little bit of input from some other editors? Kafziel 21:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

.Rock on .. it's getting late here in Germany and over the weekend I want to enjoy the snow:-) ::::::::::: I am trying to find an official version of the court case for you in english .. but may not be available .. certainly does not seem to be one on the relevant sites for German courts ... Nice to "meet" you all -Paul

Actually, the paragraph on Dr. Otis study is not reflecting the content of the paper anymore. It is getting worst. There is obviously an important alternative presented by Dr. Otis, and this has been dropped. There is only one way we can present Dr. Otis study and it is to present all the possible explanations for the observations made in the study. Otherwise, it is a biased POV. I am also checking the sources for Dr. Otis study to see of it was published with a reputable third-party publisher, i.e., some reputable journal. --Lumière 22:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Dr Otis study: in a book published by a general publisher.

We might need to check it more carefully, but it seems that Dr Otis study only appeared in a book that was published by a general publisher. The standard for scientific research is a peer-reviewed journal. If it is not a peer-reviewed journal, it better have a pretty good reputation in the subject area. Even with a reputable publisher, a book has a very low reputability because the editors of the book can essentially publish whatever they want in this book. At the least, if we have a reputable publisher for the book, the subject of the book and the editors will be carefully chosen. The publisher was Aldine Publishing Company. I tried to find out more about this publisher and it was not easy. There was not much on the web about this publisher. I think it was started in Germany, but not sure. After some research, I found this website http://www.philsp.com/data/data302.html, in which we can see that the publisher also publishes children's book. This is very strange. I never seen that before. It must be a mistake. Until we have further information, we have to consider that the study was not published in a reputable source. If we get back to the previous NPOV version (the one we had before Hipocrite dropped everything that was in favor of TM), it will make more sense that we keep it in this article until we find out more about the publisher. Lumière 23:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Go get the book out of a library. It's neither a childrens book nor a general interest book. The publisher is in Hawthorne, New York. Go look up "Aldine de Gruyter," the current name for the imprint. Hipocrite - «Talk» 01:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I was not talking about the book, but the publisher. Anyway, you are telling me that the publisher has a new name. So, I have to check again. Lumière 01:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Hipocrite. Wikipedia's standards are not the same as scientific research standards. Take a look at some other articles' sources - comic books, fanzines, websites, etc. If it's independently verifiable, it counts. We don't need to see the publisher's credentials. That's why we have a content disclaimer. Kafziel 01:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not what the poliocy says. It says that what is a reputable source depends on the type of contents. It also says that it is preferable to have a peer-reviewed journal for scientific content. And, of course, the policy requires that we evaluate the sources, which is needed if it is not a peer-reviewed journal. If we don't agree on the policy, we will not have consensus. Lumière 01:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course the Wikipedia standards are not the same as for a scientific journal. They are only stronger for scientific contents. We do not accept original research, whereas a scientific journal does. An encyclopedia should have a higher standard. A scientific theory that was just published in one reputable journal but with no follow-up will not normally find its place in an encyclopedia. We accept them in Wikîpedia, but still we do not have lower standards, except when it is misinterpreted. Lumière 01:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You confuse a broader range of topics with lower standards. We have a broader range of topics, which means that we need different standards for different types of contents. However, we certainly do not have lower standards for any of these types of contents. Lumière 01:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I checked the publisher that Hipocrite mentioned and the book "Meditation: Classic and Contemporary Perspectives" do not show up when you use their search engine. I checked both with the editor's name and the title, and no result in both cases. Also, when you search in Google with the original name of the publisher, you do get results. I will check the dates for these results. Maybe it was before the name changed. When the name changed? Lumière 02:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is an entry that I obtained on the web on a web site http://www.philsp.com/data/data126.html#GARFIELDBOYSJOURNAL that was updated on 26-Oct-2005:

• Garfield Boys' Journal, Publishers: Aldine Publishing Co., Pagecounts: 24pp, Frequency: weekly

I also found one entry for a scientific publication in a different website, and it was about pseudo-science, the kind of publications that sketic organizations publish. I don't see that we can conclude that this publisher is reputable for the given content. Lumière 02:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph removed because of insinuation.

The article raised questions about the integrity of at least some of the reports from scientists involved in the TM movement[4]. Nevertheless a handful of articles on the benefits of TM and Maharishi Ayurveda products continue to be published in medical journals: The American Journal of Cardiology [5], which was funded in part by a grant from the controversial National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine and in the American Journal of Hypertension [6].

There is only one reference following the statements that there is a handful of articles. This contradiction insinuates that we cannot list more, but still try to pretend that we have more. It does not matter: it just makes no sense to say that we have an handful of articles and only cite one. --Lumière 20:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, actually two are cited. I am putting the paragraph back. Sethie 21:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

No, only one publication is cited. The other citation is not a paper. It is the source of funding. So my point still hold. The paragraph obviously makes no sense. So we should remove it.

When I read this sectence: "The American Journal of Cardiology [7], which was funded in part by a grant from the controversial National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine and in the American Journal of Hypertension [6]." I read TWO journals mentioned. How many do you read? Sethie 22:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you are right. There is a comma missing, so I did not parse it correctly. Nevertheless, I will change the sentence so that it makes more sense: two references when we say an handful is not much better than just one. I will revert it to a previous version, which makes more sense, but was modified by someone that most likely wanted to create confusion and perhaos insinuate that we have only two publications, even though it is said an handful. This kind of tricks are used all the times by skeptics. Lumière 22:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Easy there hero, no need to create a conspiracy theory! I have changed it to help defeat the EVIL SKEPTICS!!!!! Sethie 22:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Every one can see what skeptics organizations are doing. I just point out the facts. --Lumière 23:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Lumiere, please do not remove chunks of text like that while discussions are ongoing. I am considering this vandalism at this point, and I am not alone in that. Kafziel 21:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I know you do consider this as vandalism, and it may be true that you are not alone. This happens all the times when people are in serious disagreement. Tell me exactly why Hipocrite can completely destroy a serious amount of work that reported on Dr. Otis study, and then you conclude every thing is great, but when I remove a small paragraph, which obviously made no sense, it is vandalism? Maybe you should think about the possibility that you have your own POV. -Lumière 22:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I have absolutely no POV on the subject. I'm only here because a request was made for a third opinion. Hipocrite was also asked not to make substantial changes until we can reach some consent. The vandalism warning I gave you was valid, and as you have just made clear your edit was not in good faith but rather a spiteful retaliation to Hipocrite's changes. Kafziel 01:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

What is this? First, of course you have a POV, even if it is a fresh non informed one. Second, please do not accuse me of "spiteful retaliation". Perhaps you should read WP:AFG again. -Lumière 16:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

About request for citations in the Dr Otis paragraph

Sethie, The required citation for each of your request is already given. There is no need to cite it each time. I think that you misinterpret the Verifiability and No origibal research policies. These policies do not say that the content that is sourced must correspond words for words to the sources. The criteria for no original research is that the content that is sourced is totally backed by the sources, not that it is there words for words. --Lumière 23:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe somehow some ideas that are not contained with Dr. Otit's study got mixed in with that paragraph.

Please provide a source which says: ~However, his conclusion was in fact an explanatory conclusion or explanation, not a logical conclusion ~The MAIN observation which brought him to this explanatory conclusion ~An alternative explanation for this same obvervation ~The alternative explanation, blaming on prior conditions, appears more supported by direct evidence than Dr. Otis proposed explanatory conclusion etc.

All of these things sound to me like COMMENTARY on Dr. Otis' study.... Please prove me wrong by showing me that these are Dr. Otis' ideas themselves, and not someone stating what THEY think about his research. One way to do that is to provide direct quotes.

If you cannot source these ideas, they will be removed. Sethie 00:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

All of these provide a direct description of the paper. Again, there is no requirement to provide exact quotes. There are observations described in the paper and I report them. There are many alternative explanations for these observations and I report them. This is not a biased report of the paper: this is exactly what the paper does. The fact that one of these explanations is presented as a conclusion is also reported. This is a totally faithful description of the paper. Are you trying to hide some parts of the paper, and the role that these parts have in the paper?

Anyway, this paragraph is only there until we obtain more information about the reputability of the source. If there is nothing to establish the reputability of the source, clearly this study will be removed. Therefore, instead of arguing against a faithful description of the paper, you should focus on establishing the reputability of its source. -Lumière 01:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I take your response as being- "I will not provide sources." Hence I will remove those statements. Sethie 01:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It was pure OR. I reverted to 22:00, because "contravercial" has three cites the first time it's used, up at the top of the article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 01:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Let us have a real discussion on this issue, if it is possible at all. Sethie, you ignored my point, whereas I replied to your point. In a normal discussion, you should have adressed my point, and then I should address your point and so on, all interested people contributing, until we reach an agreement. -Lumière 01:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Hipocrite, the same applies to the "controversial". This single word expresses a very strong opinion. Like any other viewpoint, it should be notable, verifiable and attributed. Your three cites might be enough for the verifiability requirement (it depends on the reputability of these sources). However, it does not address the notability requirement. Such a view must be notable: there must be prominent adherents. Also, the sentence does not mention who says that this organization is controversial: this view must be attributed. In other words, it is totally innapropriate to try to pass such a strong view just like that by inserting the word "controversial". --Lumière 03:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

What are you trying to achieve here?

Sorry for interrupting, but I think this subject serves as an excellent example that relates to foundational questions about NPOV itself. Meditation is a subjective experience that is inherently non-scientific, however, it is interesting to understand its "objective" effects from a scientific, empirical perspective.

What "truth" should this article present? will it be the subjective "truth" of the meditator, who is confident over the positive effects meditation has over their lives? or will it be the "truth" of the scientist, who is approaching the subject with empiricist methods?

The answer, as reflected from the article, is that the empiricist approach is predominantly more important. My question is: but isn't that bias toward positivism? yes, of course it is. This is the sort of problems NPOV cannot handle. A TM practitioner defines the subject differently from a scientist.

But what is the "correct" approach? answer: there is no "correct" approach. A scientist will never accept subjective experience as evidence, and a practitioner will not accept scientific research that trys to falsify their subjective experience. What you seem to be doing here is trying to synthetically "balance" Pro and Con positivist interpretations of scientific research on the subject.

As I told Larry Sanger, NPOV is "inherently wrong". You have been misled. Different viewpoints define the subject differently (even if only slightly, in some cases), there is no place for a real compromise. An attempt for a "forced" synthesis creates a result that may appeal to all sides, within the context of the debate, but may consequently distort the meaning of both sides. As I told Sanger, NPOV is process oriented, it seems to work because people are willing for a compromise, but they really shouldn't as the end result may incorrectly falsify both sides. --Anon84.x 15:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Anon84.x! I am glad to see you here! Just want to clarify one point. The side that relies the most on well established science here are the meditators. The research on the benefit of TM consider objective facts that can be measured. On the other hand, almost all research against TM are based on questionnaries in which meditators provide their subjective experiences. It just the other way around of what you thought. --Lumière 16:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops, but that doesn't really matter for my point (mentally switch it around if you want). My question is much more foundational. Why should science try to justify an experience that is inherently personal and subjective? Why is science an authority? why having a bias toward the positivist epistemology? why does people here seem to think science is "neutral"? (this is especially relevant to an inherently subjective experience like meditation) --Anon84.x 17:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

A clarification: I don't see a problem with having the article written from a scientific point of view, as long as it isn't called "neutral", because it really isn't "neutral", just reflects a common bias on what people find comfortable to accept within the context of the debate. Actually that may even sacrifice the quality and truth of the article. That's what I meant by "process oriented". --Anon84.x 18:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that focusing on objective science is a bias in itself. We only do that because, considering the amount of bullshit that can crop in when you restrict yourself to subjective experiences, we feel that it is a lesser harm. I know there is a lot of interesting subjective experiences that will be ignored in this way, but again it is a lesser harm. Actually, we can open the door to some subjectivity, but it must be correlated with some objective observations and the whole thing must be objectively verifiable. Right now, Dr. Otis "scientific" study is only based on the subjective experience of some meditators, for which he provided some personal explanations. My position is that we can include it, but only if there is a reputable publisher for it. --Lumière 18:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Forget meditation. Let's look at the whole wikipedia practice from a general perspective. What is the aim of this all? shouldn't an article reflect "truth"? what "truth" is achieved from showing a result that is comfortable for all sides on a debate? or a better question, is the truth always comfortable?. --Anon84.x 19:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

These are some very deep issues your raise Anon84x. I don't think they pertain to this article specifically, as you yourself said in your first entry for this section. Would you carry this discussion on elsewhere? Sethie 19:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

OK.. where do you recommend to move? --Anon84.x 19:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would love to see Sethie join us! Just to conclude here with your questions. Yes, an article should reflect truth. Yes, the compromise (which is not necessarily comfortable for either side) might not reflect truth. Instead, it can create a state of confusion. With regard to your last question, it depends if you mean a truth with a wide perspective or just a truth in some restricted perspective. This we can discuss elsewhere. -Lumière 19:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I meant "a" truth - restricted perspective. Maybe we'll move to my talk page, or you suggest another page? --Anon84.x 19:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Sethie, may we use your talk page? -Lumière 19:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope, though your or Anon84x's would serve nicely. Sethie 20:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I copied the whole dicussion to my talk page --Anon84.x 20:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

RfC

Quote the RfC:

The issue is how to apply the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy in the case of pro or non-pro scientific studies or scientific affirmations about the transcendental meditation technique, including assertions on the scientific methods used. See also Rfc in Religion and philosophy 19:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Please place comments below. - JustinWick 23:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV This article seems unduly negative. 90% of the article is criticism and controversy. Although all of the content within that section seems to be good stuff, is there anything that can be added to the sections above? Seems to be a lot of bickering about including or not including criticisms, but can people contribute content to the main article? (sorry, criticism is all I could provide, but it seems there are some adherents here, eh?) Obhaso 01:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I COMPLETLEY agree. I would love to see more content about TM included in the article. As a critic of TM I am more familiar with the criticisms, however, would love to see WELL-WRITTEN sourced info about the technique. Sethie 03:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Democracy and Peace Government Edits

hi, this is lkcl: i'm starting this section as requested according to the instructions at the top of this page. i just noticed that the statements made regarding Maharishi's "weekly discussions" in which the previous edit noted that he bashes democracy, were what i would call "interpretations". also, Maharishi realises, as any sensible person probably will admit, that democracies are pretty corrupt (especially in the US), and as a result he is advocating PARALLEL peace government, not REPLACEMENT for EXISTING govermnent. lkcl 01mar2006.

Procedure and theory

The TM organization emphasizes in its teaching that the procedure for using the mantra is very important, and can only be correctly learned from a trained teacher of TM (a useful analogy is to compare learning a foreign language from a book instead of from a teacher).

This needs more sourcing before it can be accepted for inclusion. The first question is what is a reputable source for the teaching of TM. Public lectures do not count as reputable sources. However, a video on the web or a CD that contain the equivalent of these introductory lectures would do. Let me work on this. Perhaps the analogy would have to change, but we might get a better one. If it is not public, then we cannot include it. I do not worry about it because the TM organization has plenty of other material that can be sourced. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 20:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I found this in http://www.tm.org/

The Transcendental Meditation technique must be learned personally from a certified teacher of the Transcendental Meditation program. The technique cannot be learned from a book, video or audio tape.

I am still looking for an analogy. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 21:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The following is from http://www.tm.org/discover/faq.html and also in Chapter 9 of Robert Roth's book.

Can I learn Transcendental Meditation from a book or a tape?

No. Each person is unique; each person has a different nervous system and therefore a different pace of learning. Ensuring that you learn the technique properly requires personal instruction from a qualified Transcendental Meditation teacher. Reading a book or listening to a tape cannot provide the experience of pure consciousness and the corresponding profound state of restful alertness; nor can a book anticipate or answer all of the questions, at the right time, that every person might have while learning the practice. With proper personal instruction, you can enjoy the technique for the rest of your life -- as well as all of the benefits it naturally unfolds.

This can be used to provide more details. I still did not find an analogy. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 21:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Murder at MUM.

A recent grisly murder at Maharishi University of Managementof a student by another student[8]. I don't know where to put it. It should be under controversies, but it is not clear where. Also, more references should be found. For example, the murderer was innocented under alieanation mental, and this is not mentioned in the provided reference. -Lumière

This appears to be an obvious attempt to discredit the TM organization by blaming a murder committed by a mentally unstable person on TM. Please remove this section as insinutaing that TM was the cause has absolutely no basis in fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.230.66.69 (talk • contribs)

I agree. There are definitively a few editors around here that think they should discredit the TM organization. For anyone that would like to help the TM side, here is the challenge. Insinuation from WP editors are not allowed. However, here they just report what The Observer says. They do not do directly the insinuation themselve. Just this isolated "contribution" does not seems to be a violation of any Wikipedia policy. However, the overall TM article as a whole seems to violate the WP:Neutral point of view policy (NPOV). This policy says that views in an article should be fairly represented in accordance with the prominence of each. The TM-ex and the skeptic view is just one view, and it should not be given undue weight in the article. The problem is that there is no objective criteria to evaluate the prominence of each view. Therefore, it is the opinion of the majority here that will decide. If we make a request for comments to have more opinions, people that come to visit the article will only have what is in the article to make a judgement. So, it is a vicious cycle.

Also, I have the feeling that the tendency at Wikipedia is more inclusionistic than exclusionistic: it is easier to argue for the inclusion of additional information than to argue for exclusion as a way to respect NPOV. However, the policy is clear that we can limit the space that is given to a view that is not the majority view. This exclusionistic approach is just not so easy to apply in practice. The inclusionistic approach is not ideal because we will have to include so much to obtain a good balance, and the article will be too long. Anyway, this is the situation as I see it right now.

Another thing that we can do is to go through the criticisms and make sure that every thing is attributed to their adherents, and we could explain who they are and from where they come from. In this way, it will make it clear that it is just the opinion of a minority. This is perfectly in accord with the NPOV policy. -Lumière 20:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The unsigned comment above, which Lumiere-Etincelle-Lumiere-Amrit agrees with, misrepresents what the TM article says about the brutal murder on the Maharishi University campus. The point made in the article is absolutely clear:

"The Observer said that the recent murder of a student by another student who stabbed his victim several times in the chest during dinner in the main dining room at Maharishi University of Management undermines the credibility of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and the idea of the Maharishi Effect."

The statement does not "blame the murder on TM," as the unsigned comment falsely claims. It says the murder undermines the credibility of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and his pseudoscientific claim that a high concentration of TMers bouncing on their butts in one geographical area will eliminate crime and violence. It's an absurd claim on its face that's only made more ridiculous when the facts are considered. Which is why the anonymous editor and Lumiere-Etincelle-Lumiere-Amrit want such disagreeable facts removed. Askolnick 22:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Maharishi personal Gods quote

In the past, this quote has been taken out, and edited, changing the "Gods" to "gods." I have found a refference and cited it, which has the exact quote in it. Sethie 20:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

JAMA article

I restored the statement about the JAMA article on TM deception that was altered by 68.9.101.244. The JAMA article did not comment on the cost effectiveness of the Maharishi Ayur-Veda "method." It commented on the cost effectiveness of the MAV high-priced products and services. One of the products cited -- which Deepak Chopra (who at the time was Maharishi's appointed "Lord of Immortality") was recommending to all TMers -- cost about $1000 per year or about 1/4th of the average per capita expenditure on health care for every person in the United States! Askolnick 00:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Maharishi's birth date

I have found many references on the web which state that his birth was October 18, 1911. I also recall seeing this in print many years ago. Is the 1917 date in the article more reliable? How do we know? - Abstrator

Merger of Spiritual Gen Movement

I say we delete it, it is currently a one line stub, and all the info in it is contained in the TM article Maybe in the future someone who will have more info about it will arrive.

Sethie 13:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)