Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 25: Difference between revisions
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 thread(s) from Talk:Transcendental Meditation. |
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 thread(s) from Talk:Transcendental Meditation. |
||
Line 192: | Line 192: | ||
:Highlighting the quote gives it undue weight. Also linking Ista-deva from the words personal gods is OR since the words Ista-deva are not mentioned.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Keithbob|<b style="color:#060;"><i>K</i>bob</b>]] • [[User_talk:Keithbob|<span style="color:#085;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 19:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC) |
:Highlighting the quote gives it undue weight. Also linking Ista-deva from the words personal gods is OR since the words Ista-deva are not mentioned.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Keithbob|<b style="color:#060;"><i>K</i>bob</b>]] • [[User_talk:Keithbob|<span style="color:#085;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 19:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
::Using blockquote format is appropriate under MOS, and the argument that to use blockquotes gives a passage "undue weight" is just silly. But, if it's that offensive to your sensiblities, I'm not going to make an issue of it. As to the internal reference, I suggest you reread the source. The source makes it abundantly clear, both by specific definitions, and by repeated use in context that the English phrase "personal Gods" is identical to "Ista-deva". That is not original research. It is not synthesis. I am frustrated when these terms get thrown around when they bear no rational relationship to what is being asserted by way of justification for removing relevant, reliably sourced information. It is what the source material says explicitly, and I'm restoring the internal link.[[User:Fladrif|Fladrif]] ([[User talk:Fladrif|talk]]) 20:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC) |
::Using blockquote format is appropriate under MOS, and the argument that to use blockquotes gives a passage "undue weight" is just silly. But, if it's that offensive to your sensiblities, I'm not going to make an issue of it. As to the internal reference, I suggest you reread the source. The source makes it abundantly clear, both by specific definitions, and by repeated use in context that the English phrase "personal Gods" is identical to "Ista-deva". That is not original research. It is not synthesis. I am frustrated when these terms get thrown around when they bear no rational relationship to what is being asserted by way of justification for removing relevant, reliably sourced information. It is what the source material says explicitly, and I'm restoring the internal link.[[User:Fladrif|Fladrif]] ([[User talk:Fladrif|talk]]) 20:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
== Proposed Additions to the Lede == |
|||
{{Resolved|}} |
|||
As you are all aware the purpose of the lead/lede in an article is to introduce and summarize the article as well as entice the reader to read further. At the present time our lede consists of only two sentences. A proper lede has 3-4 paragraphs and gives an encapsulation of the article topic/subject. For examples see these two recently featured articles here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc] and here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No%C3%ABl_Coward]. |
|||
Here is my proposed text for the lede: |
|||
*The Transcendental Meditation technique, or TM technique, is a form of mantra meditation introduced worldwide in 1957 by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (1917-2008). It is reported to be the most widely researched and one of the most widely practiced meditation techniques. It is taught in a standardized seven step course by certified teachers. The technique involves the use of a sound or mantra and is practiced, while sitting down, for 15-20 minutes twice per day. |
|||
*In 1957 the Maharishi began a series of world tours during which he introduced and taught his meditation technique to thousands of people. In 1959 the Maharishi founded the International Meditation Society and began to train teachers of Transcendental Meditation. During the late 1960’s through the mid 1970’s, the Transcendental Meditation technique received significant public attention in the USA, especially amongst the student population. During this period a million people learned the Transcendental Meditation technique including well known public figures. |
|||
*Scores of studies performed on the technique have been published in scientific journals. The Transcendental Mediation technique has also received criticism from some scientists as well as authors of books on new religious movements and cults. In addition the TM technique has been involved in two lawsuits. |
|||
Please give your comments, suggestions etc. on this proposed content on this page. If you would like to edit the proposed content please go to my sandbox here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keithbob/Sandbox] and make any additions or edits that you like. After we have finalized the content I will locate appropriate sources already listed in the article and cite them in the lede. Thanks for you help and participation. --<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Keithbob|<b style="color:#060;"><i>K</i>bob</b>]] • [[User_talk:Keithbob|<span style="color:#085;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 18:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Think it's good except for the 3rd paragraph. I do not feel we need the sentence on the law suits. --[[User:Bigweeboy|BwB]] ([[User talk:Bigweeboy|talk]]) 14:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Yes, [[User:Keithbob|<b style="color:#060;"><i>K</i>bob</b>]], we do need to put some new information into the lede. The paragraphs you list are a good starting place. I will make some changes in your sandbox. I like the stepwise process, with chances for changes before the new material is inserted. These things may go more smoothly if we do not rush it too much. Give other editors a chance to contribute. [[User:ChemistryProf|ChemistryProf]] ([[User talk:ChemistryProf|talk]]) 04:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Made some edits in your sandbox. [[User:ChemistryProf|ChemistryProf]] ([[User talk:ChemistryProf|talk]]) 04:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Me too. --[[User:Bigweeboy|BwB]] ([[User talk:Bigweeboy|talk]]) 18:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::Good edits, Anyone else have input or would like to make changes to the sandbox version here?[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keithbob/Sandbox]--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Keithbob|<b style="color:#060;"><i>K</i>bob</b>]] • [[User_talk:Keithbob|<span style="color:#085;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 18:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Made a few more edits. If there is a better way to keep up with the latest version than what I used, let me know. [[User:ChemistryProf|ChemistryProf]] ([[User talk:ChemistryProf|talk]]) 21:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
I have added the sentences from the lede from the last version in the sandbox. Editors may tweak as needed and if there are significant issues please start a new thread as I am closing this one now. Thanks for the cooperation and assistance.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Keithbob|<b style="color:#060;"><i>K</i>bob</b>]] • [[User_talk:Keithbob|<span style="color:#085;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 21:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== The Lede, 60's and 70's == |
|||
Also not sure why we are giving such prominence to the 60's and 70's in the lede? --[[User:Bigweeboy|BwB]] ([[User talk:Bigweeboy|talk]]) 20:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:The lede was written to reflect the emphasis in the article. Later if we expand the History section to include more info about the 80's and 90's than we can amend the lede to reflect these additions. But right now the 60's and 70's stand out.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Keithbob|<b style="color:#060;"><i>K</i>bob</b>]] • [[User_talk:Keithbob|<span style="color:#085;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 02:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::It's pretty obvious why the 60's and 70's are most prominent. After the collapse of TM as a mass-market product in the mid to late-70's, the TM Org became significantly more inward-focused, placing more emphasis on selling training "advanced" techniques and products such as TM-Sidhi, and yet more esoteric and controversial beliefs and practices about which the public and popular press is little aware. Since the editors with ties to the TM Org have succeeded over the years in pushing those aspects of TM off the pages of this article, insisting that this article needs to be about the "technique" only,(while simultaneously insisting that nothing that is not straight off the pages of "official" publications about the technique must be deleted) that doesn't leave much to say about TM in the late 70's onward, does it?[[User:Fladrif|Fladrif]] ([[User talk:Fladrif|talk]]) 16:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:36, 16 September 2009
This is an archive of past discussions about Transcendental Meditation. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
David Orme-Johnson
Interesting to see that Will Beback feels that D.W. Orme-Johnson warrant his own Wiki page. It is linked to from this page. --BwB (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- He has been perhaps the main researcher on TM-related issues, and has often been quoted in the mainstream media about the topic. Will Beback talk 23:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, Orme Johnson is widely cited in regard to TM research.-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
New sentence lede-Footnote Fix
Kbob. The new sentence you added has been added as part of the ref. Seems the sentence was supposed to be in the actual lede or am I wrong on that.(olive (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC))
- I never make mistakes :-) but just in case I will check now-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- No, me neither, never, absolutely not.(olive (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC))
- I had some problems initially when I added the refs but now it seems OK. If you see mistake please fix it. Thanks,-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Resolved Template
I am going to start using the Resolved template on the talk page. Its a helpful tool any editor can add or delete to a talk page. For more info see here. [1]-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes this can tell new editors hitting the talk page what items have been resolved - a useful tool. --BwB (talk) 23:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Third and Fourth Sentences in the Lede
This thread is getting long and so I have created a subsection so we can move the discussion forward without confusion.-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- If the lede is going to mention the ownership of the servicemarks then the body of the article should go into greater detail about it. However it's now the opposite - there's nothing in the article about it all. Further, it makes an assertion about the ultimate ownership of the trademarks that isn't contained in the source. It's not clear why this is so important that it need sto be in the. Neither the Maharishi Foundation nor the MVEDC have articles, so it's not really informative at all. I suggest moving the entire sentence to somewhere in the body of the article (and finding a better source). Will Beback talk 04:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Good points Will Beback. I was wondering about that myself. We'll have to find a better place for these points, if they are needed at all, and if we keep them, a better reference. Do others agree? ChemistryProf (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Wills suggestion to move the trademark info to another place. --BwB (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that we move both of these sentences out of the lede and into the body of the article for the reasons Will has stated. Neither of them are developed as topics or subtopics in the article and are therefore out of place in the lede. Also, neither of them cites a significant 2nd party source. Wiki guidelines state:
- The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should be established in the first sentence of the lead, if possible." -- — Kbob • Talk • 20:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've moved the "servicemark" materil to the "Teaching procedure" section, where it follows logically. Will Beback talk 21:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- I moved the sentence regarding the 2006 report that TM is one of 60 related products and services, to the History section. Since this has been proposed previously [2] and there were no objections to removing the sentence from the lede.-- — Kbob • Talk • 01:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, Will, this seems to be the right place for the servicemark material. KBob, the information that many other techniques or procedures are offered by the same organizations that offer the TM technique may belong somewhere in the article, but I still feel uneasy about the reference. It is information from one teacher quoted in a newspaper. Anyone who has ever been interviewed by a reporter knows how frequently mistakes are made. I suggest we keep on the lookout for a more reliable source for this point. ChemistryProf (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes agreed, let's look for a better source.-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Fenwick, Source Needed
The following sentence, currently in the article, has no reliable source at the present time. I have searched the book cited using the search words "transcendental meditation" and also "EEG". Neither search yields any copy relevant to the statement below. Can we find a source for this? If not, it may need to be removed from the article.
- "Peter Fenwick has pointed out that Transcendental Meditation researchers have documented the phenomenon of EEG coherence during meditation and that EEG coherence is also a byproduct of epileptic seizures, comas, and death."[1]
- I remember seeing somewhere recently research showing a number of positive characteristics related to EEG coherence. I’ll try to find that reference. In any case, if this current sentence is not backed up by a reliable reference, then it does not belong in the article. ChemistryProf (talk) 02:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
This text is currently in the article, right after the Fenwick sentence:
- Studies show that TM reduces the number of seizures in epileptic patients and normalizes their EEG. An experimental study that was done on the Transcendental Meditation technique and epilepsy found that the epileptic patients initially had abnormally low levels of 5-HIAA in the cerebral spinal fluid, which then increased to normal levels after several months of practice of the Transcendental Meditation technique. This correlated with clinical improvements in these patients.[2]-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- I did find some scientific papers supporting the importance of high EEG coherence in execution of the higher functions of the brain. Here is just one example: Neuroimage. 2007 May 15;36(1):232-44. Epub 2007 Feb 27. "Human cortical circuits for central executive function emerge by theta phase synchronization." Mizuhara H, Yamaguchi Y. I vote for dropping both the Fenwick sentence and the related ones that follow it. ChemistryProf (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, ChemistryProf, for finding that. I agree that Fenwick should be dropped unless it's in the context of a fuller discussion of the EEG research. I'd like to retain the following citation to research by Subrahmanyam, since it's relevant to the Persinger paragraph, in which he suggests that TM causes epilepsy. TimidGuy (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the following un-sourced sentence from the article, per the above discussion. If a reliable source is found. We can add it back in.
- Peter Fenwick has pointed out that Transcendental Meditation researchers have documented the phenomenon of EEG coherence during meditation and that EEG coherence is also a byproduct of epileptic seizures, comas, and death.[3]-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Good work. --BwB (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with this decision and also with the comment of TimidGuy above. ChemistryProf (talk) 03:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
It is found in Rational Mysticism: Dispatches from the Border Between Science and Spirituality John Horgan, the book that it is linked to. P 116 Mozart's Left Ankle (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out the exact page of this book, Mozart. And welcome to the discussion page. --BwB (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
In case anyone cares, the only research that shows "coherence" of brainwaves that I've heard of has been done by MUM-affiliated scientists or students. I find it scientifically unacceptable due to COI (a replication by objective researchers would be needed to confirm).
During Dr. Glueck's study back in 1973 we found evidence that Alpha brainwaves are always exactly synchronized all over the skull. This might seem amazing, but the explanation is really quite simple. There is a group of cells, centrally located in or below the lower brain, that generates the Alpha frequency signal. This signal is conducted electrically by the large blood vessels in the brain prior to being picked up by electrodes attached to the scalp.
Indeed, for this reason there is no way that the Alpha signal can ever be unsynchronized. When the eyes are open, the large signals from optic processing drown out the Alpha signal, producing comparatively random activity that looks like desynchronization, due to the optic processing signals being so much higher in amplitude (much more of the brain is devoted to visual perception than to generating the Alpha signal).
So, mathematically, one can say that synchronization happens when the eyes are closed and disappears when the eyes are open, but true synchronization of functioning of separated areas of the brain has certainly not been demonstrated.
If one wanted to research this, EEG equipment is inadequate. Direct visualization of the electrical activity of the brain is required. This is possible with much more expensive (and much less common) laboratory equipment.
In any case, the effects on the brain of TM show no significant features in common with "epileptic seizures, comas, and death" (Alpha waves are not a significant feature). Confirm with any EEG researcher. If they did, one might expect these conditions to appear more often in TM meditators than in the general population. Trust me, that would be noticed!
Unfortunately, this information cannot be added to the article due to OR. But it might help make the discussion here more informed. David spector (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- From what I understand, brainwave coherence is now a phenomenon generally studied among neuroscientists, not just TM researchers. It's also turning out to be of interest to those in the new field of quantum applications to neurological phenomena. Some recent TM research has focused on broadband frontal coherence, not alpha coherence. This phenomenon is associated with reduced anxiety, emotional stability and other positive outcomes. As you say, there's no evidence that there's a causal relationship between epileptic seizures, comas, and death. Since no one here seems to have the time or the interest currently to put this statement found in Horgan's book in the larger context of EEG research on TM, then the consensus here seems to be that it can be deleted for now. But since it comes up occasionally, I think that we'll eventually need to include an EEG section in the article. TimidGuy (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
See Also
Not sure why we need this section. Is KSCI so important to the article? --BwB (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's not so important. That's why it's merely a "see also". Is there a problem with it? Will Beback talk 17:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Not important, but merits a section to itself? --BwB (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- You can add other items to it. Will Beback talk 21:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
No I do not want to add items to it. In fact, I want to take out the "See Also" section as we do not need a link of this weight to KSCI. We have all agreed that KSCI is not very relevant, so why do we need a link to it? What do others think? --BwB (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why it's bothering you so much. Is it harming the article? How much weight does a one-word link have? Will Beback talk 20:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I wonder why you are defending it so strongly? There was not much fuss about taking the KSCI stuff of the TM page. --BwB (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- Its not a big deal but not sure we need a See Also section just to list the Wiki KSCI article which only has about 1-2 sentences that relate to TM. Do we really think that the reader is going to get some additional insight into the topic of TM by reading the Wiki KSCI article?-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- Let's add more items to the section and then it won't look so lonely, or like we're giving it special attention. Will Beback talk 21:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it was looking lonely there all by itself. Perhaps we can talk about what items to add before they are added. And we can always take out the KSCI item later. --BwB (talk) 23:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- "See also" sections are typically used for items that are connected, but which are not mentioned in the text for one reason or another. I can't recall seeing such a big deal made about it in any other article. Will Beback talk 00:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)]]
- A See Also section is an acceptable part of any article. Suggested guidelines for its proper use can be found here. WP:SEEALSO -- — Kbob • Talk • 02:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
The WP:SEEALSO policy reads: "However, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. " I am not at all objecting to the inclusion of a See Also section. Rather that the KSCI topic need not be there. As Kbob points out, the KSCI article "only has about 1-2 sentences that relate to TM". Since KSCI is of little relevance to the TM article, "common sense" might suggest that this link does not belong in the See Also section. Sorry if I seemed to be trying to ram this point home, WIll, or seemed too aggressive with my arguments. --BwB (talk) 10:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
In fact, reading the KSCI article again I see the reference is to the fact that KSCI was owned by the "Transcendental Meditation movement", not about TM at all. Perhaps this link is really not necessary? --BwB (talk) 10:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- BWB is being a bit persnickety, but at the same time he has a point. Here are 28 Wiki articles that have 1-2 sentences or more on TM. Should all of these be on the list? For example: Clint Eastwood, Deepak Chopra, Beatles, Ringo Starr, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, John Lennon, Leon McClaren, Doug Henning, David Lynch, Merv Griffin, Donovan, Natural Law Party, MUM, David Lynch Foundation, TM-Sidhi, Maharishi Ayurveda, David Orme-Johnson, Herbert Benson, Mike Love, Beach Boys, John Hagelin, William Scranton, Andy Kaufman, Global Country, Fairfield Iowa, Jane Fonda, Jerry Seinfeld.-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for being persnickety. Hope it's not a Wiki crime! --BwB (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oh no, persnickety is fine, its perwickity you have to watch out for.(olive (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC))
- I just noticed this discussion. I'm glad someone is persnickety. The talk here has clarified the appropriateness of a See Also section for any article. I vote to insert a handful of the links to other articles that Kbob listed. Actually inserting all of them is justified, because each of these links allows a new reader to learn a great deal about the topic that is not covered anywhere else in the article. This is what a See Also section is meant to do, isn't it? ChemistryProf (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this is what a See Also section if for, Chem - but I still do not think the KSCI link needs to be here because your observation that "a new reader to learn a great deal about the topic" will not be correct since the KSCI article does not provide more information about the TM technique. --BwB (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- The guidelines for see also say that we shouldn't list topics that already have a link in the article. So that will eliminate some of them from contention. Furthermore we should think what is really going to be of value to the reader who wants to know more about TM. So do we need a link to Andy Kaufman or KSCI if there is only 1-2 sentences in the article that reference TM? That's the question that the persnickety BWB and I are putting forth for consideration.-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Does that mean, Kbob, that we need to go through all of them to select ones that are deemed meaningful? If so, how do we agree on what constitutes meaningful? I can see where the KSCI link has a low level of relevance. I'm sure some of the others do as well, but how do we decide? That is the issue. If that can be worked out satisfactorily, then I vote to go ahead and put in everything deemed meaningful for this article. I certainly do not agree that it makes sense to leave KSCI alone. ChemistryProf (talk) 05:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Is there an easy way to tell which of the 28 WP articles having at least 1-2 sentences on TM has already been linked in the TM article? If say half are already linked, then perhaps we could feel justified in linking the remainder. If only a few are linked, then we might want to determine some criteria for selecting others to link in this section. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think if someone was go thru and eliminate all the articles that are already linked in the the article AND eliminate those with only a brief mention of TM (like KSCI) then we would have a small list of 4 or 5 topics that would really deserve to be in the See Also section. Does anyone want to do that?-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Lazarus
I'm just looking at the Lazarus paper. This is a two-page paper that exclusively contains anecdotal case reports. Per WP:MEDRS: "Case reports, whether in the popular press or a peer-reviewed medical journal, are a form of anecdote and generally fall below the minimum requirements of reliable medical sources." It's not a scientific study. There's no literature review, no research design, no methodology, no data, no analysis of data. TimidGuy (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- First, I disagree. Second, you have been directed by multiple administrators at COIN over the course of multiple discussions that you are not to directly edit any of the TM-related articles other than for removal of vandalism, but are to confine your participation to the talk pages only. Do I take it that it is your intention to ignore those directives?Fladrif (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Before reliably sourced is used to support included content , that is even considered, the content should have some threshold for inclusion. If the Lazarus study falls below the Wikipedia threshold for inclusion then whether it reliably sourced or not would be a moot point.(olive (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC))
- Fladrif. TG has not been blocked or banned ever nor had arbitration deemed it necessary to limit his editing anywhere. Your constant pressing of the COI issue borders on, or is outright harassment, and disrupts editing here. I suggest you deal with the editing and not the editors(olive (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)).
- The Lazarus paper is not a case report, and the citation of WP:MEDRS on use of a case report dealing with a single patient is inapplicable. Lazarus meets the requirements of WP:MEDRS. The summary deletion of reliably-sourced paragraphs without discussion by an editor repeatedly found to be in violiation of WP:COI is what is disrupting editing, not my pointing it out. Fladrif (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- If an article contains multiple anecdotal cases rather than only one, it is still considered a case report. ChemistryProf (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. I just looked at a copy of the discussed Lazarus article. It is actually far less than a typical case study, which routinely describes the medical history and pathophysiology in some detail. This report was more of a transient anecdotal report of several different subjects, most of whom were neither observed by the author nor were they practitioners of TM. There are several hundred peer reviewed designed science studies published on TM in the literature. Before publications of far lesser quality (as defined by WP:RS) are included here, many, many more of the higher quality studies will need to be included and discussed first (and this should occur in any case). I will be reverting back the inclusion of Lazarus. I suggest any editors with a different opinion regarding this "report" should carefully read it first, before further discussing or editing this section.Duedilly (talk) 03:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Beacon Light
BWB's deletion is entirely inconsistent with the discussion at RSNB (which he mistakenly referenced as COIN). The uninvolved administrators concurred that it is a reliable source, primary source. As a primary source, it is an appropriate use to include a short quote consistent with information in separate, secondary sources. In this case, the quote supports both (i) the "scientific" basis for the selection of mantra based on their particular sounds as well as (ii) that the mantras are the names of various gods, each points made in the secondary sources as well. Thus, the deletion is entirely improper, and I have reverted it. Fladrif (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes I made an error in referring of the WP:COIN discussion instead of the WP:RSN. But in reading the comments on the RSNB again, it seem that Fladrif is the only one support its use, whereas we have everyone else feeing that it should not be used. As I never been involved in a RSNB issue before, perhaps some experience editor could inform us as to how to take the appropriate action from the discussion board to the article. It seems that if more editors have a particular view that this should be abided by all editors. Until further discussion and clarification on the RSNB policy, I am re-reverting Fladrif's revert. --BwB (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- You're reaction when you're not sure what to do is to revert? You really think that's the way to go in that situation? I don't think so. You're comment suggests that you did not carefully read, or you did not understandwhat the independent, uninvolved editors wrote at RSNB on this question. Reread it. Fladrif (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- As I said in the above comment, Flad, I have asked for other opinions and that is what we are getting. --BwB (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Fladrif. BWB's interpretation is as valid as yours.
- BWB . The notice boards are meant to give outside opinion but they are in no way binding on the editors working on the article. I think it was was fine for you to remove the content given you understood that there was an agreement about the content. Now since there seems to be some disagreement as to interpretation we could bring this back to discussion. I am in no way convinced that Fladrif's interpretation of the comments by the two uninvolved editors supports inclusion of the text we have in the article. I think we need some discussion and a request for agreement on this (olive (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC))
- I did not mean to imply that Flad's interpretation is invalid. It just seemed that the discussion seemed to be leaning towards not including source, so I thought it legit to take it out. I am very happy to continue discussing it until there is resolution and/or consensus. --BwB (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oh no I didn't take your comment that way at all. I think your reasoning was perfectly understandable.(olive (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC))
lede and date
What the source says:
In 1957 His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi began to offer to the world....In that year he introduced the simple, natural , and universal technique of Transcendental Meditation.
Bevan Morris. Forward. The Science of Being and Art of Living. By Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. New York, Penguin,1963.
- The MMY article, however, has long stated, with references, that he began teaching TM in India in 1955, not 1957. All of the Obits say that he began teaching TM in 1955 as well.[4][5] So do other news sources [6] and books.[7][8][9] [10][11] I can't imagine why this would be at all controversial.Fladrif (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Also, let me point out (and this is relevant to the discussion above as well), even a paper published by MUM in JMSVS say that MMY began teaching TM in India in 1955, and specifically identifies the speeches at Kerala (i.e. the ones contained in "Beacon Light" as the teaching of TM. This message is characteristic of all the years Maharishi has been teaching his Transcendental Meditation throughout the world,from the very first lectures he delivered in Trivandrum in Kerala, India, in 1955. [12] Many other "official" TM Org sites also identify 1955 as the correct date of the beginning of TM. Fladrif (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Faldrif you are conflating Maharishi's teaching and philosophy with a technique. The technique, specifically the technique, is not cited in TM organization literature that I've ever seen at least as having being taught in 1955, nor is the technique the Mahrishi's master used necessarily TM in fact it probably wasn't since TM was adapted for householders which Maharishi's master was not. The quote above is taken out of context. In context Bevam Morris is referring to Maharishi's concern with World peace a concern that was evident in his very first lectures. Its critical to understanding, that Maharishi lectured on a philosophical position and then supported that position with a practical technique. When he stabilized the technique as it is taught today is unclear. If you insist on including this in the lede, and yes it is controversial, please use the source that specifically says he taught the technique in 1955. I'm not convinced the lede is a place for controversial information, though. The two sources in place now do not support the date 1955. I realize you are attempting to legitimatize Beacon Light by adding information in several articles. (olive (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC))
- I have to support Olive's assertion here. These text do not say that MMY began teaching TM in 1955. And I too have noticed that Flad has been placing references and text in several articles from BL. However, before we decide whether or not to include BL as a source in this article, it will have to be discussed further on the WP:RSN page. --BwB (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- No, I'm not. The sources I cited above specifically state that MMY began teaching TM in 1955. And Bevan's statement, which is yet another source, is not taken out of context at all. If you want to argue that the technique he was teaching in 1955 wasn't TM, I expect you to provide independent, verifiable, reliable sources that say so. I made that challenge to KBob, above, when he tried to raise this same issue earlier, but he produced no source whatsoever. Fladrif (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have to support Olive's assertion here. These text do not say that MMY began teaching TM in 1955. And I too have noticed that Flad has been placing references and text in several articles from BL. However, before we decide whether or not to include BL as a source in this article, it will have to be discussed further on the WP:RSN page. --BwB (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Faldrif you are conflating Maharishi's teaching and philosophy with a technique. The technique, specifically the technique, is not cited in TM organization literature that I've ever seen at least as having being taught in 1955, nor is the technique the Mahrishi's master used necessarily TM in fact it probably wasn't since TM was adapted for householders which Maharishi's master was not. The quote above is taken out of context. In context Bevam Morris is referring to Maharishi's concern with World peace a concern that was evident in his very first lectures. Its critical to understanding, that Maharishi lectured on a philosophical position and then supported that position with a practical technique. When he stabilized the technique as it is taught today is unclear. If you insist on including this in the lede, and yes it is controversial, please use the source that specifically says he taught the technique in 1955. I'm not convinced the lede is a place for controversial information, though. The two sources in place now do not support the date 1955. I realize you are attempting to legitimatize Beacon Light by adding information in several articles. (olive (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC))
- As I said, we should use the source that specifically says this was the TM technique. The sources in place now do not say that. The onus is not an editor to prove that something that isn't there, isn't there. The onus is on the editor adding information to make sure the source supports the content added. The authoritative text on this discussion would be the TM organization I would think, and as I said I have not yet seen a place where they say specifically that in 1955 or in Beacon Light Maharishi references TM or began teaching the TM technique. Because of that I do consider this a controversial addition. In actuality Morris is talking about Maharishi's concern with Peace rather than teaching the technique itself.(olive (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC))
- While you've quibbled with whether or not Bevan's article supports the 1955 date, and with whether or not what MMY was teaching in 1955 was TM, arguments that I find singularly unpersuasive, and for which you have offered no support whatsoever, you can hardly contest that the AP Obit which was reprinted around the world, the 1995 SF Gate article, and Partrige's book all say unequivocally, and without any room for quibbling - even by you - that the Maharishi began teaching TM in 1955. Now, those are all reliable sources. And, as I'm sure you are aware, there are many other reliable sources that say exactly the same thing. Books[13], magazine articles, encyclopedias [14][15], And, I am not familar with any TM official site or publication which contradicts that in any way, they simply say that in 1957 he announced the "Spiritual Regeneration Movement" in Madras, to take TM to a world-wide audience. They don't say anything that contradicts any of the reliable sources that say that he had already been teaching the TM technique in India since 1955. Now, given that, I do not see how this is "controversial" at all, and since you've questioned my motives, I've certainly got to wonder what your's are. Perhaps there is truth in the claims that the TM Org has busily supressed "Beacon Light" for the past 40 years because it contradicts much of what the TM Org claims about TM. But, cutting through all that, do I understand your last comment to indicate that you do not contest and have no objection to the inclusion of the 1955 date so long as we reference the AP Obit, the SFGate article and Partridge? Fladrif (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- As I said, we should use the source that specifically says this was the TM technique. The sources in place now do not say that. The onus is not an editor to prove that something that isn't there, isn't there. The onus is on the editor adding information to make sure the source supports the content added. The authoritative text on this discussion would be the TM organization I would think, and as I said I have not yet seen a place where they say specifically that in 1955 or in Beacon Light Maharishi references TM or began teaching the TM technique. Because of that I do consider this a controversial addition. In actuality Morris is talking about Maharishi's concern with Peace rather than teaching the technique itself.(olive (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC))
I said above, use a source that supports the date you want in the article... the ones that were in place didn't. I like accuracy and Morris's comment doesn't say what you say it does. I am never trying to persuade anyone. I am working with policy as I understand it and am attempting to explain my position rather than convince.
what we have now is a situation where you have in place sources that support 1957.. I assume. I haven't looked at them.... The TM sites just don't say that this was the date... and that's the authoritative source and in such a case can be cited. They don't have to contest the date why would they. My secondary concern is that yes indeed this is contentious because the authoritative source does not use the 1955 date but the 1957 date, and other secondary sources use the 1955 date. In such a case both sides should be presented so the reader has complete information, but that shouldn't happen in the lede. Its a dilemma and I'm not sure how it could or should be handled.(olive (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)) ... and thanks for adding those sources. Appreciated. (olive (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC))
Link to Iṣṭa-deva(tā)
I am not sure why this link has been placed on the words personal Gods in the "Principles of the Technique" section.
Also wondering why this particular quote has to be highlighted. Are we not still discussing the use of BL as a reliable source WP:RSN? --BwB (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Highlighting the quote gives it undue weight. Also linking Ista-deva from the words personal gods is OR since the words Ista-deva are not mentioned.-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Using blockquote format is appropriate under MOS, and the argument that to use blockquotes gives a passage "undue weight" is just silly. But, if it's that offensive to your sensiblities, I'm not going to make an issue of it. As to the internal reference, I suggest you reread the source. The source makes it abundantly clear, both by specific definitions, and by repeated use in context that the English phrase "personal Gods" is identical to "Ista-deva". That is not original research. It is not synthesis. I am frustrated when these terms get thrown around when they bear no rational relationship to what is being asserted by way of justification for removing relevant, reliably sourced information. It is what the source material says explicitly, and I'm restoring the internal link.Fladrif (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Proposed Additions to the Lede
As you are all aware the purpose of the lead/lede in an article is to introduce and summarize the article as well as entice the reader to read further. At the present time our lede consists of only two sentences. A proper lede has 3-4 paragraphs and gives an encapsulation of the article topic/subject. For examples see these two recently featured articles here [3] and here [4].
Here is my proposed text for the lede:
- The Transcendental Meditation technique, or TM technique, is a form of mantra meditation introduced worldwide in 1957 by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (1917-2008). It is reported to be the most widely researched and one of the most widely practiced meditation techniques. It is taught in a standardized seven step course by certified teachers. The technique involves the use of a sound or mantra and is practiced, while sitting down, for 15-20 minutes twice per day.
- In 1957 the Maharishi began a series of world tours during which he introduced and taught his meditation technique to thousands of people. In 1959 the Maharishi founded the International Meditation Society and began to train teachers of Transcendental Meditation. During the late 1960’s through the mid 1970’s, the Transcendental Meditation technique received significant public attention in the USA, especially amongst the student population. During this period a million people learned the Transcendental Meditation technique including well known public figures.
- Scores of studies performed on the technique have been published in scientific journals. The Transcendental Mediation technique has also received criticism from some scientists as well as authors of books on new religious movements and cults. In addition the TM technique has been involved in two lawsuits.
Please give your comments, suggestions etc. on this proposed content on this page. If you would like to edit the proposed content please go to my sandbox here [5] and make any additions or edits that you like. After we have finalized the content I will locate appropriate sources already listed in the article and cite them in the lede. Thanks for you help and participation. -- — Kbob • Talk • 18:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Think it's good except for the 3rd paragraph. I do not feel we need the sentence on the law suits. --BwB (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, Kbob, we do need to put some new information into the lede. The paragraphs you list are a good starting place. I will make some changes in your sandbox. I like the stepwise process, with chances for changes before the new material is inserted. These things may go more smoothly if we do not rush it too much. Give other editors a chance to contribute. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Made some edits in your sandbox. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Me too. --BwB (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Good edits, Anyone else have input or would like to make changes to the sandbox version here?[6]-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Made a few more edits. If there is a better way to keep up with the latest version than what I used, let me know. ChemistryProf (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I have added the sentences from the lede from the last version in the sandbox. Editors may tweak as needed and if there are significant issues please start a new thread as I am closing this one now. Thanks for the cooperation and assistance.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
The Lede, 60's and 70's
Also not sure why we are giving such prominence to the 60's and 70's in the lede? --BwB (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- The lede was written to reflect the emphasis in the article. Later if we expand the History section to include more info about the 80's and 90's than we can amend the lede to reflect these additions. But right now the 60's and 70's stand out.-- — Kbob • Talk • 02:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's pretty obvious why the 60's and 70's are most prominent. After the collapse of TM as a mass-market product in the mid to late-70's, the TM Org became significantly more inward-focused, placing more emphasis on selling training "advanced" techniques and products such as TM-Sidhi, and yet more esoteric and controversial beliefs and practices about which the public and popular press is little aware. Since the editors with ties to the TM Org have succeeded over the years in pushing those aspects of TM off the pages of this article, insisting that this article needs to be about the "technique" only,(while simultaneously insisting that nothing that is not straight off the pages of "official" publications about the technique must be deleted) that doesn't leave much to say about TM in the late 70's onward, does it?Fladrif (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- ^ [7]
- ^ Subrahmanyam S, Potkodi D. Neurohumoral correlates of transcendental meditation. Journal of Biomed 1980;1:73-88
- ^ [8]
- ^ AP Obit
- ^ [9]
- ^ SF Gate article
- ^ [10]
- ^ [11]
- ^ [12]
- ^ [13]
- ^ [14]
- ^ [http://www.mum.edu/pdf/msvs/v05/morris.pdf Morris, Bevan "Maharishi’s Vedic Science and Technology: The Only Means to Create World Peace", Journal of Modern Science and Vedic Science Volume 5, Numbers 1–2, 1992 p 200 ]
- ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=DyWt1YaGW3sC&pg=PA37&dq=maharishi+1955&lr=#v=onepage&q=maharishi%201955&f=false
- ^ [15]
- ^ [16]