Talk:Transcendental Meditation movement

Poor research, again

• Other sources assert that TM is not a religion, but a meditation technique; and they hold that the TM movement is a spiritual organization, and not a religion or a cult.
  • "It’s not a religion- The Transcendental Meditation technique is a simple, natural technique practiced by millions of people of all religions, including clergy. They report that practicing the Transcendental Meditation technique does not require or involve faith or any particular set of beliefs." My Dogma ran over your Karma by Roger LeBlanc p. 131, 2007 [6]

This is the second time this source has been added incorrectly. Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 27# Roger LeBlanc. Since editors are so eager to use this source shall we add what the author himself says about TM? "No, it's not a lifestyle. It's an eternity style because it'a a portal to hell."   Will Beback  talk  22:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to leave this text here for now. The Leblanc source should be removed as a source for some of the content that was added, and I'd like to both check the other sources and the corresponding wording in the article before readding whatever is left once we find the appropriate reliable sources for the text. This will take awhile and I'm not sure what will be left so just moving the whole thing here. If there's disagreement for that please revert me.(olive (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC))

Other sources assert that TM is not a religion, but a meditation technique; and they hold that the TM movement is a spiritual organization, and not a religion or a cult.Participation in TM programs at any level does not require one to hold or deny any specific religious beliefs; TM is practiced by people of many diverse religious affiliations, as well as atheists and agnostics.

There doesn't seem to be too much in these sources to support the statements we have in place now, so I'd recommend removing the content permanently. If I've missed something, please let me know.(olive (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC))

Olive, this is the peremptory removal of sourced material, an issue which was specifically addressed in the ArbCom case. Please revert your deletion while we're discussing this.   Will Beback  talk  02:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to revert, but this content is not sourced in those sources... Therefore there is no removal of reliably sourced content... Its not sourced. I assume your understanding is different than mine on this. No worries. Your call.(olive (talk) 02:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC))

Please explain your problem with the text. As for Leblanc, if it's a reliable and noteworthy source, as Keithbob obviously believe, then let's include a proper summary of his view.

As for the rest of the text, what was there before Keithbob's edit seems reasonable, though it needed sources:

• Advocates for the Transcendental Meditation technique and other teachings of the TM movement assert that TM is not a religion, but a meditation technique; and they hold that the TM movement is a spiritual organization, but not a religious one. Participation in TM programs at any level does not require one to hold or deny any specific religious beliefs; TM is practiced by people of many diverse religious affiliations, as well as atheists and agnostics.

Instead of deleting the material outright maybe a revert would be a more conservative option?   Will Beback  talk  09:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I clearly didn't say I had a problem with the text, I said the content was not sourced, and removed the text to see if I could save any of it per the sources. There's lots of ways to skin a cat and moving text here that is not properly sourced while saying that yes we need this kind if content is one way of doing it. In fact I had looked at Chryssides who makes some statements about TM movement and religion, and we could also use the definitive comment, attributed inline, if there is one, which I haven't seen so far, from the TM organization. This article is TM movement not TM, so sources have to be explicitly about TM movement.

The source, at least as far as I've looked at it, is facetious, and highly pejorative. I'm not sure that's clear to everyone. It took me a bit to realize what Leblance was doing. Well meaning editors make mistakes.

This statement seems oddly retaliatory, "Since editors are so eager to use this source shall we add what the author himself says about TM? "No, it's not a lifestyle. It's an eternity style because it'a a portal to hell." since it takes such an extreme and pejorative view." I assume good faith and hope that's not what was meant.

Kbob of course was using the text as if non facetious, to add a non pejorative perspective. Whether we need more of the same in the article body is open for discussion.

Suggesting a revert is appropriate which takes text and in essence hides it seems at odds with transparent practice, while clearly indicating the source and text parallel is not accurate, and moving it to a talk page where it is very visible and where all editors can work on it seems a more transparent way to deal with the situation. But as I said lots of ways of doing things.(olive (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC))

Since Keithbob is not responding to the inquiries we can't say why he would have added the same poor source twice. Nor can we say why he'd misinterpret it twice. But anyone who makes that many inexplicable mistakes is doning something wrong tand the "innocent mistake" excuse only goes so far whn it comes to behaviors that are specifically addressed on the ArbCom case.

I again suggest reverting back to the uncontroversial text that was there before Keithbob's faulty edit. If there's a desire to edit the text we'd better start with a good foundation.   Will Beback  talk  19:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with reverting if that's the way you want to deal with it. Please feel free, or perhaps Kbob will. We have the text here as well, and we can work on that here, or just start over. As for Kbob, we have no clue what his real life commitments are so when he comments is up to his schedule not ours, seems to me.. :O)(olive (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC))

Edit-and-run isn't a good strategy, especially when the edits are of poor quality. I'll revert the edit. If someone wants to propose changes to the text then let's disuss it here.   Will Beback  talk  22:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Keithbob is back to editing but still hasn't come here to explain why he's repeatedly misrepresented this source. I'd also like to hear whether he believes it is a reliable source, since they express an opinion on TM not otherwise discussed in the article.   Will Beback  talk  22:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Keithbob didn't show up because he has seen in this, and other Talk Page threads, that Will BeBack appears to be more interested in persecuting an editor for an innocent misreading of a source that the editor added to support existing text, instead than [of] making a simple and undisputed correction and moving on.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

If Keithbob is intentionally ducking discussions of his edits then that's a factor to consider in the future. If he'd prefer that his edits be reverted rather than discussed that can happen. The ArbCom did admonish editors about the misuse of sources, and I'm sorry if Keithbob does not take that admonishment seriously.   Will Beback  talk  20:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a perfect illustration of my point.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Inaccurate representation of a source in “Characterization as a cult, sect, or religion”

In looking at the above mentioned section I came across this sentence: The Times of London reported in 2005 that over the years the TM movement has "had to weather allegations of being a cult". I checked the article and realized that while the sentence does exist, its extrapolation and isolated use in Wikipedia is not an accurate representation of what the article states. The paragraph in fact says: Though the TM movement, which claims to have taught six million people worldwide, has over the years had to weather allegations of being a cult, today meditation, in all its many forms, has become as acceptable as yoga and herbal medicine. There is one particularly non-spiritual reason for this: medical science. While claims about its benefits were for a long time purely anecdotal, clinical research is providing evidence that meditation has real health benefits for those who practise.

I am not against using this source, but I would like to be represented correctly. I can think of two possibilities, we can either rewrite the quote to make sure it reflects the original source or we eliminate the source altogether. I am also asking for suggestions from other editors.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Luke - please post your rewrite proposal here and we can review it. --BwB (talk) 09:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI, Kethbob added the original material, saying, "add text and sources"[7]

• The London Times reported in 2005 that over the years the TM movement has "had to weather allegations of being a cult" and become as "acceptable as yoga and herbal medicine". London Times, A Peace of His Mind, Sharon Krum, Sept 3 2005

I deleted the part that wasn't relevant to the section ("Characterization as a cult, sect, or religion"), saying "summarize material moved from TMT article, rm comment about meditation in general, ref"[8]

• The Times of London reported in 2005 that over the years the TM movement has "had to weather allegations of being a cult".

The material on being as "acceptable as yoga and herbal medicine" seems more relevant to the technique article, if there's not already enough material like that there already, than to the movement article, since yoga and herbal medicine are not movements.   Will Beback  talk  10:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Will, If you feel that the section, accurately quoted, belongs in a different article, I would suggest we simply remove the reference from here and insert it in the TM technique article. If, instead we wish to keep it, we do need to improve it, because as it is, it really does not represent the source accurately.

To answer Bigweeboy, we could quote the paragraph and say Though the TM movement, has over the years had to weather allegations of being a cult, today meditation, in all its many forms, has become as acceptable as yoga and herbal medicine. There is one particularly non-spiritual reason for this: medical science. Alternatives are welcome.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

We only add material relevant to the topic at hand, not everything contained in a source or even everything in a sentence. This article is certainly not about "meditation in all its many forms". That material would be suitable for the article on Meditation.   Will Beback  talk  22:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that the material as is, misrepresents the source. Therefore, if people really feel that quoting the source accurately renders it irrelevant in the context, it should be moved to a place where it can be more correctly quoted. As stated in WP:OR Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication..--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

We accurately summarize what the source says about the Transcendental Meditation movement. In the article on meditation, we can summarize what it says about meditation. There is no policy which says that it's necessary to include material irrelevant to a topic just because a source discusses it.   Will Beback  talk  22:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The policy says the meaning of a source must be reflected accurately. In this particular case, by extrapolating an isolated sentence from an entire paragraph and using it in a different context, the meaning created was exactly opposite from the intention of the original paragraph. This is inaccurate, and the source is therefore being used incorrectly. If you really feel that including more words to properly reflect the intention of the source renders it irrelevant, then it is better to remove the source. I have no preference, but am uncomfortable with the current inaccurate state of things.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that we need to summarize the entire column in this section, even if it contains irrelevant materials?   Will Beback  talk  02:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to alert everyone I have posted a request for input on this at the NOR noticeboard. [9]. Hopefully it will be helpful. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there a consensus now on how to proceed?   Will Beback  talk  03:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Is the Maharishi Effect paranormal?

Per POV, I made this edit. The Maharishi Effect could be said to be, for instance, a fringe science claim or a disputed phenomenon, but I can not see that it is wikilike to characterize it as paranormal. Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 08:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The Wiki article on paranormal reads "...that lie outside "the range of normal experience or scientific explanation"[3].." Can we say that the Maharishi Effect lies within "the range of normal experience or scientific explanation"? If so, then it is not paranormal. Perhaps Olsson is using another definition of "paranormal"? --BwB (talk) 08:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

"Paranormal" is not a value judgment, and not necessarily POV. The Maharishi Effect, if it exists, is undoubtedly an extraordinary effect which cannot be achieved through mechanisms in common experience or through conventional scientific explanations. The "ME" is posited as one of two significant effects of practicing the TM-Sidhi program, the other being Yogic Flying. Yogic Flying, a form of levitation, is also paranormal. I think the word is important in the context of the paragraph. The use of the phrase can be cited, if that's a problem, but I think we can all agree that these phenomena are not within normal experience or science.   Will Beback  talk  08:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will give this some more thought. My argument was that the term paranormal has POV connotations, and that the wording "the paranormal Maharishi Effect" could easily be improved. I could of course be wrong.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 08:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not arguing that Yogic Flying, if pertaining to defying the laws of gravity, is not well characterized as paranormal.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 09:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There isn't a single article in the millions of Wikipedia entries that can't be improved. Your suggestions are welcome.   Will Beback  talk  09:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There have been a number of "scientific" studies looking at the ME that are discussed here and in other TM related articles. There is no doubt that there have been efforts to quantify the ME and to demonstrate its existence. I am not sure if there has been a proven "scientific explanation" for the ME. --BwB (talk) 12:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There've been "scientific" studies of ESP, ghosts, and other paranormal manifestations too.   Will Beback  talk  21:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

BwB has also introduced this topic on my talk page, where I find his last contribution unconstructive and inappropriate. I am a relatively new user here, and it is not always a good idea to make a parody of what a user writes. Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 09:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, Olsson. I had no intention whatsoever of making a parody of you contributions. I appreciate you participation in the discussion and was simply trying to understand what you were using as your definition of "paramormal" so I could understand why it was that you considered it POV to say that the Maharishi Effect was paramormal. I meant no offence and am sorry if my words cause you upset. --BwB (talk) 09:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

There is research that correlates practise of TM with increasing stock prices. The rationale is that the mood of the nation becomes more positive. There is also research that correlates elimination from footballs world cup with decreases in that country's stock prices. The rationale is that the mood of the country becomes deflated. Is this a fair comparison? They are both to do with group psychology. Are they both paranormal or just one? Certainly the effects of social mood on society is on the fringe of science whether it be meditation or sporting results but does that make it paranormal? I can find the reference for the sporting failure effect if required.Oxford73 (talk) 10:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

We don't make content decisions based on logical arguments. Content is based on summaries of reliable sources. If we can find a source which makes that assertion about the ME then we can include it.

That said, I don't think you understand the full extent of the Maharishi Effect. Its purported powers go far beyond simply improving the mood of a nation.   Will Beback  talk  09:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. Research on the Maharishi Effect has been published in regular social science journals and the use of the word "paranormal" seems to give undue weight to a particular interpretation of the Maharishi Effect and so is not taking a neutral point of view. If one searches the web one can find independent authorities who would agree it is paranormal and one can find independent authorities who say it is science. There are differing views and the adjective paranormal is not neutral. If other editors agree I suggest we remove it.Oxford73 (talk) 09:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV doesn't say that non-neutral characterizations with which some disagree should be removed. Just the opposite. It says that all significant points of view must be included.

I don't know of anyone who would say that the "Maharishi Effect is science". The theories related to ME and Yogic Flying can be studied scientifically, as can the theories of ESP. But ME and YF depend on assumptions of how the world works that lie outside the range of normal experience or scientific explanation. I don't think that even proponents have offered scientific explanations for how a meditative practice can affect the weather or the moods of people thousands of miles away. By definition, ME and YF are paranormal so it's not inappropriate to use that designation.   Will Beback  talk  09:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. At the moment only one point of view is included that it is paranormal and there is also a "signficant point of view" that it is not paranormal. One quick example. “The hypothesis definitely raised some eyebrows among our reviewers. But the statistical work is sound. The numbers are there. When you can statistically control for as many variables as these studies do, it makes the results much more convincing. This evidence indicates that we now have a new technology to generate peace in the world.” - Raymond Russ, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology at theUniversity of Maine; editor, Journal of Mind and Behavior. I came across others but that is not the point. At present it is not clear that this is contentious and that there are different points of view or perhaps I am misunderstanding what WP:NPOV means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxford73 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Two suggestions. After "paranormal Maharishi Effect" we could add something like "which has also been characterized as a 'new technology'" as this would then represent different points of view or we could simply delete the word paranormal to maintain an even handed neutrality. On the basis of simplicity I prefer the latter but what do others think? Oxford73 (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

What's our source for the Russ quote?   Will Beback  talk  19:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

For the information of newer editors here, this paragraph has been discussed extensively in the past. See:

• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 9#Cognitive Section
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 9#Dr. O-J has authored...
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 9#Technique
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 10#Sethie's supposed "Control of the article
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 13#Cult Section
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 13#Cult Issues
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 15#Orme-Johnson
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 15#Continuation of thread... OJ
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 15#Towards consensus
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 15#Rewrite OJ paragraph
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 15#Working copy... Orme Johnson paragraph
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 16#Paranormal
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 17#Large deletions on a contentious article without discussion
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 17#COI and objectivity
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 17#OJ
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 22#Removal Of Orme Johnson Counter to claims that TM is not a cult
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 23#Cult and orm johnson
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 23#Shorten Cult Section
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 23#Proposed Rewrite of "Cult Issues" Section

The current text is the result of a hard-won consensus three years ago. One of the core disputes is that we are citing a self-published source. I don't think we should be citing a private individual's website, and if we're going to tinker with this paragraph significantly then I'd raise the issue of sourcing again and argue for the entire assertion to be deleted.   Will Beback  talk  20:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Russ quote is on loads of web sites. What do you think of this source? Beirut Online. http://www.beirut-online.net/portal/article.php?id=5050.Oxford73 (talk) 08:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this message until now. I responded below about the "Beirut Online" source. However that does not deal with the issues I raised above. If we're going to get into this again then I'll argue against the use of a self-published source, namely a blog, for this article.   Will Beback  talk  08:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Oj's website doesn't use any of the conventions of a blog. It's obvious that it doesn't use blogger software. There is no sense in which it's a blog. Please stop referring to it as such. TimidGuy (talk) 11:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It is a self-published source. Do we agree on that?   Will Beback  talk  11:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Press release

• [The Maharishi Effect], which has also been characterized as a 'new technology,...
  • http://www.beirut-online.net/portal/article.php?id=5050
  • http://www.globalgoodnews.com/world-peace-a.html?art=12471808727108952
  • Google search

We can't use TM websites and press releases for descriptions like that. Please read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement#Neutrality, verifiability and appropriate weight. Unless anyone can find this quotation in a real publication, I'm going to delete it.   Will Beback  talk  08:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Is something like the Crime Vaccine published by Claitor's Publishing Division in Baton Rouge Louisiana any good? It doesn't have the Russ quote but makes a similar sort of point.Oxford73 (talk) 09:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

A self-help book written by "Jay B. Marcus, Attorney from Fairfield, Iowa"? What exactly does he say on the topic of the "Transcendental Meditation movement"?   Will Beback  talk  09:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Note also my declaration in the section above. If we're pressing for changes I'm going to argue for removal of the self-published OJ source entirely. Which way is it? Status quo or discuss the entire sentence?   Will Beback  talk  09:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It comes down to the fact that the word paranormal is used in two different ways; 1) No generally accepted scientific explanation exists for a particular phenonomenon 2) That the phenonomenon is supernatural. I suppose if we go by the first use then paranormal is OK. With the Maharishi Effect there seems to be a distinction to be made between the empirical results and how those results are explained. It does not seem worth interfering with the whole sentence for the sake of the word paranormal. What bothers me slightly is that the word paranormal is not neccessary in this specific sentence as the words Transcendental Meditation and Maharishi Effect are there to say that Orme-Johnson does research in them and the use of any sort of adjective just seems a bit odd to me but perhaps that is just me.Oxford73 (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

"It comes down to the fact that" we're citing a self-published website of a partisan to rebut the views of scholars writing in their field of expertise. The solution is to delete the whole paragraph.   Will Beback  talk  22:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I am a little bothered by Will's point about the Beirut Online source as it seems to raise a more general point. Beirut Online seems to have nothing to do with the TM movement. I am assuming that the reporter T Abi Mansour is also not associated with the TM movement but that he has rather lazily reproduced a TM movement press release. But is this a reason for dismissing the source? When any interesting new research is published the researchers or university send out a press release to the worlds media. Newspapers then re-write, edit or reprint the release. If we are not to accept independent sources because their source was a press release that would invalidate a lot of sources on many wiki articles. The problem of journalists regurgitating press releases has been well covered by Nick Davies in his book Flat Earth News.Oxford73 (talk) 08:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

"Lazily" printing a press release is indeed a good reason to dismiss a source, especially the material in the press release itself. The lazy reporter is also the founder/webmaster,[10] making the site seem even less reliable. This is a remarkable claim made by a presumably living person. The Russ quote has been repeated countless times in TM literature and websites but that doesn't make it more true or reliable. If we want to use it let's find a reliable, non-TM source, preferably one which includes the context.

BTW, as self-published sources, press releases can be used in limited circumstances. For example, an announcement from MUM about the date of their graduation would be OK to use in the MUM article.   Will Beback  talk  09:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Use of self-published sources

• "www.TruthAboutTM.org/truth/IndividualEffects/IsTMaCult/index.cfm". Truthabouttm.org. Retrieved November 15, 2009.

In order to bring this article up to Wikipedia standards we should remove poor quality sources. Self-published websites are clearly forbidden by WP:SPS, except when used as sources for the author's article or when the author is a published expert on the topic. Aside from that general rule, the ArbCom has specifically told us to pay more attention to using quality sources and summarizing them correctly. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement#Neutrality, verifiability and appropriate weight.

While David Orme-Johnson has published over 100 papers on the TM technique, this article is about the TM movement. I don't believe he's published even a single paper on this topic. He is not an expert on the movement and his degree in psychology does not make him an expert on cults or new religious movements, the issue which this self-published webpage addresses with a partisan view. The material was added by a colleague, and Orme-Johnson may be known personally to a number of editors here, so there is a conflict of interest element. The material has been contentious since it was added, leading to at least 19 separate talk page threads. Poorly sourced, contentious material used to make a partisan argument should be removed.   Will Beback  talk  22:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Four points. 1) In the Clarke and Linzey/John Knapp para they make the distinction betweeen the vast majority who learn TM and a more committed inner circle. The Orme-Johnson para gives one explanation why the vast majority cannot be categorised as following a cult. I would suggest moving the Orme-Johnson para to come after the Clarke/Linze/Knapp para as it would be more in context. 2) Reading through this whole section more slowly it could do with a much better lead and should pick up on the Clarke/Linzey/Knapp distinction. When people learn TM (and also many other types of meditation) no beliefs are involved it is a question of performing a practice so the issue of a cult is irrelevant for these people. On the other hand there is a small inner circle, both with TM and other types of meditation, who do believe in things like the Maharishi Effect and higher states of consciousness etc where it may be appropriate to use the word cult. This distinction should be made at the top of the section otherwise it gives a distorted impression of the situation which is not clarified until about paragraph 10. Perhaps this should be the lead para? 3) I was reading through the archives that Will kindly posted and particularly the debates about the quality of scientific research on TM. What struck me was that the pro TM editors wanted to be judged by scientific criteria. Whether or not TM research meets those criteria is up for debate but the openess to those criteria for subjects such as the Maharishi Effect and higher states of consciousness does not indicate the mindset of a cult. The beliefs may be false but the history of science is littered with false beliefs. This attitude however does not come over in this section which strikes me as strange. That is not all significant points of view are being fairly represented and this section does not come over as being neutral WP:NPOV. 4) Re Orme-Johnson's credentials to write about cults. On the one hand he is biased but on the other he is a psychologist and professional researcher and we have to distinguish between a scientist's personal views and their research. A look at his citations shows work linking meditation with its influence on behaviour and belief systems and as the wiki article shows the debate about TM being a cult has gone on for decades and Orme-Johnson as one of the leading TM researchers has been involved with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxford73 (talk • contribs) 08:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting points, but only #4 is relevant to this thread. I don't see any evidence presented that OJ is a published expert on cults or on the TM movement. Unless someone can provide that evidence the citation to a self-published source should be removed.   Will Beback  talk  19:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

If there's nothing else to add about this I'll go ahead and delete the source and material from OJ's self-published website.   Will Beback  talk  08:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

A more neutral and better sourced way of making the same point which represents significant points of view may be something like the following which is taken from Take Back Your Life: Recovering from Cults and Abusive Relationships by Janja Lalich and Madeleine Tobias (Bay Tree Publishing)which I came across it on http://www.cultmediation.com/infoserv_articles/whojoinscults.htm. People are more susceptible to cults "when one is rushed, stressed, uncertain, lonely, indifferent, uninformed, distracted, or fatigued…." Some researchers claim that as Transcendental Meditation has a tendency to reduce stress and fatigue practitioners are less susceptible to cults.Oxford73 (talk) 08:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Having read a few sites about cults it strikes me this section is very unbalanced. The term really does not apply except in very limited cases as far as I can see and given human variability that is what one would expect.Oxford73 (talk) 08:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

We're just here to summarize reliable sources. I have no objection to adding material about the TM movement from the Lalich and Tobias book. I've ordered it from the library. The peek at Amazon shows that the book devote at several pages to TM, and I also see that Janja Lalich is a notable scholar.

However that has nothing to do with the self-published OJ material, which I'll delete tomorrow unless anyone can prove that it meets WP:V.   Will Beback  talk  08:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

He's making an assertion about the effects of TM on the psychology. In what sense is he not an expert on that? TimidGuy (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This section is on characterizations of the TM movement as a cult, sect or religion, not about the psychological effects of the TM technique. Psychological effects probably belong in the "research" article, where they need to meet the RSMED standard. You were very quick to remove all trace of the Hendel case when I agreed there was a sourcing issue. Let's solve this sourcing issue collaboratively as well.   Will Beback  talk  19:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I don’t think anyone will dispute that DOJ’s expansive publication list in third party sources makes him an expert on TM. I also don’t think anyone will disagree that clearly there is an interconnection between TM and the TM movement. Will himself has often argued that the terms can be used interchangeably. Thus, the section also fulfills the requirements for for self-published authors in [WP:SPS].

Further, the entries fulfill the section on Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves in [WP:SPS]. In other words, the material is not unduly self serving, does not involve claims about third parties or events unrelated to the source, no one claims it is not authentic, and the source in question concerns only a small portion of the article. Thus DOJ’s source is properly in the article.

Finally, There are cult experts who share his same views: see the letter by published author Shirley Harrison, author of the book,"Cults:" The Battle for God, published in 1990, wrote a statement which said, in part: “From our experience we found no evidence of harm resulting from the practice of TM or Ayurveda in Britain. On the contrary, almost all those we talked to were pleased and continuing to practise what they had learned. It was the only one of our chosen subjects in which we had great difficulty finding case histories to reflect the "flip side" of the story. In fact, of all the new movements TM at its simplest level was possibly the only system that held any personal interest for us. It is not a religion - except in the sense that it tries to offer a lifestyle and spiritual dimension to people of all faiths.” --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

We can use OJ's self-published website for some assertions in the OJ article. This isn't the OJ article.

If there are authors who share OJ's views then we can use those sources instead.

Not a single published article by OJ is on the topic of the TM movement, the subject of this article. The TM movement is not the same thing as the TM technique. One is a technique and the other is a movement. If anyone is unaware of the different we can start a separate thread about that topic. OJ is not an expert on the movement or on cults/sects/religion. Nobody has produced any evidence to that effect, after several days of requests. Therefore, as promised, I will delete the citation and the material sourced to it. As I have agreed with TG to remove poorly sourced material elsewhere, I expect the same consideration here.   Will Beback  talk  01:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

PS: If the Harrison material is the same as found in the comments of this website [11] then it appears to be in the form of a personal letter written to a "Mr Warburton", perhaps Raja Peter Warburton. Unpublished materials like that are not usable as sources. Her book would be, though it would not have the same authority as books by scholars.   Will Beback  talk  05:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

No one has presented evidence that David Orme-Johnson has published any articles on the subject of this article, the TM movement, or the subject of this section, the characterizations of that movement as a cult, sect, or religion. Further, the article is not about him. Therefore it does not qualify under any exemption to the prohibition on using self-published sources. As such, it is an invalid source. I am now going to remove it and the material sourced to it.   Will Beback  talk  05:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't have so hastily deleted material under discussion without consensus, which is somewhat compounded by the fact that you tend to remove sourced material in the MMY article while it was under discussion. (There was consensus on Hendel.) Let's look at SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." You are arbitrarily splitting hairs. A defining feature of cults is mind control or brainwashing. Is that in dispute? David is making an assertion related to this claim by NRM and cult academicians, and his record of 100 publications in "the relevant field" support his expertise in making this assertion regarding the psychological effects of TM. TimidGuy (talk) 10:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It's odd, because in 2006 you supported inclusion of this when Sfacets deleted it. I think you'll need to take this to RSN. TimidGuy (talk) 10:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Within eight minutes of receiving a single reply in agreement, you began deleting every reference to Hendel.[12] OTOH, I've been talking about this for days, and I've shown that this material has been disputed for years. I was willing to let the three-year-old compromise stay but other editors insisted on pushing revisions which called the underlying material into question. I haven't sought this dispute, but I think that it should be resolved according to WP policies.

OJ is not a published expert on the TM movement, on religions, sects, or cults. Merely being a psychology professor and researcher in the TM technique does not make him one. If we took that standard I'm sure there are many more sources we could use. Maybe family therapists are experts about cults too, for example.

It is unseemly for friends or former colleagues of OJ's to press for special treatment of his self-published website, at least without acknowledging their COI. We cite OJ quite enough already on the various relevant pages. We don't need to quote his personal musings when we have so many more suitable sources for this specific topic.   Will Beback  talk  11:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Who has been insisting on revisions? I joined the discussion about the paranormal as its use in that specific context struck me as inappropriate and also offered other suggestions. I don't think that is insisting on pushing revisions. Please do not distort my intentions. Oxford73 (talk) 11:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)