Talk:Transcendental Meditation movement/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

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"[1]
  • 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"[2]
  • 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. [3]. 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:

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

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,[4] 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)

I beg to differ

Sorry to be coming into this late—I’ve been away.

The point has been hammered over and again here that David Orme-Johnson is not qualified to comment on cults or on TM Movement because he is a psychologist and not an expert in cults or in the TM Movement. Therefore, the argument goes, his self-published online comments must be excluded from this article. But this analysis misses a vital point: the main problem with cults is that they manipulate and degrade the psychology of their members. And indeed, in this section of the article we see at least seven allegations of adverse psychological effects of TM. The various sources cited in the article, contend, among other things,

• that the TM technique “seeks to strip individuals of their ability to think and choose freely,”

• that some TM members have been known to see a variety of unreasonable beliefs as literally true,

• that TM is similar to so-called Altered States of Consciousness that make the mind of the individual more susceptible to the group will,

• that the former leader of the TM movement suffers from mental illness (“paraphrenia”) due to his recommendation that crime can be reduced by group practice of advanced TM techniques

• that TM meditators at Maharishi University are “deluded”

• that a significant minority of TM members are “tightly controlled, isolated from family and society”

• that advanced TM techniques are subject to group control which, disallowing them to come to their own judgment

In other words, the TM organization is accused of repeated psychological abuses to its members. Other editors have made this general point, but without referring to the specifics of the article. Some of the proponents of these very serious and damaging claims are qualified academics, some are journalists or popular writers, and one is a well-known anti-TM activist (Mr. Knapp). On the other side, we only have brief comments from a total of two TM spokespersons—neither of whom, it seems, are scientists. David Orme-Johnson, on the other hand, is a well-qualified scientist in this field. He is the author or of over 100 published studies on TM, many of them specifically on the psychological effects of TM, and at least several of these have been published in peer-reviewed journals. He has also taught at Maharishi University and has seen first-hand the effects of TM on students and faculty. And it should also be noted that he has also co-authored several peer-reviewed studies on the sociological effects of TM. So his expertise extends to the sociology of TM, not just the individuals effect.

IMHO, it is an extreme abuse of one of the cherished and core principles of Wikipedia, NPOV, to include numerous serious and damaging allegations of psychological damage to TM practitioners, from a mixed bag of accusers, while excluding the comments of a well-qualified psychologist who is very well informed on this subject, and who has an alternative point of view. If you step back and actually look at what is being addressed in this article, Orme Johnson is very substantially a “published expert on the topic” being addressed. Therefore, his website comments clearly qualify under WP:SPS for inclusion. I would be deeply disappointed if his expert comments were excluded. Early morning person (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The topic of this article is the TM movement. David Orme-Johnson has not published a single paper on that topic. He may be an expert on certain aspects of the TM technique, but that's a different topic.
WP:NPOV says: Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.
If Orme-Johnson has made comments on this topic that have been published in reliable sources then we can summarize those. His personal website is not a reliable source.
I don't think it's helpful for us to get into a debate on this page over whether or not the TM movement is a cult/sect/religion.   Will Beback  talk  20:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Early raised many good valid points that need to be considered in improving this section of the article. If experts say TMM is a cult because psychological reasons x, y, z, then it seem reasonable to present a counter argument as to why TMM is not a cult. And OJ is an expert on the the psychological effects of TM. --BweeB (talk) 09:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Who says that "TMM is a cult because [of] psychological reasons"? I see Early morning person making that claim, but not the sources we use. Perhaps she perceives the reasons they give as being psychological, but I don't think they describe them that way. EMP doesn't cite her quotations, so it's hard to follow up.
Someone above said that a book by Lalich & Tobias expresses the same view as OJ. I've got that book on order (it's taking longer than expected). Since we have a wide variety of high quality scholarly and journalistic sources, and since we already give the MUM perspective, there's no need to bend the rules to allow a self-published website by a partisan writing outside his field.
I am the only editor here who has denied knowing David Orme-Johnson personally. If editors are promoting the work of a colleague or friend without disclosing it then that's not something to be proud of.   Will Beback  talk  09:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Early makes a good point, and there have been several such good points including those made on the Notice Board. However, the RS Notice Board comments are equally supportive and non supportive of the use of the OJ site, so my suggestion has been to call it a draw and move on to other sources. The comment about OJ reminds me of something. I was traveling recently and its interesting how often someone comes up and says , oh you're from such and such a country do you know so and so who lives there. By the way, suggesting a source may be complaint whoever suggests its use, is not promotion. Maybe we could move on. Such ongoing implied accusations are disruptive.(olive (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC))
I see that I have come into this too late to have any effect and so, even though I still think the argument is sound, I will not pursue it further. Early morning person (talk) 17:53, 9 June 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 [5] 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.[6] 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)
And I said that if discussion continued then the logical outcome is to review the main underlying source. Yet editors, including yourself, continued to debate changes to the status quo. So here we are.   Will Beback  talk  11:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Will, you haven't addressed my points. And yes, let's resolve this according to Wikipedia policies. The problem is that there aren't more suitable sources. Cult-watchers call it a cult. That's what they do. The flip side is the presence of TM in schools, the $25 million in funding for TM research, the large presence in academic journals, an accredited university, prominent individuals in all walks of life who practice TM and who obviously aren't cult members, the invitation by NIH to MUM researchers to review grant proposals, the invitation by AHRQ to TM researchers to be peer reviewers, Robert Schneider's being invited to represent NIH at a major international conference, TM researchers being invited to present at the Centers for Disease Control, and on and on. The problem is that when something is the norm, it doesn't get articulated. It's the norm. Does a fish comment on water? Do newspapers report on all the aircraft that safely make it to their destination? The TM movement isn't a cult for all the reasons it's normal, and normality isn't commented on. Only the things that make it different receive notice. If there are more suitable sources, please point me to them. As it stands right now, we have a catalog of 1,200 words trashing the movement and one comment giving a reason that it's not a cult -- a comment that you seem desperately eager to remove. TimidGuy (talk) 11:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
There are numerous scholarly and other quality sources on this topic already, and more have been identified in this thread. This isn't about millions of dollars of research, so your verbiage on that issue is irrelevant. This is solely about the use of a self-published source. The burden is on you (who added it originally and now again) to prove this material is suitable. I asked for proof several days ago but none was forthcoming. The editor proposing the text is the one who needs to go to RSN. The ArbCom specifically addressed the quality of sourcing, and in the past day alone I've sen suggestions for using press releases and other poor sources. This is problematic. A few pro-TM editors agreeing that OJ's self-published website is a fine source does not make a consensus sufficient to overrule a core policy. Having friends and colleagues, such as yourself, demand special treatment of a self-published source is unseemly. I was very accommodating to your concerns about Hendel. But you won't play ball and you've ignored my comments on that. Let's bring these articles up to the best standards, not find reasons for loopholes. Your revert was very antagonistic for someone with a conflict of interest. I repeat what I wrote before: "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  11:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Does a fish comment on water? Fish don't comment anything. Among speaking animals, being a part of a movement does not make one an expert about all aspects of that movement, just as being a Canadian does not make one an expert on all aspects of Canada. OJ is welcome to comment on the TM movement, but unless he's been published on the topic he does not meet the relevant threshold.
Do newspapers report on all the aircraft that safely make it to their destination?. Sure. I could easily find you a hundred or, given time, a thousand articles about airplanes that arrived where expected. That's not even counting the articles and books written about Lindbergh's flight to Paris alone. But more to the point, Newspapers may not report on every airline trip which makes it destination, and neither does Wikipedia. But they do devote considerable attention to those which crash along the way, and so does Wikipedia. The Wikipedia articles on TM and related topics cover many thousands of words. Only a very small part of that total is on the topic of "Characterization as a cult, sect, or religion", perhaps a smaller portion than found in the best sources.
The TM movement isn't a cult for all the reasons it's normal,... The "TM can't be a cult because ..." arguments were worn out a year ago. We're not here to present reasons for why the subject is A, B, or C. We're here to summarize what reliable, published sources say on that topic. There are no lack of them.   Will Beback  talk  05:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


The arguments present against deletion are valid and on point. You may disagree, but it does not follow that you may delete the source single handedly. There is a very big difference between erasing a source where consensus was reached and making unilateral decision of removing a source while discussion is ongoing. Please reinstate the material until a decision is reached. As for the source: DOJ is an expert on the effects of TM on the physiology and the psyche. The TM Movement is the organization that teaches TM. You have made innumerable arguments that TM and the Movement are the same thing, and the presence of DOJ’ site as a source is valid under WP:SPS. ----Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I see the deletion has been reinstated. I think it was probably the right thing to do, given the fact that this entire discussion was about to spiral out of control over it. For this reason, I’d rather Will’s deletion remained, unless he voluntarily reverses it. If Will is dead set on keeping the deletion, for the sake of peace it can remain until a solution is reached.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Will, my recollection is that this was originally added via consensus. Sethie agreed to the edit after I attributed it to David OJ. It's been in Wikipedia for over 4 years. It was originally in the TM article, and David is clearly an expert on TM, the topic of that article. Then you created this article, the David OJ material was moved here, and presto changeo, it's no longer acceptable. I don't understand why you haven't addressed my key points. Here they are again: that you're arbitrarily splitting hairs, that David OJ's publications are on the psychological effects of TM, and that his assertion is on the psychological effects of TM. I'm open minded. I can be convinced that it's not acceptable. It would help if you would tell me why my points aren't valid. TimidGuy (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
OK if we leave it out for now. But as I explained, it's the only source that we have that says that TM isn't a cult. For the reasons I gave above, there are very few sources that say otherwise. It's just not in the spirit of NPOV to have a 1,200 word catalog of accusations of being a cult and removing the only material that gives a reason why it's not a cult. TimidGuy (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
@TimidGuy: There's no need to rely on memory, I've listed above all of the 19 prior thread concerning this paragraph. One editors agreed to it four years ago. That's a weak consensus to hang our hat on now, considering how many complaints there have been over the intervening years. To address the point you say I've missed before: the Transcendental Meditation technique is a different thing than the Transcendental Meditation movement. You've said so many times.[7][8][9][10][11][12] Do you acknowledge that there is such a thing as the TM movement, and that a technique is a different thing than a movement? If you do, then I'm not splitting hairs. As of the assertion that NPOV requires the inclusion of poorly sourced material, that's incorrect. WP:NPOV says that "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Notice that last part. We don't include self-published sources simply in order to present an unrepresented view. I'm sure we could find many unrepresented views about the movement on self-published websites. Two different books have been suggested to include similar views to those of OJ, so there's no need to rely on his website - we can use those books instead. Further, it's incorrect to say that the section is a "1,200 word catalog of accusations of being a cult". There are a variety of views represented, many of which have nothing to do with cults. The text also includes these denials: TM teacher and spokesperson, Dean Draznin, "discounted CAN's claims" saying that Transcendental Meditation "doesn't involve beliefs or lifestyle" or "mind control" and "We don't force people to take courses". Another spokesperson, Mark Haviland of the related College of Natural Law said that TM is "not a philosophy, a life style or a religion."
@Luke Warmwater101: OJ is not an expert on the TM movement simply because he's an expert on the TM technique and the movement teaches the technique. That'd be like saying that a mathematician is an expert on schools since schools teach math. Or that an industrial chemist is an expert on marketing since marketing is used to sell the detergents she formulates, or that she is an expert on corporations since she works for one. Being an expert on one thing does not make somebody on expert on all related things. I don't recall saying that the TM technique is the same as the TM movement, but I could be wrong. Please provide some diffs before repeating that again.
@Anyone in this discussion: WP:COI encourages people to edit carefully when there's a conflict of interest. Pushing the inclusion of a self-published source to make what is admitted to be a contrarian view is not conservative editing.   Will Beback  talk  18:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me Will but please lets have a little precision here. You wrote " 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." Firstly we were talking about one word paranormal which I would say is not especially relevant in this particular sentence so it can hardly be described as significant tinkering. But more importantly I am a new editor trying to understand how Wiki works and I thought that by engaging in polite discussions on the talk pages with more experienced editors I will better understand how Wiki policies work. Saying either we stop discussion or other changes will be made seems to me not so polite and a little threatening. I agree we do not want endless discussion if we are ultimately not going to make a change but a little discussion must be OK. I don't mean to sound too precious but am I missing something else about Wiki?Oxford73 (talk) 05:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
As I wrote before, the previously existing text was the result of long discussion years ago. It wasn't in full compliance with the core verifiability policy, but it had at least a tacit consensus based on a balance of factors. Once that balance was disrupted then the old agreement went out and it was appropriate to review the matter from scratch. It's often the case with Wikipedia that making a trying to small fix can to a major change, for any number of reasons.   Will Beback  talk  08:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Will is correct to make a distinction between the TM technique and movement. The problem is that the article does not make this distinction clearly. If one goes to the lead sentences of the article the TM movement is defined as including everyone who has learnt TM. Now this article as a whole needs to be clear whether the TM movement includes only the inner core of committed practitioners or everyone who has ever learned TM. It seems clear that most people who learn TM have not joined a cult - do they belong to the TM movement? This seems to be one of those cases where do need to use primary and self-published sources because of lack of reliable alternatives. It seems to me that whether one is pro or anti TM this particular page is a bit of a mess and needs sorting out. Whilst good sources are essential Timid Guy seems to be making very sensible and valid points.Oxford73 (talk) 05:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
There are many views of the movement. Several scholars say, in different ways, that it is a two-tiered organization, with a large group of people who have minimal contact (ordinary meditators) and a much smaller core membership (TM teachers, governors, sidhis, rajas, etc.). However not everyone makes that distinction. It's be wrong to adopt that scheme and ignore the other views, or vice versa. We include all significant views. Since the last time this article had an overhaul I have obtained far more sources, many which discuss the movement. I'd be happy to talk improving the article.
The issue here is simply whether to use a self-published source by a retired MUM professor writing outside of his field of expertise (or so I contend). Getting back to that issue, I can see a couple of possible solutions. The simplest one would be to add the material to the David Orme-Johnson article. It's OK, within limits, to use self-published sources written by the subject in a biography. Less desirable would be to merge this article back to the Transcendental Meditation article. I think the disadvantages of doing are obvious. However I don't see the need for drastic measures. I have the Lalich & Tobias on order and should have it next week. I'm told that by Oxford73 that it makes the same point as OJ does. Let's just use that instead.   Will Beback  talk  08:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
"Once the balance was disrupted". You seem to be suggesting that Oxford's request to review the word 'paranormal' upset the balance which seems excessive, and "wasn't in compliance with core verifiability" is an opinion not a fact, and is the same argument you are using here. I'm also concerned about your beating on the COI horse. As you know, the TM arbitration did not assert COI for any editors, so I'm not sure why you are bringing this up again. You, by your own admission "contend" the OJ site is not compliant, others suggest it is. Both of those positions are opinions. Asserting that editors arguing for one side while you argue for another while suggesting that those who oppose you have a COI, is pretty unfair.
OJ is a TM teacher, who better to understand the TM movement than one of its teachers, is a psychologist-a trained expert in understanding human behaviour, and is an accomplished researcher. This certainly suggests his expertise in areas that reference TM and behaviour. Psychologists are trained to deal with behaviours overall. Suggesting that any particular behaviour is outside the scope of a highly trained psychologists understanding and area of expertise may be splitting hairs. As well he's not citing an opinion, he quotes research on behaviour. I think there's a very good chance his site would be Wikipedia compliant. If we can't decide that here probably a NB would be a good next step. I do think we have to deal with this issue rather than sweep it under the rug where it will surely pop up again. However, I'm willing to see what other editors have to say on this issue.(olive (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC))


Will, at the bottom of this post I have the diffs you asked about.
Regarding DOJ’s expertise: The TM Movement is simply the organization that teaches the TM technique, it exists solely in function of the TM technique and whether it is a cult or not is dependent directly on the effects of technique it represents. DOJ’;s scientific studies, which show growth of positive psychological health and enhanced cognitive development, reduced anxiety, depression, hostility, and other forms of psychological distress, attest that individuals involved in TM do not display the characteristics of a person involved in a cult and in fact develop the opposite characteristics. In light of this, the evidence is pertinent and DOJ’s expertise relates to the subject matter in way that makes its presence proper under WP:SPS
Having said that, If you and Oxford would rather hold the conclusion of the discussion until you have received the new source, I am willing to wait until then.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
The Diffs:
[13]
This is the "Transcendental Meditation". The first thing the article should do is define that term. It applies to both a spiritual movement and a meditation technique. It's logical to do that at the outset, not wait until the end of a long article. In and of itself, it doesn't change the scope of the article which has always been "Transcendental Meditation". Will Beback talk 21:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
[14]
We have sources that say TM is a spiritual movement. Until we move this article to "Transcendental Meditation technique" it will need to cover both topics. "Transcendental Meditation movement" was split off as a sub article,but that doesn't mean the parent article should ignore its existence. Will Beback talk 03:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
[15]
If we "must" do anything in the lead, it's to define the meaning of "Transcendental Meditation". Is Olive asserting that "Transcendental Meditation" is not used to refer to a spiritual movement? Will Beback talk 23:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
[16]
Is there anyone "here, now" who disputes that the term "Transcendental Meditation" is used by sources to refer to a movement? Will Beback talk 06:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
[17]
The official name of the technique, as we've discussed often here and as editors have frequently attested by their edits, is "the Transcendental Meditation technique". The movement has many names, both for the individual entities and the overall whole. There are also aspects of TM that are neither the technique and nor the movement either, like SCI. Will Bebacktalk 20:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
[18]
WP:SUMMARY calls on Wikipedia editors to split articles when they become too long. The phrase "TM" covers many issues: a technique, a movement, the history of both, the intellectual framework, etc. Editors here repeatedly sought to change the lead from "TM is" to "The TM technique is". So now there is an article specifically for the TM technique. Will Beback talk 00:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC) --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Luke (though diffs would have been sufficient). Do you believe that the TM technique and the TM movement are the same thing -that a movement is the same thing as a technique?   Will Beback  talk  03:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not attached to the OJ source, but do think we need to establish a position for it just so we don't have to deal with it again. The cult section has other issues which need to be dealt with and those may be more clear cut. I'd agree of course to look at any new sources as well, but not necessarily as a switch for the OJ content. I think there is value in having a position stated from an expert who has also worked inside the TM movement, as long as its considered a RS, and in line attributed, given the controversy here.(olive (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC))
There's no such thing as a generic expert. People are experts in particular topics. David Orme-Johnson is not an expert on cults. I'm not aware of him publishing anything on the topic. OTOH, if you consider the TM technique to be the same thing as the TM movement, and the TM movement to be a cult, then I suppose we could say he is an expert on cults. Do editors here agree with that proposition?   Will Beback  talk  04:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Above, Luke wrote "The TM Movement is simply the organization that teaches the TM technique, it exists solely in function of the TM technique..." I believe that's incorrect. The TM movement is involved in a wide range of activities, including a variety of physical therapies, the operation of spas, schools and colleges, the ownership of considerable real estate, the performance of yagyas, the design of homes and offices, the delivery of astronomical predictions, the pursuit of political power etc. OJ is not an expert in any of those fields. Teaching Transcendental Meditation may be the centerpiece of the TM movement, but it is only a part. I don't think OJ has even been published on the topic of TM teaching.   Will Beback  talk  04:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Clarification; the source I came across on the internet gives an extract from the Lalich book. In the extract they quote Margaret Singer saying that people are more susceptible to cults if they are tired and stressed. The extract did not say anything about TM. But I am assuming that it is generally agreed that TM provides rest and combats stress - just read a book on stresss by the British Medical Association which says just that. Therefore we could conclude that practise of TM is likely to reduce the likelihood of being involved in a cult. This conclusion fits in with the Clarke/Linzey/Knapp assertions that the overwhelming majority of people who learn TM are not involved with the TM movement. There will always be those who display cult like behaviour if one looks at any group of people who are into something. That is just life. So my suggestion is that we make the point Orme Johnson is making but using other sources.Oxford73 (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Oxford. It sounds like you're talking about WP:OR. The source must specifically mention TM and Cult in relation to each other. We can't make connections between on source and another to make a point or to create content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs)
I agree with Littleolive oil. We need to avoid drawing original conclusions about TM from sources that don't mention TM. We also need to avoid arguments based on our own views to the effect that "TM can't be a cult because..." such as the claim that TM can't be a cult because it isn't stressful. I have seen folks say that life in the TM movement in Fairfield or at MUM can be stressful, due to the difficulty in fulfilling the requirements of spending hours at the dome every day, finding child care for those periods, holding a job that allows for the necessary time off, avoiding getting one's dome badge revoked by being seen attending lectures by other gurus, paying for yagyas, donating time and money to movement causes, making sure the door to one's home faces in the right direction, etc. Practicing the TM technique may indeed bring relaxation, but the topic here is the TM movement. Let's stick to summarizing reliable, published sources on the TM movement, and leave out our own views and conclusions.   Will Beback  talk  19:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Olive I take your point re OR but it is hardly original by any normal understanding of the term. It was just taking two axioms that are both agreed to be correct and seeing what is the logical inference. This is not original research but logical thinking but I realise we are in Wiki world so normal rules of logic may be different.Oxford73 (talk) 09:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes. In a research paper, for example, one could take two pieces of information and come to a third point or conclusion. Per WP:OR, such a third point or conclusion if not in the sources, is original to the editor who makes the inference, is the result of connecting information from the sources, and so is not Wikipedia/encyclopedia compliant. An encyclopedia 's entries are the result of gathering sources and writing content based on those sources or is content written that can be specifically supported by content in a source.(olive (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC))
  • BTW, I finally got Take Back Your Life, by Lalich and Tobias, from the library. It has very little to say about TM and is not much use for this topic, in my opinion.   Will Beback  talk  07:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Strong support by Will Beback in the past for this source

Will Beback vigorously defended the use of this source back in 2006 when it was first added. Here Will links to David OJ's bio and says in his edit summary that he has "excellent credentials":[19]. Will says it's not obvious it's unreliable and asks Jefffire not to remove it until a consensus is reached [20]. Will defends multiple uses of the site as a source:[21]. He says the burden of proof is on Jefffire to prove the site is unreliable: [22][23] TimidGuy (talk) 10:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Many things have changed in the last five years. The articles in the topic have grown more specialized, the SPS exemption has narrowed, the number of other citations to David Orme-Johnson has increased, and my knowledge of TM issues has widened and deepened considerably. Nonetheless, I continue to support the use of OJ as a source in the field of his expertise: research studies on the psychological effects of the TM technique, and the global effect of the Maharishi Effect. But that is not the same thing as being an expert on cults, which is how he was used in this instance.   Will Beback  talk  04:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
A couple of years ago TimidGuy wrote about OJ:
  • (By the way, he's in the process of submitting a couple very detailed papers to academic journals addressing the various claims regarding cult issues, showing that the research tends to refute these claims. Will be nice when we can cite that.) TimidGuy (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
If those papers are ever published then we can use them as sources. The fact that they have not been published thus far could be interpreted to mean that they were either never finished, or that they were not accepted for publication. It also raises the question of how TimidGuy learned of OJ's unpublished activities.   Will Beback  talk  22:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Outside input requested WP:RSN

I've posted a request for input [24] to help us along here as I suggested in an earlier edit summary. We seem to begetting bogged down in non relevant discussion.(olive (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC))

Just noticed I didn't include WP in the link in my edit summary... sorry about that.(olive (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC))

Speaking of relevant issues, editors have been failing to disclose any personal or professional connections to David Orme-Johnson. Am I the only editor here who has not met him?   Will Beback  talk  20:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


Results RSN

[25] Two uninvolved edios commented on the RS NB concerning the Orme Johnson web site. Comments below.

As a general rule, I think that "relevant field" should be broadly defined. We don't want to limit our "experts" to people who have previously published work on (for example) a specific chemical or car; being a published expert on chemicals or cars in general is good enough. For example, I suspect that for TM, a rather inter-disciplinary subject, being a published expert who has previously written about psychology or religion or social groups (or several other things) would be sufficient. On the other hand, anyone should feel free to propose even better sources...It's not like there's a distinct shortage of good sources at TM.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The article is on the TM Movement, not the practice of TM by individuals, and in reviewing Johnson's list of recent publications, I note that his work seems oriented only towards the effects the practice of TM have on various medical issues. I do not see anything that qualifies him as an expert on the movement itself, other than than his personal experiences. He does have a psychology degree, but it appears from his publications that his orientation is towards physiology and neurology, not sociology, religion, or psychology of social groups. As he was a long time employee of a group closely associated with the movement, and because he disclaims any authority to speak for the movement, I think his web site should be viewed as a RS for his opinions on the movement only. His published works are primary sources, so even for the medical aspects we'd want to exercise caution, but he's clearly an expert on physiological effects of the practice of TM, even if perhaps a biased one

. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

My sense is that we have a draw. One editor believes the source to b reliable for this article, one doesn't. Both seem to indicate better sources would be possible. I'd like to suggest that for now we not use the OJ source in this article even though it may be a RS, and find and add other sources and content.(olive (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC))

Note that the first response came before other aspects of the dispute were included, presumably on the basis of the unproven assertion that OJ is an "expert in the field of human behavior and its relationship to TM and the TM movement". However I agree with Littleolive oil's conclusion that the RSN did not endorse this source. Since there are plenty of better sources for this topic there's no need to use this one.   Will Beback  talk  22:32, 6 June

2011 (UTC)

Lets be clear before we move on. One editor endorsed the source, one did not... At no time on this NB was a claim made as asserted above. Instead what was described was a summary of the positions of different editors on the dispute. One group in the discussion argued that OJ is an "expert in the field of human behavior and its relationship to TM and the TM movement".(olive (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC))

Some argue Orme Johnson as a highly published Psychologist, a TM teacher and TM insider, is expert in the field of human beahviour and its relationship to TM and the TM movement, relevant to understanding cult and its relationship to TM and TM movement. Others argue Orme Johnson's training and background is not specific enough, and too generic for comments related specifically to cult behaviour, and to the relationship of cult to the TM Movement, the topic of the article.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transcendental_Meditation_movement/Archive_4&oldid=1069870432"