This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Alternative medicine This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine Alternative views Mid‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Mid This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Transcendental Meditation movement Mid‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Transcendental Meditation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Transcendental Meditation movementWikipedia:WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movementTemplate:WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movementTranscendental Meditation movement Mid This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I propose that the Maharishi Effect section be moved into its own article (leaving behind a summary) because: 1) At present the Maharishi Effect section dominates this article and creates undue weight/POV. 2) WP:SummaryStyle says: "A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own. The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it." 3) The Maharishi Effect is often defined as the claimed effect created by the practice of Transcendental Mediation, not the TM-Sidhi program as shown below:

• The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology: Volume 4 - Page 1796, Irving B. Weiner, W. Edward Craighead - 2010 "Walton, Cavanaugh, and Pugh (2005) went on to note that when people meditate, it appears to have a positive effect on social stress—a phenomenon that has been referred to as the Maharishi Effect.
• The Intention Experiment: Using Your Thoughts to Change Your Life ... - Page 262, McTaggart - 2008 "the macroeconomic effects of the collective practice of Maharishi's Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program"
• The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena - Page 174, Radin - 2009 "Transcendental meditation researchers have reported that the so-called Maharishi effect has been replicated in forty-two studies, some published in mainstream sociology journals."
• The Field Updated Ed: The Quest for the Secret Force of the Universe - Page 211, McTaggart - 2008 “The idea of the 'Maharishi' effect was that regularly practicing TM enables you to get in touch with a fundamental field that connects all things"
• Totality Beliefs and the Religious Imagination - Page 62, Anthony Campbell - 2008 – "MMY described this as a beneficial effect of TM on the ”atmosphere”. I was not, even at the time, fully convinced of the reality of this alleged effect (which meditators christened the Maharishi Effect)"

Comments? Suggestions? Discussion?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we look at the sources in detail, if they are primarily concerning TM, and not the TM-Sidhis, then they do not even the in this article. I can definitely see that many of them are about TM only. But we should retain what is clearly about the TM Sidhis. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ME per the sources can reference either the TM technique and the TM Sidhis, so yes I'd agree a clear delineation and a check of the sources should be made. Should another TM related article be created? There are so many now, I hate to see more. Perhaps what we need to do is remove some of the articles, if there is an intention to create another one. There has been criticism in the past of the number of TM articles there are. Is this topic notable enough for its own article? Maybe a request for deletion for some of the less notable articles would be a good idea in which case this article would not seem to me to be part of an overkill on TM articles.(olive (talk) 20:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Good point to check the sources. Luke, will you do that and report back what you find? Regarding too many articles. I think that has to be considered on a article by article basis. If there is a specific article that you feel is not notable, by all means begin the AfD process.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will be happy to. Will report shortly--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 03:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my initial research, I checked every source except for the scientific studies which I did not locate in such a short time. but, even with an incomplete list, a lot of these sources are about the Sidhis, not just TM.

Here they are

• 71^ a b Wager, Gregg (December 11, 1987). "Musicians Spread the Maharishi's Message of Peace". Los Angeles Times: p. 12.

Their mission started 13 years ago at the Maharishi International University (MIU) in Fairfield, Iowa, when MIU researchers observed a sharp drop in crime, accidents and sickness in four nearby cities. They concluded that the drop was caused by a sort of sympathetic vibration emitted from the maharishi's disciples at MIU meditating together.

• 73^ "Maharishi Effect Research on the Maharishi Effect" Maharishi University of Management. Retrieved December 29, 2009.

Maharishi introduced the TM-Sidhi program, including Yogic Flying, in 1976. Group practice of this program was observed to be particularly beneficial. On the basis of analogies to physical systems, scientists estimated that the coherence generated by group practice of the TM-Sidhi program should be proportional to the square of the number of participants. Taking into account the “1%” finding, it was predicted that a group with size equal to the square root of 1% of a population would have a measurable influence on the quality of life of that population. For example, a group of 200 practicing the TM-Sidhi program together in a city of four million (100x200x200) would be sufficient to produce a measurable influence on the whole city; a group of 1600 in the U.S. would influence 256 million (100x1600x1600) people, the whole population of the U.S.; and a group of 7000 would influence 4.9 billion (100x7000x7000) people, the population of the world at that time.

• 20 Bonshek, Anna Corrina; Fergusson, Lee (2007). The Big Fish: Consciousness as Structure, Body and Space . Rodopi. pp. 143–146.ISBN 90-420-2172-1, 9789042021723.

P 29 Likewise, when only the square root of one percent f the population practice Transcendental Meditation , the TM-Sidhi Programme and Yogic Flying together, the Extended Maharishi Effect is observed

• 74 ^ "Maharishi inspires the creation of perpetual memorials of invincibility" (Press release). Global Good News Service, Global Country of World Peace. January 9, 2008.

(This was not about ME but the sentence is correctly quoted and can be considered ME by inference). On 9 January 2008, having heard from twenty-seven Rajas that many times the required number of Yogic Flyers have been trained to create perpetual Invincibility for the whole world; and having also heard the news as documented in the world press about the irrevocable transformation in world consciousness—greater harmony, positivity, and progress in all areas of life—His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi expressed the following wish:

• 75^ "19 January 2005 Press Conference Highlights". Global Good News. January 19, 2005. Retrieved January 6, 2010.

Not specifically about TM or TM Sidhi: Question: Coherence and Invincibility Dr Hagelin: ‘A question has come in on the subject of defence that says: How will knowledge of the Constitution of the Universe in the life of the people make the knowledge of defence complete and make the nation invincible?’ Maharishi: ‘You have that example of the Meissner Effect: if the coherence is strong inside, then negative things do not enter into it. It is a proven reality. If the light is there, darkness has no way to enter the area. If the coherence is there, if the positivity is there, then negativity cannot enter it. It is the Meissner Effect. ‘That is why we want to have a very strong, coherent invincibility feature in our international world. Then negative things will not germinate from within the world and will not come from outside the world. Otherwise, inner poison sprouts and from outside all kinds of poison come in. The whole thing is very obvious.’

• 77^ "More good news from first week of Invincible America Course" (Press release). Global Country of World Peace. 2 August 2006.http://www.globalgoodnews.com/world-peace-a.html?art=115451638235819

Dr Hagelin explained that the number of Yogic Flyers required to produce this coherent effect for the United States is 1730. However, he said, the initial group of 1200 experts is more than enough to create a calming, stabilising effect in national consciousness.

• 78^ a b Alexander, Charles; Orme-Johnson, David (1986). "Reducing Conflict and Enhancing the Quality of Life in Israel Using the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi Program: Explanation of a Social Research Project" Cultic Studies Journal 3 (1): 142–146.

The square root of 1% effect is said to be produced through “group dynamics of consciousness.” It is proposed that a minimum “critical mass” of coherently interacting people is required before this amplification effect can be reliably observed. In a community of 100, both 1% and the square root of 1% would equal one person. Clearly, this would not even constitute a group! None of the over twenty square root of 1% studies accepted for publication inScientific Research on the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi Program, vol. 4, was on a population smaller than a million because it was decided that small groups of less than approximately 100 may not reliably produce such amplification effects.

Based on the above I feel that there is enough sidhi-related content to keep the section here, unless others feel differently. Opinions?--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There may be another way to look at this and perhaps that's what Kbob has in mind. ME effect is the topic and subtopics/sections of that are TM Sidhi Maharishi Effect (ME) and TM Maharishi Effect (ME), rather than the other way around, that is, topics and articles are TM and TM Sidhis and subtopics in both articles are ME. As far as I can tell the ME topic is notable enough per the sources for its own article. As I said my concern was about a general criticism leveled against the TM articles, that there are too many, and too many cases in which content was forked or split off. I think this is a legitimate criticism and want to make sure that if we do make this split it is necessary rather than possible. (olive (talk) 14:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I understand your points and your concerns. I guess that looking at it form that point a view, a split is definitely possible, but not really necessary, since there is also enough connection with the main articles to leave the sections where they are, in the TM and TM sidhi articles, though it is funny to have two sections about the same topic in two separate articles. But your concern is a valid one: there are an awful lot of TM-related articles and probably one more would not help things at all.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a fair amount of content in this article on the ME which might point to a necessary split off of that content. I'm not adverse to the split, I just want to make sure its done for the right reasons given past criticism.(olive (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Not sure I understand. Can you explain more in detail which content are you referring to that points (or might point) to a necessary split? Or do you mean the whole thing?--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of content on the ME in this article enough that is might be reasonable to split it off into its own article while leaving a summary here.(olive (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Luke, and thanks for the research and your report on the sources. It seems that your research supports my original assertion that the Maharishi Effect is not exclusive to the TM-Sidhi program and that the choice to host that topic here as an expanded sub-topic is arbitrary and creates undue weight and POV. It also goes against the guideline in WP:SummaryStyle which says: "A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own." While I share Olive's concern that there are too many TM articles, some articles have large amounts of duplicate information 9particularly the TM movement, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and History of TM trilogy of articles. If we don't make this topic a stand alone topic will just end up with large amounts of dupliate info in boththe TMT and TM-sidhi article. So in this instance I think a separate article may be in order. PS:"The Maharishi Effect refers to the social consequences of the practice of TM by a significant proportion of the population" Cults and New Religious Movements, Lorne Dawson page 47-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see it both ways, really. My only concern is this: Are we sure Wikipedia needs yet another TM related article?--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 08:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a different question and this page is probably not the venue for that (larger) discussion. What we have before us is a situation where, IMO, the article is not compliant with WP guidelines: WP:SUMMARY and WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. This situation would be eliminated by splitting the section into its own article. We are not creating more content, just organizing in a more WP compliant manner. That's how I see it.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The number of TM articles is a related question to the proposed split and I think it bears thinking about. It is probably legitimate to split off content here but I'd like to follow that action up with a close look at other articles to see if we can delete some, or combine them into other articles.(olive (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I think this is a good suggestion and a good compromise. Let's do both of these things.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 08:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we keep ME in this article, I think it should be greatly reduced. Some of the material is poorly sourced, including claims from self-published sources (press releases) that violate WP:RS. I guess my preference would be to greatly condense the ME material and keep it here, but wouldn't object if it were split. TimidGuy (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, since it appears that there are no objections, I am going to proceed with the split and leave behind a summary. Once that is done, those that are interested can follow through on the suggestions to review the new ME article for compliance with WP:RS and take "a close look at other articles to see if we can delete some, or combine them into other articles".-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out there was already a page called Maharishi Effect which was being redirected here. So it was easy to move the content. I have created a brief summary of ME and placed it in the Research section of this article. Please feel free to amend it as needed.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating order out of all this, it's good to have the informationset up in a coherent way. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed one of my recent edits in the History section was reversed [1]. What I intended to do was to summarize, and did not delete nor intend to delete. As it stands, this one case takes up 25% of the entire section, dominating it. It also includes a drawn out quote from a case, which I believe is disallowed as per WP:BLPPRIMARY (Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person). The report as written in my opinion violates WP: WEIGHT. I am trying to add more historical facts to the history section, but I think the case could be summarized and still be fairly represented. Any input on this issue? --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem there is some undue emphasis there, some summarizing would probably be a good thing.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a thread at the TM project page as from time to time some editors have expressed concerns about the size of the topic area. If this concerns you, please join this discussion. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of TM-Sidhi program's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Dawson":

• From Transcendental Meditation movement: Dawson, Lorne L. (2003) Blackwell Publishing, Cults and New Religious Movements, Chapter 3: Three Types of New Religious Movement by Roy Wallis (1984), page 44-48
• From Maharishi Effect: Dawson, Lorne L. ((2003) Blackwell Publishing, Cults and New Religious Movements, page 47

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The practice section has a reference sentence that refers to a book by Lola Williamson. The sentence says that practitioners read for 10 minute an English translation of the Rig Veda. The section then quotes from Williamson's book further. But after that, there is an unreferenced sentence stating Since that time, practitioners of the TM-Sidhi Program have been instructed to listen to portions of the Ninth and Tenth Mandalas of the Rig Veda recited by Vedic pandits in Sanskrit on audiotape at the end of each program (twice a day). This is not confirmed by Williamson. I have not found any other source that discusses audiotapes. A citation needed tag was added in May. Can anyone try and find a reference for it? If no one can, I suggest that this be removed, especially since Williamson already described readings in her book. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 00:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember that that was a driveby edit by an inexperienced editor. TimidGuy (talk) 10:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It un-srouced and somewhat duplicate info already contained in the prior sentences as you have mentioned. Per TM arbcom unsourced content can be removed if a cite tag has been there for a reasonable amount of time. You can post the text here if you like and then it can be re-inserted later if someone finds a source.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay let's do that. I am posting it here and when a source is found it can be reinserted--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since that time, practitioners of the TM-Sidhi Program have been instructed to listen to portions of the Ninth and Tenth Mandalas of the Rig Veda recited by Vedic pandits in Sanskrit on audiotape at the end of each program (twice a day).^{[citation needed]}

I am posting a link to this discussion by the edit.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked the sources being cited, but there are in fact only about a dozen published peer-reviewed studies on the Maharishi Effect, not hundreds, as the text says. One of those published papers documents five different studies. So that would make 16. Counting unpublished or self-published studies brings the total to around 50. I think what we should do is prepare a ref that lists the 12 published studies and then report that number in the text rather than citing an incorrect source. TimidGuy (talk) 10:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sources are non-scholastic and refer only to "studies". I don't see why we can't contrast that text with other sources that specify the number that are peer-review published.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that by no measure are there hundreds of studies. The TM organization only claims 50, as you can see from this Google search.[2] The claim of "hundreds" is an anomaly. But my feeling is that we shouldn't even use the claim of 50, because it includes unpublished conference presentations and self-published studies, which wouldn't meet WP guidelines. It seems like a better measure is the number of published studies. TimidGuy (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, assuming your numbers are correct. How do we handle this. We can't just discount a source based on our personal evaluation. Can you list some sources and quotes here that give the correct info about number of studies? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the search results in the link I gave, it would be easy to list 50 sources that say 50 studies: official TM websites, newspapers in Asia, military websites, David OJ's website, the critique by Fales and Markovsky in Social Forces, an article about Maharishi by Tim Mejan, who is editor of The Edge. But all of these are either self-published claims or those claims repeated by others. According to WP:V, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. It's an exceptional claim to say that there are hundreds of studies on the Maharishi Effect, especially since science indexes only list about a dozen. For claims related to science, we should use the accepted sources of science: indexes and bibliographies of published articles. The only real credible claim that can be made is the number of published, peer-reviewed studies, per core policy. It would be easy, and inarguable, to put together this list in a ref, and it would be in accord with WP:OR to then count the number of studies in the list. TimidGuy (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a sensible suggestion. We should use the best sources we have, and its acceptable to then create a list and add up the studies especially when the original claim made is extravagant, and not borne out by science indexes. I agree its acceptable to then add up the studies on a list. There is a point where we can't deliberately add false information to Wikipedia especially when the information in not published in RS for this content.(olive (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]