Talk:Maharishi Mahesh Yogi/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Maharishi as honorific

copied from User talk:Bishonen#Maharishi Mahesh Yogi article

It is an honorific in the way the Pope or Archbishop is in our culture - it is used in lieu of personal names. In Maharishi's case, the connection is even stronger - because this is the name he has been know under during his entire life in the public light.

Pretend you're listening to someone who insists on referring to the last Pope simply as Paul or Paullie, and you begin to have an idea of what the fundamentalists crippling the TM and MMY articles are about.

Similarly, how seriously is it possible to take an editor who insists on consistently referring to Madonna as Louise Ciccone?

Peterklutz 17:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I will assume you haven't looked at Pope John Paul II, because while this article does introduce him with the honorific, it thereafter uses "John Paul" most of the time. When describing his life before becoming pope, he is referred to as "Karol", or "Bishop Wojtyła". You seem to be arguing that the Maharishi is somehow more deserving of his honorific than the pope or anyone else. --quadpus 21:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Reading your post I assume you're looking for a fight - and the arena you wish to fight it on is someone's deservability of honorifics. Not interested. Peterklutz 21:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

A snippet of a text that explains a bit more of how Maharishi became Maharishi.. .. the titles "Maharishi Bala Brahmachari Mahesh Yogi Maharaj" by which he was addressed at the Spiritual Development Conference in Cochin (1955). When asked about the sources of Maharishi's status designations, the Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math replied, "From his sadhana(discipline for spiritual growth). Given by the society. He followed the teachings, sadhana, devoted completely to Guru Dev's teachings. He became equal in sorrow and pain and happiness. Thus the people realized him, that he has achieved the qualities of a Maharishi. It is an honor by the pitha(matha), and by the society." (Interview of June 11, 1983, at Joshimath)

Peterklutz 21:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Maharishi's own story is basically that some of his students started calling him "Maharishi" and he let them and the name/title has stuck.Sparaig 03:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, in reference to Pope John Paul II, the article refers to him by his full 'chosen' papal name including the "II". I believe he was NOT called "John Paul II" at birth but that it was a name he chose upon becoming pope. Sparaig 22:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I've heard Maharishi explain that a Rishi ('seer') is someone who knows, and a Maharishi/Maharshi is someone who knows, and also uses that knowledge for the benefit of the world.

More to the point here: I've noticed that meditators call him "Maharishi" and non-meditators "the Maharishi", so it looks like it's a name for meditators and a title for others, similar to the usage of words like 'mother' and 'doctor'.

Maybe we could add the 'the' in critical paras and leave it off in favourable ones? :) Geke 01:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Turn the "Transcendental Meditation Movement" section into a summary?

The "Transcendental Meditation Movement" section is in large part redundant to the Transcendental Meditation article. I propose that we shrink this down to a short summary and direct the user to Transcendental Meditation for more detail. Tanaats 22:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

In other situations, that would present itself, but as almost all we know about Maharishi is connected with this Movement, I think it is relevant here.

Another point is that the TM article is, in my opinion, not in a good state. It's a mix of three articles: about the TM technique, the TM Movement, and the TM Organization. If one could separate out the info about the TM Movement into a separate article, one could shorten it here. As it is now, I like the more concise and to-the-point part here better than the enormous TM article.Geke 23:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that they're very intertwined, just as you think that the subject of MMY is so intertwined with the subject of TM that they shouldn't be separated into different articles.

Regardless, don't forget that we'd need a fourth article on "MMY's entire corpus of teachings" if that subject were to end up being excluded from the main TM article. Tanaats 01:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey there Geke. Glad to see you dropping by here. Please stick around!

I am unsure how "the movement" is different from "the organization?"Sethie 21:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see some friendly words on this Talk page... wew! Maybe tell everyone that they should always meditate a bit before writing up anything?

Anyway. What I call the TM Organization is the structure that Maharishi has set up and controls; the TM Movement I take to include everyone who has learned the technique. (It's probably best to write with a big O and M.)

Of course, there's no sharp border between the two, e.g.: every TM teacher is free to teach or not, but if he does, he has to stick to the rules of his license. Geke 02:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Reference removed

I just removed the external reference after Maharishi's name http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/tm.html. If you look at that page, you see that it has such mistakes in the same quote that the correctness of the linked-to info is doubtful. The details: "October 11, 1911 (or 1918) in Utter Kashi, India" vs Wikipedia "January 12, 1917, Madhya Pradesh"; also "Varna" vs "Varma" (Maharishi's mother's maiden name) or his father's name "Srivastava". Alas, I don't have any references ready. Could someone check how it's in Meldon's book, so we would at least have some reliable reference? Geke 02:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Geke. I can't see where you've made that edit, but I'd suggest you hold off until we all discuss it first. Taking out a citation to a reliable source without prior discussion is considered rude.

Welcome to the article! Tanaats 03:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Or, rather, welcome back. Tanaats 04:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this particular source shouldn't be used. It's filled with errors -- factual, spelling, and grammatical. TimidGuy 12:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a big-time RS. It was started by Jeffrey K. Hadden and is now run by Douglas E. Cowan. Tanaats 15:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That entry was written as a class assignment by a student in a 200-level sociology course. We really do need to resolve what's considered RS. All of the guidelines say to look to the person's expertise and reputation for fact checking and accuracy. This fails on those counts. Again, I don't think any source can be considered carte blanche RS. Seems like we're always butting heads on this. Sorry about that. But it's good to be discussing it, and hopefully we'll eventually get a clear picture regarding acceptable sources in Wikipedia. It's all part of the process, I guess. Not always easy, though. TimidGuy 16:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not "any source". It's under the editorial control of a notable scholar. But yes, we should include it under the heading "RS" in the ongoing DR. Tanaats 17:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The question of an RS is interesting. Should THIS be considered an RS? Why or why not?Sparaig 19:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No. It doesn't compare at all. Actually, I would absolutely love to delete the "Religious Movements Home Page" source in quite a number of articles, as it is a major "cult apologist" site. But I can't:

...the Religious Movements Homepage Project has grown into an Internet resource for teaching and scholarship that is widely acknowledged as among the finest in the world.

...Working with an advisory board of internationally recognized scholars of new religious movements, Prof. Cowan will be overseeing the ongoing development of the Web site, and all correspondence regarding the Religious Movements Homepage Project should be directed to him.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tanaats (talk • contribs) 19:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

In the discussion on the RS Talk page, the general feeling is often that sources need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In the instance mentioned, the Religious Movements page doesn't meet the guidelines, for the reasons noted above. Plus, it would likely be considered a tertiary source, and limited in the contexts in which it could be cited.

Empirical dissertations in the area of science are often cited in the literature. Don't know if they're considered peer-reviewed, though in every case they do have an outside reviewer as well as the internal committee. Regarding Dr. Coplin's dissertation in sociology -- not sure about that. My feeling is that it would depend on his treatment of the topic that is being referenced and whether that part of the dissertation meets the criteria for a secondary source. TimidGuy 21:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There have been many discussions on about the religious movements UVa website on various talk pages. The quality differs strongly with each entry as it was written by students. It is not automatically a WP:RS for me. Andries 21:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

We should probably lump together disputes on all of the pages into the one DR. Tanaats 01:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine, but I hope you don't have unreasonable expectations -- that a judge is going to resolve all of our disputes. Mediation, as I understand it, is a process that facilitates our figuring out a way to collaborate: "mediation is a formal but voluntary process to assist individuals in developing a mutual agreement to resolve a dispute. Mediation does not provide binding resolution to disputes; mediators can not, do not, and will not issue rulings on disputes." TimidGuy 18:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was my understanding, but thanks for making sure. Tanaats 19:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Birthdate controversy

Dr Coplin's thesis asserts that MMY was born on Jan 12, 1912. Sparaig 18:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, an Allahabad University alumnae page says that MMY was named M.C. Srivastava. Sparaig 18:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate edits by "Maharishi International Publications Department"

A TM movement propaganda piece was substituted for this article. I reverted the edit and placed a blatantvandal template on the user's talk page. This user continues to edit the article deleting existing text and substituting ridiculous movement-POV material. Mike Doughney 21:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism from this user continues with hysterical lines like thie subject of this entry being "considered to be the greatest teacher in the world today." Mike Doughney 21:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

User has been blocked for inappropriate username. I would call it strong POV edits that violate several policies and guidelines, not vandalism. Andries 22:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Doubtful that this person IS from such an organization. Sounds more like something someone wanting to discredit the TMO would do: vandalize while waving a flag claiming to be an official rep. Sparaig 22:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see this ANI thread. In any case, new users who obviously have no idea what Wikipedia is or does shouldn't be called vandals, but be gently explained to. I've changed the heading to this section, I hope you don't mind, Mike. I semiprotected the article to be going on with, but since the user has already (and properly) been indefblocked for inappropriate username, I'll go unprotect now. Mike, you might want to try seeing the funny side. I rather enjoyed the "greatest teacher in the world" bit myself. :-) Bishonen | talk 22:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

I watch this page to help out others when things get really entangled here. And when I saw that edit, I was like "that's not good". :) Anyway. Yes. We shouldn't bite the hands of newbies. But. There's also a concerted push against adverts on Wikipedia and that username screamed "advert". So I'm not sure that Mike's actions were incorrect at all. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 23:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did call the changes "ridiculous" and "hysterical" - while the complete replacement of an article, out of the blue, with strongly POV material, sure looks like vandalism to me, regardless of source. No problem with the heading change though. I find it interesting and even more humorous that the editor went back afterward and removed details only significant to longtime movement observers, like the wikilink to Deepak Chopra. Mike Doughney 23:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I take it back. He's just a deranged True Believer. NOONE not in the TMO would care one whit about Deepak Chopra. -Sparaig 16:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Unbalanced

The Unbaanced template inites the user to refer to the discussion page for details, however I am unable to find the justification for the template's existence. Before I remove it - is there any reason it is there? If there is a reason, could an editor please either point me towards the relevent discussion, or give justification on why it should remain? Sfacets 15:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article and the links do have a pro-Marharishi slant, but not severe enough that I think we need to keep the Unbalanced Template. Edward321 00:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Beatles Material

I have reinserted the deleted material. If you believe it is erronous, please cite sources here or in the article which contradict it, as opposed to just erasing it. Thanks Sethie 19:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

From the edit summary: "I have deleted the last paragraph, as The Beattles Anthology, Oct. 2000, lays this issue to rest as untrue. Ring, Paul + Donovan still meditate." The person didn't just erase it. TimidGuy 20:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Timidguy, since you have now entered the disucssion, I will ask our mediator to take a look at this disucssion as well. Sethie 07:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Regarding the new editor, keep in mind WP:AGF. The person may not have known about the Talk page and may not be aware of the various relevant guidelines. I was just noting that the person had in fact given an explanation in the Edit summary. TimidGuy 12:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly I have lost the AGF attitude at different times in my wiki history! However I am not feeling a loss of it now. Please, if you see a specific way in which you believe I am not AGF'ing, please specifically point it out to me or speak with our mediator about it. I believe my behavior is under scrutiny right now, and I would like open and direct feedback on it.

Thank you for saying "I was just noting that the person had in fact given an explanation in the Edit summary." In re-reading that, it really does look like I was discounting the source he had in the edit field. I think down below I have a much clearer experession of what I was trying to say. Sethie 16:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The controversy in paragraph is contradicted in The Beatle's Anthology, published October 2000, personal accounts by the Beatles, aired in part in 1995, on ABC and in London. One of their many quotes when interviewed in 1995 for the anthology: "Maharishi has only ever done good to us."

Refer also to Paul's warm words conveyed by Larry King to Maharishi in Larry King Live interview, linked to from end of page. A small point but it does indicate that Paul was quite warm towards Maharishi. He and his children visited Maharishi in the Netherlands after his wife died, and George some time before he died.

I wanted to make this one effort to clean up the page. Thanks. Vijayante 21:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Vijayante

Contradiction of sources does not warrant removal. In order to maintain NPOV, why not include both sources. In case you didn't notice, the sources that you wish to delete contradict the sources you wish to use. :) Correct me if I am wrong, however, it sounds like you have decided your sources are "right" and the current sources used are "wrong?"

We have listed here three source which says that the Beatles were dissilusion with the Maharishi, and that the dissilusionment was engineered. I am not clear on the position you are taking, are you saying that the dissilusionment did not happen?

Please feel free to include the additional material.

However, one source "contradicting another" does not justify removing other cited material. Specifically Farrow's allegation that Maharishi attempted to seduce him. How does the Bealtes positive feelings now, change that?

I think we can all agree that if we stick with the facts of the sources, the Beatles were dissulusioned and now they aren't. Sethie 07:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Could add Beatles Anthology to references at end of page, and not go into detail on lives of Beatles in the paragraphs, as it all gets to sound too much like a celebrity magazine. Their Anthology speaks for itself. Mia does not make allegations in her biography. Vijayante Vijayante 15:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the sourced text you removed agrees with you! :) Mia doesn't make such allegations in her autobiography "she reffers to the incident much more innocently in her autobiography" AND she does make the allegations eleswhere to Wynn. We also have numerous sources saying the dissillusionment occured, that Sexy Sadie was written as an upset response to Maharishi.

I think what you have said here could easily be added to give a very accurate well rounded picture. The upset happened, they wrote a song about Maharishi, Mia says this, and years later, the Beatles said this.

Also please note, for ease, no need to start a new section for each reply. Just add colons ":". It is kind of an unspoken traddition to add one extra colon to each further reply. Sethie 16:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome, Vijayante, to Wikipeidia -- and to Wikipedia culture. Please note that often this whole experience is a little disorienting for new users. When Sethie says "NPOV," that's shorthand for "neutral point of view," which is one of the key policies of Wikipedia. See WP:NPOV. You may also want to look at WP:V, which explains that the fundamental principle is verifiability, not truth.

Also, note that Wikipediai has very firm rules regarding what's allowed in articles about people. I've often wondered whether this article conforms, but have never had the time to look into it. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has often emphasized these rules in regard to living persons. You can find them at WP:BLP. If I were you I'd get the book by Ned Wynn and see what he actually says. I've found that critics often deal in half truths. Also, you might search the web to find the news reports from a year or so ago in which Deepak Chopra relates a recent conversation with Mia Farrow that indicated that the allegations are false. TimidGuy 16:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, Vijayante, contradicting sources are not a good reason to remove sourced information. In Wikipedia the contradicting sources are cited together. Andries 20:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The section about the Beatles is most definitively unbalanced. There is a lot of material about The Bealets and in particular about Harrison in which their interactions are described. Rather than editwar about removing or keeping that material from Kent, it would be better to add more material from other sources, that as I said, are plentiful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all. The statement from Kent is libelous. I have removed it in accordance with Wikipedia policy and added a statement on The Beatle's Antology. To me it seems that though there is more that can be said about the Beatles, as Jossi says, I am not quite sure what the purpose is of putting it on this page, which the biography of someone else. Vijayante Vijayante 23:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Vijayante, my understanding from WP:BLP is that well-sourced critical material relevant to the person's notability can stay. I think that Kent's statement was such critical material. If you think otherwise then please explain. Andries 23:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I could not agree more, especially since it is coming from a sociologist. The Maharishi's involvment with the Beatles generated a lot of press.Sethie 23:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I would have preferred that the material came from an investigative journalist. The specialism of a sociologist is not writing biographies, though I continue to hold the opinion that the material is well-sourced. Andries 23:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I went by the rule that libelous statements should be removed immediatley. Vijayante 195.35.172.10 00:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I will restored it, because the material was well-sourced and as such should not be removed and certainly not immediately. Andries 00:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

From WP:ATT: "Exceptional claims should be supported by the best sources, and preferably multiple reliable sources, especially regarding historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people." Note "multiple reliable sources." TimidGuy 15:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not voiced as a fact and it is not an exceptional claim. Andries 15:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Timidguy, if we believe this is an exceptional claim, please note the word "prefferably" it is not required, it is a goal to shoot for. Also, before Vijyante removed it, there was another RS which backed these claims! :)

I am going to ask our meditator to come here, this is really the same arguement that we are having on the TM page. Sethie 16:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have any interest in this debate. I'm just trying to point out relevant policies and information to a new editor. I haven't made a single argument. I'm not at all familiar with any of this -- the sources, the claims, the accusations -- and I have no opinion on what it should say or what should be included. I never even was that much of a fan of the Beatles. : ) You and Stevertigo are welcome to include this if you want, but I'm not getting involved beyond what I've done to support a new editor. TimidGuy 16:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no wish for debate either, but simply to inform that what Kent says took place in Rishikesh is untrue. He was not there and does not know. Vijayante Vijayante 21:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Vijayante, WP:V says that verifiability, not accuracy is the criteria for inclusion. Verifiability means we can point to a source which makes the claim.

Interestingly enough by wikipedia operating policy, whether the events occured or not is actually not relevant. It is not our jobs to determine truth, merely to point to reliable sources.

Ironically, you removed a source by a person who actually had a conversation with someone who was there! Sethie 21:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have also had conversations with several people who were on the same course attended by the Beatles, and truly, this did not take place. One friend of mine came with her husband, though she was advised to remain at home, as she was pregnant. She came anyway, and got eggs from the town of Rishikesh, as she was afraid there would not be enough protein in the strict vegetarian diet. She gave up the habit after she saw the deep distress it brought to the Indians in Rishikesh, and thereafter maintained a vegetarian diet with the others, upon speaking with a doctor who reassured her there was sufficient protein in the dahl alone. The atmosphere was pure there. It was a place of great sanctity, and the Beatles recalled it as such in their Anthology. Vijayante 22:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Like yourself, I have lots of personal knowledge and experience.

However, by wikipedia guidelines, particularly WP:RS, I do not try to include my first-hand knowledge into articles, nor do I attempt to make editorial decisions based on them. By doing so, I would be violating wikipedia policies, which by editing here and participating here, I attempt (and believe me, sometimes fail!!!!) to operate by.

Just to be clear, your own personal conversations do not qualify as a WP:RS. Sethie 23:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I would never include my own personal conversations into the article itself. But I wanted to point out only on this discussion page the extent to which the statement from Kent's book is not reliable. Vijayante 23:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

My personal views, experiences and conversations cannot and do not count for anything here at wikipedia. I am not sure how yours do. Sethie 20:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, nowhere in WP:RS does it say that the experience of an editor is criteria for a source being reputable or not. To the contrary. WP:ATT clearly says: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true.

Please let me know if you have a different understanding of these policies.Sethie 21:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of external link

I examined today the miscellaneous external link called Falling Down the TM Rabbit Hole Criticism of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and TM by a former TM teacher, and the subheading under the first picture on the site makes it openly clear this is libelous material. Have read further in the book, and I feel I should remove it as there is no doubt this is libelous. Thank you all for backing me up thus far. I hope no one disagrees. Vijayante 23:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The link seems valid, and is in fact the only critical link on the page. It adds info that wouldn't be possible to include on the page per Wikipedia's stance on biographies of living people, however as a link it adds valid information to the article. Sfacets 23:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's stance on biographies of living people extends to quality of links also (?), does it not? Vijayante 00:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Quality? What about the quality of the links claiming MMY is a "living saint"? The external links are strongly polarized: some very positive to MMY, one very negative, nothing in between. The "Official TM sites" are, it goes without saying, very positive. There are 7 of them (which incidentally seems rather a lot to me—most organizations have one official site.) I took a look at he "Miscellaneous external links", of which there are 8, and as far as I can count they consist of one actually reasonably balanced presentation—the Larry King interview— 6 extremely positive links, and 1 extremely negative link, in fact the one that keeps being removed, Falling Down the TM Rabbit Hole. Yes, it's very negative! Far from "libellous", however. It is by no means more strongly negative than the the other 6 are strongly positive. Those 6 include a "Brief bio of MMY", which was pasted pretty much wholesale into this article recently—sigh—and which begins modestly: "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is widely regarded as the foremost scientist in the field of consciousness, and considered to be the greatest teacher in the world today." I don't think I need to bother with quoting from the trenchantly named "Maharishi: A Living Saint"... and these are "miscellaneous", they're not the "Official sites," which are (if possible) even more hagiographic in their reference to MMY. OK, it would be great if we had a few more neutral, balanced links, but it really comes with the territory that there aren't many of those out there. Barring that, I think it makes some sort of sense to have more of the positive links. But to have 13 positive links and 1 negative link, and to edit war to remove the single negative link... please. People. A little reasonableness here? I have restored the supposedly "libellous" link. Either it should stay there, or the links that claim Maharishi is a living saint should also go. Those need some balancing. Don't remove it again, Vijayante. Please.

Oh, incidentally, this has probably been discussed, but I got to ask: what's with all the links to Transcendental Meditation sites (as opposed to links about MMY)? TM has its own article. What are the links doing here as well? Bishonen | talk 01:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

I understand it is true that topics of the arts and sciences, environment, politics, etc., need all views expressed; however, a living biography is different. It needs to be approached very sensitively. You have acknowledged Falling Down the TM Rabbit Hole is extremely negative. It is in fact libellous. Another book listed, "The Maharishi, the Man who Gave Transcendental Meditation to the World", is not in the category of being positive, and has a number of factual errors. These books were written by individuals who had limited contact with Maharishi personally. Whereas the book, "Maharishi: A Living Saint", was written by the mother of the family which opened their home to Maharishi when he came to Los Angeles, and he was their daily guest for a number of months.

The [[1]]site is mentioned as it shows a rare video of Maharishi and biographical notes on him also. As Maharishi is the founder of Transcendental Meditation, and the links define what his teaching is. It does not seem wrong to have them there. The biography itself speaks on TM to a limited degree. Please see the site of Ramana Maharishi, which gives some definition of teachings on the same page, though it is a biography, and that of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Srila Prabhupada, which also contains a biography and teachings, and links to the ISKCON page as well. Vijayante 09:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's the guideline for external links, in case it's useful: WP:EL. In case it's relevant, note that the biography by Paul Mason is self published. TimidGuy 16:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you TimidGuy. I have read these guidelines and will do so again. Vijayante 19:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You keep wanting to delete the one negative link because you claim it is libelous based on your own favorable beliefs about the subject. However, this is about a public figure making extraordinarly claims. The criticism relates to the claims. Obviously, the TM organization knows about the link and hasn't been able to demonstrate the level of libel you claim in court, and critics knowledgeable about TM are entitled to have an opinion, even if negative, too. What is needed here is a small critical section for NPOV. In that case, external links like that one and [2] are needed to offer balance to what reads like a TM press release rather than an encyclopedia. --Dseer 05:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Golly Bishonen- you are so freaking down to earth! " But to have 13 positive links and 1 negative link, and to edit war to remove the single negative link... please. People. A little reasonableness here? I have restored the supposedly "libellous" link. Either it should stay there, or the links that claim Maharishi is a living saint should also go. "

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE hang out here more often. Your groundedness and neutrality is what this and the TM article need more then anything either I or the pro-TM people could contribute. Sethie 20:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Haha, you think I'm down to earth, you should meet User:Bishzilla! In fact, I'm sending her next time. Then you'll all be sorry. Bishonen | talk 02:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

I would support reducing the number of external links and retaining those that conform to WP:EL, which in fact advises against long lists of external links. TimidGuy 16:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to consider this also. which ones would you support keeping? below is the full list as it stands now:

www.tm.org

www.globalcountry.org

Institute for Science, Technology and Public Policy

Maharishi Open University - weekly satellite press conferences (also webcasted)

Maharishi University of Management

Maharishi's Achievements, Forty Years Around the World

Stress Free Schools

Miscellaneous external links

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

Early photos of Maharishi

Brief bio of Maharishi Maheshi Yogi

'The Maharishi: The Biography of the Man who gave Transcendental Meditation to the World'

Maharishi: A Living Saint

Page on Maharishi at popular TM portal

Larry King interview with Maharishi on 5/12/02

Falling Down the TM Rabbit Hole Criticism of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and TM by a former TM teacher

[10] Truth about TM

Vijayante 22:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe these?

www.tm.org

Maharishi Open University - weekly satellite press conferences (also webcasted)

(contains many recent press conferences with Maharishi speaking)

Maharishi's Achievements, Forty Years Around the World

(Gives a good overview of his activities the last 40-50 years)

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

Larry King interview with Maharishi on 5/12/02

I'd leave out the self-published biography by Paul Mason.TimidGuy 12:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel these are a good balance. Vijayante 23:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If there are no objections I would like to cut the list as TimitGuy suggests. It seems to satisfy everyone? Vijayante 01:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Err, no, it doesn't - that removes every independent critical link. I am reasonably certain that Bishonen, MichaelBusch, myself, Sethie, and a number of other editors would disagree. --Philosophus ^T 05:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure, as they have not commented?

Assuming that since someone has not commented they must not object to the proposal is entirely inappropriate. In a somewhat more extreme example, I could likewise say that, if you do not object within the next 10 minutes, I will assume that you agree with me that the Kent source should be included. Would this be at all fair or appropriate? --Philosophus ^T 00:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The remarks in Kent's book are incorrect and libelous that they are quoted. I am editing them out. Vijayante 00:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you please justify your removal with appropriate Wikipedia policy? The actual correctness ("truth") of information is not relevant to whether it should be included; the requirement is that the material be attributable to a reliable source. Also note that BLP only restricts poorly-sourced critical information. Finally, I'm not sure why you keep calling this "libelous". Do you mean that Kent committed libel? If so, then please provide a reliable source for this claim, such as a successful suit against Kent. Alternatively, do you mean that Wikipedia is committing libel by including the source? If so, then please be aware of the no legal threats policy. --Philosophus ^T 00:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The following statement is what motivates me. I feel it needs to be adhered to. Have pointed out previously why this statement cannot be considered well-sourced, as I know people who were present on the course and they said this did not take place. It is not accurate information: This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard. Vijayante 00:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That statement isn't policy. WP:BLP is the policy you are referring to. However, that only applies to unsourced or poorly sourced material, of which the Kent material is neither. --Philosophus ^T 00:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It is far away from properly sourced. This did not happen. Vijayante 00:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Those two statements do not necessarily go together. Sfacets 00:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The statement in Kent's book is controversial material that is potentially libelous. It is also incorrect and untrue. Vijayante 00:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC))

The "incorrect and untrue" part is entirely irrelevant to Wikipedia policy. Since the source is there, and it satisfies WP:RS and WP:A, WP:BLP does not apply, regardless of whether you consider the statement by Kent to be libelous. The statement here attributes the claim to Kent, and does not present it as fact. --Philosophus ^T 00:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Philosophus, do you want to report him, or should I? It is obvious the user is behaving irrationaly and is going to continue reverting no matter what. Sfacets 00:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting him! A sincere, irrational zealot is a zealot, none the less. Hopefully being blocked will enable him to chill out and realize he was wrong. --Dseer 04:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, calling this person a zealot may be a personal attack. See WP:NPA.TimidGuy 16:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Timid Guy, it isn't. I recognize you are a TM supporter and sympathetic to his claims, but the use of the term "zealot" refers to his actions as a editor, a "zealot" is defined as one who is "excessively zealous". Even after repeated explanations and finally being blocked for violation of policy and being specifically informed his interpretation of BLP is wrong and why, he expresses no contrition or desire to collaborate, but continues to claim irrationally that other editors are violating policy and that he on the other hand is standing up for policy. That is "excessive zealousy" in action, and there is ample evidence of it. It needs to be dealt with, and it will be. --Dseer 18:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles' miscellanea

Check The Beatles' miscellanea to see if there is anything in it you can use. A lot of 'miscellanea' needs to be trimmed (as linked articles are improved) so please feel free to use anything before certain sections get zapped into the ether... ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 16:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

As you can see, it has now gone. I hope you got some references before it was sent off into the ether.andreasegde 12:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Biographies of living people...

At what point does MMY's alleged attempt to have sex with Mia Farrow reach notability? Is it before or after she publicly backs off from the claim in her own biography?

Presumption in favor of privacy

Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy. [edit]Public figures In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out. Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is it notable, verifiable and important to the article? If not, leave it out. Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source. Material from primary sources should be used with care. For example, public records that include personal details such as home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations and home or business addresses should not generally be used. Where a fact has first been presented by a verifiable secondary source, it is acceptable to turn to open records as primary sources to augment the secondary source. Material that is related to their notability, such as court filings of someone notable in part for being involved in legal disputes, are allowable, as are public records such as graduation dates, dates of marriage licenses and the like, where they are publicly available and where that information has first been reported by a verifiable secondary source. See also Wikipedia:Attribution. [edit]Non-public figures Shortcut: WP:NPF Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are nevertheless entitled to the respect for privacy afforded non-public figures. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability. Material from primary sources should generally not be used unless it has first been mentioned by a verifiable secondary source (see above). In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. [edit]Privacy of birthdays Wikipedia includes exact birthdates for some famous people, but including this information for most living people should be handled with caution. While many well-known living persons' exact birthdays are widely known and available to the public, the same is not always true for marginally notable people or non-public figures. With identity theft on the rise, it has become increasingly common for people to consider their exact date of birth to be private information. When in doubt about the notability of the person in question, or if the subject of a biography complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth rather than the exact date. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sparaig (talk • contribs) 03:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

I'm not sure what the purpose of copying a section of BLP here is. Multiple editors, including multiple administrators, have examined it and found it to not violate BLP. Vijayante was blocked for repeatedly removing it. MMY is a very good example of a very public figure (by choice, as well), and we are using secondary sources. If you want to add something from Farrow's autobiography that is also well-sourced, then feel free to do so. --Philosophus ^T 03:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Before all the back and forth of deletions and reversions, she WAS quoted. It may have been taken out before your time though.-Sparaig 09:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Have studied the 5 pillars and statement from Kent's book falls into the category of defamatory statements which according to my understanding should be removed, and so will do so 3 times a day according to the rules. Vijayante 09:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Your understanding is flawed. The deal is that sourced statements are allowed, if accompanied by a reliable source, which Kent's book is. DO NOT revert three times a day, you may still be blocked for disruption and/or vandalism. Sfacets 09:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel you are trying to intimidate me, and I shall take my right to revert three times a day. Vijayante 11:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not a right, it is a limitation. Continued vandalism is grounds for being banned. Sfacets 11:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets, I don't believe it's considered vandalism, as your comment above and your edit summary suggest. From the policy: "Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not 'vandalism' and should not be dealt with as such." TimidGuy 12:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Continuous violations are considered nonconstructive/obstructive - vandalism. The user has expressed his intention to continue his destructive edits. He/she has made no effort to further justify these edits. Sfacets 12:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sir, please consider if it is not you yourself who is engaged in nonconstructive/obstructive vandalism. I shall follow the high ethics of Wikipedia regarding living biographies, and the reason is logical, though I realize you do not see it, and that is, that it is a defamatory statement and it was denied itself by the Beatles. Vijayante 13:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok then, since you are so keen on following Wiki policy, please back your edits by quoting from the policy. Sfacets 13:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

These are 2 quotes from Wikipedia policy: Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual controls any specific article. And: The rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.

I statement from Kent's book is based on a rumour, and I think from the original posting some time ago, other editors are aware of that. Vijayante 14:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to mention if you are willing to allow the statement from Kent to be deleted, then I feel it is better to remove the quote from the Beatles Anthology, stating that Maharishi only every did good to us, because it sounds like an advertisement, though to ok to mention that they discussed their memories of this time, but just not to have the quote. had only added the quote to give balance to the Kent statement, but with the Kent statement removed it would be odd to put in the quote. Vijayante 14:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well now I"m curious. I've ordered Kent's book to see exactly what he says and what his sources are. If it is indeed based on rumor, that gives one pause, especially given this statement from WP:ATT: "Exceptional claims should be supported by the best sources, and preferably multiple reliable sources, especially regarding historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people." TimidGuy 16:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, those heavily invested in TM need to be very mindful of COI and article ownership when dealing with arbitrating critical information, compared with the more normal less POV editors. Editors in this position repeating assertions based on isolated quotes from WP policies out of total context who have been warned by other editors and who state they will continue to abuse 3RR can be dealt with administratively. Secondly, documentation for exceptional claims cuts both ways, and includes exceptional claims about MMY and TM. Thirdly, there is another link, [3], which readers can see for themselves, that provides a good account with pictures from someone who was actually there. The fact remains that none of the Beatles stayed with TM very long, and they were publically critical of MMY, and even if one or more did say much later that they only got good from MMY, you can respect the positive role teachers played at a point in your life without agreeing with or endorsing them. Fourthly, mention of the Beatles should not be deleted because it was a historical milestone both in interest in TM and in meditation in general for a generation. What is needed, as in the rest of the article, is a balance. This must not be a promotional article. --Dseer 17:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles Anthology bears witness to how they felt, in their own words. Also, those who have known Maharishi for 40 years and edit on this page, know the singular life Maharishi Mahesh Yogi has lead and his high standard of moral integrity, which had inspired Swami Lakshman joo (1907 - 1991), the last Acharya of the Kashmir Shaiva Siddhanta tradition, to state: "If you ask me, Maharishi’s teaching starts where mine ends and it goes from there to Infinity." Then he added, "Maharishi is the greatest saint to walk the Earth in ten thousand years." Anandamayi Ma encouraged Western devotees who came to her to learn from Maharishi instead. Devraha Baba, the Yogi who had lived for at least three hundred years, praised Maharishi often for restoring the Vedic Tradition. And Swami Muktananda came to visit and embraced Maharishi in Switzerland and praised him without end. As well Tat Wala Baba, the aged but youthful saint who lived in a cave above the ashram in Rishikesh loved Maharishi deeply. I only refer to these personages as they knew his character far more more profoundly than any ever could, untainted by Maya, untainted by POV, untainted by rumours. Vijayante 20:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Libel

The statements made about the Maharishi with respect to serving chicken, and sexual advances seem to fall under the the WP:LIBEL policy, and should be removed. It seems unnecessarily defaming to include that statement followed by a seeming contraction by the same irrelevant sources. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 03:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I had asked yesterday Saiva suj (above) who does not practice TM, to visit the page and give his opinion on the subject of discussion. Thank you. Hope you do not think too deeply against me that am altering the Beatles entry again today. Sincere best wishes to all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vijayante (talk • contribs) 10:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

Vijayante and the removal of content

Vijayante, you still have failed to explain why you find the source to be unacceptable - and saying that they are libelous does not count. The source is a reliable one - unless you can come up with a valid reason to remove the content, it stays, and if you continue to remove the content you will be reported. Sfacets 10:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

see comments of TimidGuy above. he has ordered book. the statement is based on rumour. Vijayante 10:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not waht he says; he says "if it is based on rumour". Still waiting for an answer. Sfacets 11:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

yes, this is what i meant actually. But it goes without saying their manager had invented such rumours for which george appologized later and also on the beatles anthology they responded to the interviewer who asked them what they thought of the rumours surrounding their time in Rishikesh and the subject of the biography imparticularly, and they were quite clear in setting the interviewer straight on the matter. you would need to view DVD 4 of it. Best wishes. Vijayante 11:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't go without saying, and you still have failed to answer my question - do you have an issue with the source? If not, then please provide logical grounds for your removal of the content. Sfacets 11:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Logical grounds for removal of the content is that it is based on rumour. i realize you are not aware of this, but nevertheless this is the situation. we have to remember that Kent never met Maharishi, nor did he meet the Beatles. I am not speaking at random or without knowledge, but based on 40 years of experience of having met Maharishi countless times, and I assure you the statement from Kent's book is totally incorrect. Vijayante 11:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That is your own point of view. What is written in the article is that a person of notability, Stephen A. Kent has made certain claims. This differs to, for example, stating for fact that the events did occur. There is no reason to remove/censor the content. Sfacets 12:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've also ordered the book based on the Beatles Anthology, so will be able to relate exactly what they said. I do think that WP:BLP raises the bar a bit in terms of what can be presented. TimidGuy 14:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Namaskar. The point is, whether or not the source is reliable or not, it is irrelevant to the article. If you have scholastic evidence of misbehavior of the Maharishi, please do include and cite it in the article. The alleged statements of a popular band need not have any place on this article. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 18:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I just received the anthology and have only looked at it briefly. Here are a couple paragraphs that may be relevant:

George: "Someone started the nasty rumour about Maharishi, a rumour that swept the media for years. There were many stories about how Maharishi was not on the level or whatever, but that was just jealousy about Maharishi. We'd need analysts to get into it. I don't know what goes through these people's minds, but this whole piece of bullshit was invented. It's probably even in the history books that Maharishi 'tried to attack Mia Farrow' — but it's bullshit, total bullshit. Just go and ask Mia Farrow. . . . .

"The story was put around about our leaving and, of course, the newspapers jumped on that. As it says in The Rules, 'The press got hold of the wrong end of the stick and started beating about the bush with it.' Now, historically, there's the story that something went on that shouldn't have done -- but nothing did."

Paul: "John wrote 'Sexy Sadie' to get it off his chest. That was a veiled comment on it all, but personally I don't think Maharishi ever did make a pass. He didn't seem like the kind of guy who would. I've since wondered, "How would a maharishi go about making a pass?' It's not so easy. I don't think any of that happened. Rishikesh was a good experience. I enjoyed it." TimidGuy 19:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Vijayante twice again reverted sourced content, based on what the Beatles claimed. Plese STOP removing sourced content. Sfacets 23:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Vijayante, I am also warning you here. You were banned once for your pattern of edits here. I do not want you to say you were entrapped, so, let me tell you that here is what the Admin said: "A clear pattern of reversions against consensus, lack of collaboration, and general tendentious editing is considered disruptive editing and can be blocked for disruption. If you see such a clear and consistent pattern, please let me know (with full diffs), and I will block again. One does not have to violate 3RR to be disruptive. You may also wish to notify the editor a priori about this, as our goal is not to entrap people but to guide them in the right direction." Having done so, the next disruptive edit you make will result in my formally reporting you and requesting that you be blocked, for the sake of Wikipedia. --Dseer 04:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There are 2 editors who I am in agreement with regarding this page: ॐ नमःशिवाय Śaiva Sujīt सुजीत ॐ who does not practice TM and who is a respected editor on Wikipedia, who sees clearly the problem on the page, and TimidGuy. This makes a consensus of 3. Vijayante 05:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I doubt the other two editors condone your disruptive edits and removal of sourced information without providing (your own) arguments. Sfacets 05:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Have they condoned your disruptive edits? None of that allows you to remove sourced information. I suggest you look up the meaning of the word consensus, you do not have one. I intend to follow through if you make one more disruptive edit. --72.199.186.70 05:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

How is sunny California? Sfacets 05:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Mia Farrow's book also says that "furthermore, at my level of consciousness, if Jesus Christ Himself had embraced me, I would have misinterpreted it. Still, I flung the essentials into my faded cloth shoulder bag..." --Mia Farrow, What Fades Away, [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0553564668/ref=sib_dp_srch_pop/102-4696593-2186519?v=search-inside&keywords=forward&go.x=0&go.y=0&go=Go%21 page 118] Selective quoting (paraphrasing actually) is hardly maintaining an NPOV. -Sparaig 00:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Fresh Start?

I do not think much progress will be made until the issue of what is acceptable, sourced criticism is resolved, since Vijayante continues to think he is doing what Jimbo desires and tries to find editors who will agree with him. These claims, however, have not been accepted by multiple Admins. Particularly, I ask Vijayante to not try and apply the standards of India or use editors from India to arbitrate what is acceptable criticism of a public spiritual figure on the English Wikipedia, just because the laws are stricter. While it may for example be acceptable in India to threaten critics of religious figures with long prison time if they "insult or attempt to insult the religion or religious beliefs of any class of citizens with an intention of outraging its religious feelings", it is not so here, all that is required is that assertions be adequately sourced, not that they be true! Instead of editing wars which will only result in more serious consequences, I ask Vijayante to seek dispute resolution to clarify this issue, and to abide by Wikipedia policy as determined through dispute resolution, not what he thinks Wikipedia policy is or should be. In the interim, since Vijaynate has been progressively disciplined for reverting sourced material despite claims that he was only removing libelous material under BLP, which means his claims were not adopted as fact, there should be no futher disruptive editing on his part. --Dseer 23:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Am in agreement a fresh start is needed, but in the direction of taking up the highest ideals of public journalism. please inform when ready and will be happy to revisit the page. You already know where I stand on this so won't belabour the point. Also, if Maharishi's own countrymen wish to visit this page, feel they should be made welcome. It lends a fresh and sane perspective I feel. After seeing the condition of the page though, it is doubtful any will want to linger. Cordially Vijayante 06:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that anyone was unwelcome. What I said was that one's culture and religious beliefs would affect how one viewed criticism of religious figures, but that such standards represent a POV and should not be imposed. In India for example, criticism of religious figures and their behavior has traditionally been viewed differently and more cautiously, and if one tested the guru and found them wanting, it was said one should just depart and not publically criticize them. It was from that tradition that the first guru who came to the West, in 1893, Swami Vivekananda, simply said that there are many incompetent gurus and that a true guru should understand the spirit of the scriptures, have a pure character and be free from sin, and should be selfless without desire for money and fame, which in itself could be viewed as a valid and implicit criticism of MMY. Also, given the violent conflicts between sects there, and between skeptics and believers, it seemed useful to avoid stirring up religious feelings. But here we now have free speech traditions, much more tolerance for criticism of public figures, and truth is considered an absolute defense against libel. Sourced criticism does not have to be true, all that has to be true is that we are reporting the sourced criticism accurately and have allowed for rebuttals. Your beliefs about MMY are not the standard for what is acceptable criticism. It would really help if you would stop assuming your beliefs about acceptable criticism are the actual standard and which excuse your repetitive deletions (the blocks should have proved otherwise by now), and use the dispute resolution process to gain a better understanding of what is policy. The article is still almost entirely favorable toward MMY, and any criticism so far has been combined with rebuttals, which is more than fair based on the standards here. Therefore, dispute resolution should be used to resolve issues you have with criticism. --Dseer 15:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Dseer, for trying to put in a balanced account. Given that we're making a fresh start, I'd like to begin by making sure this important section is properly sourced. Here are two sections of WP:CITE:

"Say where you got it

"It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find some information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of your article rests on the credibility of the web page, as well as the book, and your article must make that clear.

"When adding material to the biography of a living person

"Biographies of living persons should be sourced with particular care, for legal and ethical reasons. All negative material about living persons must be sourced to a reliable source. Do not wait for another editor to request a source. If you find unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about a living person — whether in an article or on a talk page — remove it immediately! Do not leave it in the article and ask for a source. Do not move it to the talk page. This applies whether the material is in a biography or any other article.

For example, the article references Saltzman's "The Beatles in India," but no such book is listed on Amazon. It may be self-published. I'm not too impressed with his web site. He doesn't say where he got his information -- he just repeats the rumors. The article references Kent, but I get the impression that no one who has inserted this into the article has seen this book. Same goes for the Mia Farrow autobiography. We need to get proper sources, find out exactly what's known and what the claims are. (By the way, the material in the Beatles anthology also rebuts Saltzman's account of why they left.) Once we have everything pinned down, then maybe an RfC. Almost seems like the material should be taken out until various issues are resolved. I haven't yet received the Kent book. TimidGuy 19:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, as soon as the article is unprotected, I'll add a proper citation for the Beatles Anthology, including page numbers. TimidGuy 20:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not likely given your relationship with TM you'd be impressed, but regarding the Saltzman's book, try here: [[http://www.amazon.com/Beatles-Rishikesh-Penguin-Studio-Books/dp/0670892610]]. As the critical information is found on the website as extracts from the book, I'm ok with using the website as the reference for what the book says since it provides extracts. As for where he got the information, what evidence is there he wasn't there, and that the endorsements and pictures [[4]] are faked. I see no evidence the book doesn't give a flavor of the period. As for the anthology, what it shows is that the Beatles did not all have the same impressions or memories. It's clear from many sources that at the time John believed MMY was a hypocrite and guity of sexual advances. In the Anthology quotes you have provided, Paul and George state they did not believe the sexual allegations, not that John did not believe them or they were not made. What we do know is that allegations were made, we do not know if they were true or not, and that none of the Beatles ever came back to following MMY. So we have everything from one sourced extreme, that they were kicked out for drug use, to the other sourced extreme, that MMY was a hypocrite and interested in money and fame. NPOV suggests we should illuminate all of these views in a balanced way, since they have been widely reported, and not just ignore them, since we are not taking a definitive position on the truth of any of them. --Dseer 22:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You had mentioned a little further above today that, quote: "Swami Vivekananda simply said that there are many incompetent gurus and that a true guru should understand the spirit of the scriptures, have a pure character and be free from sin, and should be selfless without desire for money and fame, which in itself could be viewed as a valid and implicit criticism of MMY." end of quote. Just wanted to mention that the Ramakrishna mission has always been supportive of Maharishi and his efforts, and Ramakrishna's disciple, Shree Ma, says in podcast 238 where she speaks on Gurus, on page http://www.podcast.net/show/65002 that if it were not for Maharishi that she herself could not be on earth at this time, and that he is creating heaven on earth with every action he takes and every word he speaks.

Also, would not George Harrison, who was with John Lennon when they left Rishikesh, be in a uniquely better position to speak on his and John's behalf than Paul Saltzman and Kent. I suggest we lay the past rumours to rest and move on. Do we really want to be debating like this for the rest of our lives. Hopefully not. Vijayante 23:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

All I am saying is the same thing Crum135 said: "Please note that BLP specifically allows the inclusion of a reliable source. I noticed that you say in the Talk page that you have personal information that the source is 'wrong', and you may be right, but that should not affect our consideration of its qualification as being attributable. If you have another reliable source that refutes that source, then you are welcome to add it, but we can't use personal knowledge to exclude a source. Thanks." In short, address the attributable "rumors" and do not try and sweep the historical controversy under the rug, just provide evidence to rebut sourced attributable charges. The matter obviously isn't settled, when you have the new age guru Deepak Chopra claiming that the Beatles were kicked out for drugs, while others pointing out that John's "Sexie Sadie" referred to MMY. George, after all, was the most sympathetic to MMY and went on to join the Hare Krishna movement, while John later said you don't need any gurus, and criticisms often mellow with age, so it is perfectly fine to report how they felt then and much later. Furthermore, all I have said is that there is evidence that Mia Farrell interpreted MMY's hug and attention as being sexual, not that that is proven or that she still sees it the same way. Where we need dispute resolution is that you think that a small section devoted to criticism you believe to be false is unacceptable, when that is perfectly acceptable given the vast portion of the article that is uncritical of MMY. That is how you lay attributable allegations you call "rumors" to rest, by acknowledging and addressing them, not by ignoring them. That is all that is being asked of you and the other TM supporters here.

Regarding Sree Maa, I can't access that link right now, but anyone can claim to be the follower or admirer of some dead guru, in fact, many modern gurus do. And there are many competing claims of who is greatest. That doesn't alter what Vivekananda said. And if Ramakrishna or himself had wanted to teach mantric yoga as the best path, they would have done so, but they did not. One could argue that MMY is interested in money and fame, and how could you prove otherwise? Regardless of what various gurus might say for various reasons, while not relevant to this dispute, the principles of mantric yoga are not that esoteric anymore, and there is no scientific proof that charging thousands of dollars produces any better mantra than you can get for free from some other, highly respected gurus like Ammachi, for example. Thus even the arguments used to show the mantra is beneficial compared with results for non-meditators do not really compare between the respective mantras. --Dseer 02:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Dseer and also Vijayante, I don't think we need to be comparing the prestige and renown of gurus. Please let me state outright, that I am not a devotee of MMY nor have I ever been involved with "TM". I noticed two things wrong with the article: the link to the website that "exposes" TM and the quotation from that book "Beatles in Rishikesh". Based on the website "beatlesinrishikesh.com" which seems to be the only place to purchase that book, it seems very much like an unreliable source, and that aside, whatever perception the Beatles may or may not have had of MMY does not seem relevant to his article. Perhaps this "controversy" belongs on the Beatles article, as it involves their own lives much more than MMY, or if it seems significant enough to you, maybe it deserves an article of its own to present the facts, in a balanced fashion. The section as it is (and was) looks like some pseudo-scholastic bickering. In order to provide solid information about MMY, and with particular relation to sexual scandals, solid scholastic sources must be provided, not speculative rumor-based statements from irrelevant sources. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 03:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You are misreading the "comparison", which was an aside anyway, which was not of prestige and renown, but of differences of approach regarding money to teach practices. The problem with your claim Saiva suj is that despite your opinion, there is no wikipedian requirement that "scholastic" sources must be provided, and similar critical links are customary in these kinds of articles, external if the material, as in this case, does not warrant mention in the article itself. The MMY material is hardly scholastic either, the claims of religous sects do not have presumed weight over critical assertions and scientific thought. Since I provided the Amazon link to the book, your claims about it being only available there are not accurate. And, you totally discount the historic role the Beatles involvement had with respect to TM in the West, and why it was notable, charitably I assume because you are simply unaware of it. Again, what is solidly sourced is that there were newsworthy allegations made, and rebuttals to those allegations, not the truth of those allegations. Attributable sources, not finding truth, is the standard here. That a former TM teacher who knew the practice well and is therefore an expert on the practice found the practice deluding and dangerous is relevant as a criticism. I am somewhat surprised that you dismiss the point of the Admin about how to resolve this situation so easily--simply rebut the critical information. If your view were correct, then there would have been no penalty for the reverts. --Dseer 04:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Which book, Dseer, are you citing? There are two different titles: "The Beatles in Rishikesh" and "The Beatles in India." The article cites the latter, the Amazon link is to the former.

Initially I'd like to do two things: 1) look at the sources and make sure they're adequate and accurately represented; and 2) adjust the tone of the passage. Then ultimately, once we're clear on sources, try an RfC. TimidGuy 11:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

am in agreement with Saiva sujit and TimidGuy. Vijayante 13:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I am also in general agreement with TimigGuys stated approach, in the interest of a fresh start, I think RfC would give a broader perspective. Again, I think only minimal mention of sourced criticism and controversy is all that is required to illuminate the issues, not a lot. ------Dseer 00:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Saltzman quote; rewrite

According to WP:ATT. web sites and self-published books aren't acceptable sources. We haven't established whether Saltman's India book is the same as his Rishikesh book. I'd like to not use that quote from Saltzman. For one thing, he doesn't give any source for his claim of why the Beatles left the teacher training course. For another, it's not the best Wikipedia style. Generally one uses paraphrase as a way of giving a more neutral tone. (I find that opponents of Maharishi and TM tend try to seek out the most damning quotes they can find, and then put them in the articles.)

I'd be willing to say something like, "It has been widely reported that the Beatles left the course because of rumors that Maharishi had made sexual advances." We could give citations to Saltman's and Kent's books. I haven't yet received the books; apparently they just repeat the rumors. And then I'd follow it by saying that George and Paul discredit the rumors, and note that John always believed them. I would then briefly give the version of their departure that's in the Beatles anthology.

The Mia Farrow autobiography, which Sparaig helpfully noted can be accessed on Amazon, is ambiguous about what happened. She never refers to it as a sexual advance. I believe this sentence should be revised. TimidGuy 11:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

agree Saltzman reference should come out for the reasons TimidGuy mentions. think Mia Farrow rumour should not be gone into for the reasons that Sparaig mentioned on his last visit. agree with Saiva sujit that is highly unusual to mention about any of the rumours at all, especially as they were categorically denounced by George Harrison as malicious rumours in The Beatles Anthology Vijayante 13:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I see value in what you say and your more reasonable approach, TimidGuy. I do think it is established that Saltzmann's book was published, I believe what is on the website is a collector's edition [5]. To be fair, Salzmann doesn't say that there were sexual advances or that Mia sees it that way now, only that Mia Farrow was uncomfortable with and interpreted the attention that way at that time, while mentioning the emotional issues she had then as well. I think as you say is it established that: "It has been widely reported that the Beatles left the course because of rumors that Maharishi had made sexual advances". It is correct to say that George and Paul discredit the rumors, and that John always believed them, and that Ringo simply left for other reasons, and it is fine if followed by the version of their departure that's in the Beatles anthology. Also, nothing should imply that any of the Beatles resumed involvement with MMY or TM. --Dseer 04:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, even at the height of their disillusionment, they specifically said that TM was a good thing. Also, as is pointed out below, at least one Beatles sent greetings to MMY via Larry King and at least one (possibly the same) had his children learn TM. I'm sure someone can dredge up the references. -Sparaig 05:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and all of the Beatles were considering running under the Natural Law Party banner at one point, according to one of them. -Sparaig 05:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Opinions may change over time. We can report that and later beliefs, as well. [6]. I presume you are referring to reports that Paul still uses the mantra he was given and now considers MMY as a good influence in the world. If you can document that, fine, but that doesn't mean he's still involved. Nor change the fact that John died without a favorable opinion of MMY, Ringo simply left and didn't go back, George joined the Hare Krishna movement thereafter, and Paul hasn't been active in TM either. --Dseer 05:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Dseer. It seems like we're somewhat in agreement regarding approach and tone. As soon as I have all the sources in hand, I'll make an attempt at a rewrite and will post it here. (Could take a couple weeks to collect things.) Then once we're agreed on the facts, we can do an RfC to determine whether they merit inclusion under BLP. TimidGuy 15:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I've ordered "The Beatles in Rishikesh" rather than "The Beatles in India," since the former is the one that isn't self published. TimidGuy 16:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation

If yah need help using the correct citation code, check Wikipedia:Citation_templates. I noticed a lot of references were just typed in without proper coding, so I am going back now and cleaning it up (:O) -Nima Baghaei (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Beatles section

Some facts have come to light from Paul McCartney's approved biography which dispell the rumours presented in the Beatles section, and the quotes from Paul are supported by the fact that Paul and his daughter spent four hours visiting with Maharishi after his wife died. This visit is referred to by Paul in an article about Paul that appeared in the Boston Globe at that time. There is also an interview with George Harrison in a magazine where he says that the entire episode rumoured about was based on a friend of the Beatles who came to India to visit them. He became envious of Maharishi's influence over them and started to spread untrue rumors trying to influence them. I am therefore removing the very negative insinuations in the Beatles section until such a time as TimidGuy make his report. Vijayante 23:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Until such a time the information stays, unless there is clear consensus that it doesn't. Sfacets 02:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Vijayante, what you say may well be true, in which case we need to add citations from reliable sources attesting to that. However removing well-cited information is not the solution. Note that as per wikipedia's policies on neutral point of view and Originial research we cannot weigh the evidence in order to decide whether the allegations are true or not; rather we need to present whatever secondary sources say about the issue and let the readers come to their own conclusions. Also, since wikipedia is not taking a position on the allegations, but is only citing the view of secondary sources, there is not even a possibility of any libel. To give an analogy, saying O.J. Simpson is a murderer may be libelous, but saying that "X said O.J. Simpson is a murderer" (assuming X did say that) cannot be. So I am reverting your deletion of the section for now. Of course you are free to discuss alternatives here. Abecedare 03:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Vijayante, you are again cautioned about disruptive editing. --Dseer 04:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Although you cited NPOV and OR, the relevant policy is BLP. It sets a much higher standard for the insertion of material. Vijayante 15:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

BLP states that critical material can be inserted if it is backed by reliable sources - this is the case here. End of story. Sfacets 15:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

But if the reliable sources simply repeat unsubstantiated rumors . . . ? TimidGuy 15:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least in the case of Saltzman and Mia Farrow, the references are giving contemporaneous, first-person accounts and not repeating "rumors". Of course, that still leaves open the possibility that they were (1) mistaken, (2) lying or (3) misquoted in the article. It is not up to us to come to a judgment on (1) and (2), but you as well as I can at least verify/debunk (3) within a week after we get the two books. Cheers. Abecedare 17:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The REAL question is: why include so much material about something that happened 40 years ago? Why not something like: the Beatles briefly became involved with Maharishi in the late-60's and studied with him in India but left after a few weeks. One explanation given was that Maharishi was making sexual advances on Mia Farrow and possibly other women. Varying accounts by the Beatles and Mia Farrow years later suggest that they no longer believe or care about the rumors.... Or something. It was an incident that happened 40 years ago. That it gets mentioned at all shows that it was important. Making it the largest or second-largest section in the entire article shows lack of balance, IMHO. -Sparaig 18:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

actually think the point is that it is not an incident that happened 40 years ago, but a non-happening, and such is the grip of maya that it is still under topic of discussion, at least on this page. Vijayante 21:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hardly a non-happening, it is historically significant, there are varied views, and that is sufficient. Also, there is simply the issue Saltzmann refers to that MMY seemed too interested in the Beatles money and fame. You speak of maya regarding critics, but another criticism that should be mentioned here is that there is evidence MMY is not exactly teaching the same thing his guru did, nor did his guru ask for large sums of money, nor dos it appear there is proof MMY was ever authorized by his guru to be a guru in his lineage, and the art of mantric science is widely known and his guru based the mantras on factors other than money. [7].--Dseer 04:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The varying possible views are: it happened; it didn't happen; I thought it happened, but I no longer think so; I thought it didn't happen, but now I do. The people who have commented on it publicly are the members of the Beatles, Mia Farrow, other people who were there, and people quoting them. You also have people quoting the people who quoted the people. Just how convoluted do you want to make the citations and the section and why? And, if you want to insert the other criticisms, that would be fine, as long as you have non-self-published sources that follow WP guidelines. -Sparaig 04:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree Sparaig, the section should be concise. The essence of the story is that: (1) All the Beatles were there, initially enthusiastic, and they left suddenly, and John and Paul publically said they had made a mistake, and with primarily John believing rumors MMY had made sexual advances as evidenced by writing "Sexy Sadie", (2) That this occurred according to Saltzmann in conjunctions with alleged concerns the Maharishi might be using them to promote himself and what might have been seen as an unexpected focus on money, (3) Deepak Chopra claims that the split with Maharishi occurred because the Beatles began using drugs at his ashram, and (4) George and Paul later said they did not believe those rumors of sexual advances, with George attributing them to jealousy by another, and Mia Farrow's later account, supported by Saltzmann's recollections, only shows she was uncomfortable with MMY's attentions, not that she said anything actually happened. I am fine with reordering and finishing this short section off with statements from George and Paul dismissing the claims, leaving the reader to make their own decision. --Dseer 20:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Maharishi asks for large sums of money as he is establishing large groups creating coherence in world consciousness as a profession and these individuals need food and shelter. Over 200,000 students attend his schools in India. He has a poverty relief programme which is providing many poor indigineous and other peoples in 3rd world countries with comfortable housing, wages, and food for entire extended families. Vijayante 05:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but one could question why it is necessary to charge thousands of dollars for a mantra, when there are deserving people of limited means. This isn't the place to debate the subject of the article, suffice it say that one could instead provide the mantra for a small sum or donation, and if it does aid their spiritual growth, then get donations from those grateful for the practice, as some other organizations do. --Dseer 20:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Cost varies depending on country in which it is taught. In Ghana people are learning on full scholarship, and in a number of schools in USA also, in Maryland, Washington, DC area, and other parts of the country, and in some inner city schools, students are learning on full scholarship. For those who pay the full cost of 2500 in the USA, the cost is nothing for what you get in return. The Howard and Alice Settle Foundation also sponsor individuals who wish to learn Yogic Flying. Vijayante 23:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Vijayante, the new section is an improvement, and has good references, but it needs to be reordered: it appears that it discusses Harrison and McCartney's views on the claims before it even mentions the claims! The claims themselves need to come before the other views, since otherwise no one will understand what the other views are talking about. Unfortunately, I no longer have time to edit. --Philosophus ^T 07:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Philosophus, I noticed that too. We're intending to rewrite this extensively once we actually have the sources in hand. And thanks, Sparaig. That's actually similar to what I have in mind. TimidGuy 11:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Kent

I've received Kent. He doesn't give any information beyond the sentence quoted in this article. He gives a footnote for the sentence in question and mentions three sources and acknowledges that the sources give widely varying accounts. He says he chooses to believe the most critical account, which is the book by Brown and Gaines titled "The Love You Make." Have ordered that. TimidGuy 11:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Draft paragraph

I've now studied the Beatles Anthology and the extensive statements from all of the Beatles about their time in India. Plus, I've reviewed the other books that I've received so far and have, and based on this, here's a draft:

In early 1968 the Beatles learned Transcendental Meditation and for varying lengths of time attended a Transcendental Meditation teacher training course in India under Maharishi’s supervision. They left the course before the end for various reasons, with much media attention given to John Lennon’s statement that he left because he came to believe rumors that Maharishi had made sexual advances. Paul McCartney and George Harrison disputed the rumors in subsequent interviews. A focal point of the rumors was an incident related to actress Mia Farrow, who was on the course, but her autobiography is ambiguous about the incident.

Note that the Beatles Anthology collects statements ranging from as long ago as 1968. Most of the criticism that runs counter to what the Beatles themselves say seems to come from the book by Brown and Gaines, "The Love You Make." I haven't yet received that. TimidGuy 17:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

thank you TimidGuy for your research

think that George Harrison's quotation should come after it, as these are strong negative rumours and deserve to be countered by a strong statement in the other direction. and Mia Farrow's name not mentioned unless we want to bring in what her sister commented and what Mia said about her state of mind at the time. So think is best we just leave that last sentence out in the draft. So would change it like this:

In early 1968 the Beatles learned Transcendental Meditation and for varying lengths of time attended a Transcendental Meditation teacher training course in India under Maharishi’s supervision. They left the course before the end for various reasons, with much media attention and rumours surrounding their departure. Paul McCartney and George Harrison disputed the rumors in subsequent interviews, including The Beatles Anthology.

If anything more than that is said, then think we need to give the quotes from George Harrison and the quotes from Paul and the mention that Paul visited Maharishi with his daughter after his wife died and quotes from MIa's sister and quotes from Mia, and on and on so I think we should just leave it simply as stated above. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vijayante (talk • contribs) 19:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

The problem is that TimidGuy's statement is well crafted, and accurately and neutrally reflects the controversy, while yours does not, therefore, I am opposed to your modifications. It is not just that the media made all this up, Vijayante, your version totally ignores the fact that evidence shows that John Lennon believed the rumors, and that Mia Farrow's reactions were related to that, which is a critical part of the history about this controversy. You continue to assume the purpose of Wikipedia is to dispel what you call rumors because you are so strongly opposed to them, when we simply need to report on the essence of the actual controversy. --Dseer 06:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I like TimidGuy's version too. Just one question: did Lennon make statements that "he left because he came to believe rumors that Maharishi had made sexual advances." or did he say "reports" or equivalent. Is there a citation for this ? I'll check up the Farrow reference in the next couple of days and report back. Cheers. Abecedare 07:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Rumors. They were on the ashram. There were no reports until after John left and gave that as a reason for leaving. Note that both George Harrison and Cynthia Lennon named the person who started the rumors. Am tracking that down. TimidGuy 10:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It was Alexis Mardas who started the rumours in very devious ways described by Cynthia Lennon in at least one of the books refered to. Vijayante 13:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Vijayante. This whole thing is so sickening -- that it all stems from rumors started by Mardas, who The Guardian chracterized as a "total fraud"[8] and who the Beatles discovered to be a charlatan in 1969 and fired him. It was then that they realized he had not only duped them about being an electronics genius but also about Maharishi. To George's credit, he never really believed the story in the first place. It's hard to believe that writers like Kent and Saltzman credit Mardas's story, especially when George and Cynthia and others are on record as saying that Mardas made the whole thing up. Draw you own conclusions. Mine is that Saltzman wants to sell his picture books and is trading on the scandal, and that Kent is biased or careless or both. It's inexcusable. Kent doesn't even accurately represent the story. TimidGuy 15:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

think the whole section should be elminated.Vijayante 19:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to eliminate the section, we are not in a position of presenting findings, only sourced information. In fairness to Saltzman compared with Kent, I would not lump them together. I don't see where Saltzman states the sexual advance actually happened, only how Mia seems to have interpreted what happened at the time and that John believed the allegations. I think his account is useful in that he goes to some lengths to show that in the vulnerable emotional state Mia was in at the time, she appeared conflicted about the attention, which one can speculate might have served as an opening for the proven to be exploitive Mardas, and presumably why Mia did not strongly and publically contest the rumors at that point. Furthermore, it is obvious from reading Salzman's account that the period in India was beneficial on many levels to those who were there and he is not just dwelling primarily on the sexual allegations. --Dseer 22:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• it might best to keep the section b/c someone else may add the section in the future, so might as well try to fix it now in order to prevent future issues (:O) -Nima Baghaei (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. --Dseer 22:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

understanding you are agreeing with Nima who is in agreement with leaving on the page what is there right now, that is, TimidGuy's new draft and the quote from George Harrison. Vijayante 00:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I support TimidGuy's draft with the different sources and a summary quote from George Harrison. --Dseer 05:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Mia Farrow Quotes

Here is what Mia Farrow says with regards to her interactions with MMY in her autobiography "What falls Away" (ISBN 0-385-47187-4). On page 137:

Nearly every afternoon Maharishi sent for me to come to his bungalow for a private talk. From the start he had been especially solicitous and attentive to me, and I had responded with wary resentment. "Not only does he send for me every single day, and not the others," I complained to my sister, "but also, he is giving me mangoes. And to the best of my knowledge, he has not given a single mango to anybody else ..." Prudence said the problem was me."

By the way, Prudence is Mia Farrow's sister (and the one to whom the Beatles song Dear Prudence is addressed). On page 140-141, Mia writes:

"Now we will meditate in my 'cave,'" said Maharishi, and I followed him down steep wooden steps into a dark, humid little cellar room that smelled of sandalwood. It was my first time in his cave: there was a small shrine with flowers and a picture of Guru Dev, Maharishi's dead teacher, and a carpet on which we settled ourselves in the lotus position to meditate. After twenty or so minutes we were getting to our feet, still facing each other, but as I'm usually a little disoriented after meditation, I was blinking at his beard when suddenly I became aware of two surprisingly male, hairy arms going around me. I panicked, and shot up the stairs, apologizing all the way. I flew out into the open air, and ran as fast as I could to Prudy's room, where she was meditating of course. I blurted out something about Maharishi's cave, and arms, and beard, and she said, It's an honor to be touched by a holy man after meditation, a tradition. Furthermore, at my level of consciousness, if Jesus Christ Himself had embraced me, I would have misinterpreted it.
Still , I flung the essentials into my faded cloth shoulder-bag, stuffed passport and money into a pouch hung around my neck, and without a plan, and nothing to lose, I dashed out of the gaurded gates headlong into the spreading Indian twilight.

Note I am not quoting these excerpts in order to restart the above debate, or to propose any change in the current description in the article of this incident, viz, "Also rumored was an incident related to actress Mia Farrow, who was on the course, but her autobiography is ambiguous about the incident." (although I'll update the biblio info). My only aim is to provide the text FYI and for the talk page archive, in case the subject is re-debated in the future weeks/months/years. Regards. Abecedare 03:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Maharishi met with all the course participants and gave attention to each one as needed, as on many courses prior to this one and after this one. And afterwards a piece of fruit or flower would often be given to the person by Maharishi. This was not uncommon. She claims to have felt dissoriented after meditation, and Maharishi no doubt noticed that and attempted to steady her on her feet. Maharishi is very keenly aware when someone is unsteady in any kind of way, physical or emotional or mental. Vijayante 13:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Abecedare. And in case anyone in the future is looking at this, I'd like to note that one gets a very different impression seeing this by itself and seeing it in context in the book. My experience was that in context it was insignificant, almost noted in passing. The storyline: Mia, basically, was a wreck, having just gotten divorced from Frank Sinatra at a young age. She went to Rishikesh tagging along with her sister Prudence and hadn't even learned Transcendental Meditation yet. She spent some time there, didn't really get into it, left impulsively, and then traveled in India as a sort of vagabond, trying to get over, in her words, the "chaos" of recent events in her life. TimidGuy 15:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"taught to millions" citation

"By the year 2003, over 5 million people throughout the world have learnt the Transcendental Meditation Programme." quote requested by Sfacet. pg 298 of Gita research book as referenced for first paragraph of biography. Vijayante 10:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Beatles section: thank you everyone

This is about as good as it gets -- both in terms of process and content. Thank you to everyone. I think we've reached a compromise that is, for now, quite acceptable. Nima, good point about the problem it would raise if it we had consensus to delete. We'll continue to think about this and to consider Vijayante's arguments for deletion. For now, the next step is for me to put in the bibliographic citations once I've received all the books. Over a dozen so far, and more to buy. It's important to actually look at the sources we cite. TimidGuy 11:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all your constructive efforts. Vijayante 17:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversy over differences in teaching and lifestyle between MMY and Guru Dev

I still think some concise mention should be made of the many documented, apparent differences in teaching and lifestyle between MMY and his Guru Dev, Swami Brahmananda Saraswati notably as detailed in [9]. The article gives the misleading impression that MMY is simply imparting his guru's complete teachings.

The following quotations illustrate this:

Guru Dev was known for his self-sufficiency and would not accept donations from anyone, whether rich or poor. In fact, a sign was erected at his ashram which said, "Worthy of Worship, Infinitely Bestowed, The Universal Guru Shankaracharya Jyotirmath, Swami Brahmananda Saraswati Maharaj prohibits any offerings of wealth."

'...But not everyone can be a guru. Actually, only brahmanas are in the position to be a guru.' On account of his varna (caste), Brahmachari Mahesh (MMY) could never have hoped to succeed his master nor could he ever become a guru himself.

Although teaching in the name of his guru, the brahmachari (MMY) appears to have taken to promoting a novel philosophy of his own, offering assurance that the quest for spiritual fulfillment does not require one to forgo any material comforts (the theory being that only a sannyasi can benefit from abandoning desires whereas the householder only finds happiness in the fulfillment of desires). He explained: 'Obviously enough there are two ways of life, the way of the Sanyasi and the way of life of a householder. One is quite opposed to the other. A Sanyasi renounces everything of the world, whereas a householder needs and accumulates everything.' 'The one realises, through renunciation and detachment, while the other goes through all attachments and accumulation of all that is needed for physical life. We have two different sets of Mantras to suit the two ways of life. Mantras for the Sanyasis have the effect of increasing the sense of detachment and renunciation and also have the power of destroying the objects of worldly affections, if there should survive any such objects for him. Quite contrary to this are the Mantras suitable for the householder which have the efficacy of harmonising and enriching the material aspect of life also.'

Mahesh the former ashram secretary, who eulogised his master as maharishi (maha=great, rishi=sage) and perfect yogi, now made a name for himself as Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, publicly extolling the benefits of mantra meditation and establishing a worldwide organisation to promote his own views. It appears that Guru Dev neither authorised nor prepared this brahmachari for such a mission:-

MMY - 'Oh, he must have known. He never said to me, otherwise quite a long time would have been wasted in planning. He saved us that waste, waste of planning. It just blossomed and blossomed and blossomed and blossomed.' 'But the great impact of Guru Dev, in his lifetime, in bringing out so clearly and in such simple words this technique of TM. And his blessing for this movement, which came out much after he left his body, because there was no occasion during his lifetime for any of his intimate blessed disciples to go out of his presence and that's why this any such movement to bless the world couldn't have started during his time.'

Millions have paid to be taught the simple practice of Transcendental Meditation (TM). TM has dual objectives in that one is instructed to repeat a mantra in order to bring about a pleasanter frame of mind, but also it is hoped that the mind will transcend thought altogether and bring about increased peace and serenity for the meditator, a state known as Pure Consciousness. Further, it is also taught that the repeated experience of the transcendental leads to a permanent state of higher awareness known as Cosmic Consciousness. Quite why instructors of TM believe that repetition of the mantra in meditation is a help (rather than a hindrance) to the process of consciously arriving at a state of no-thought is not clear. Anyhow, all initiates are required to attend a short puja ceremony celebrated in front of a portrait of Guru Dev, so everyone is led to assume that the TM technique comes directly from the guru. However, meditators are told nothing about the actual teachings of Guru Dev.

Asked by one of his students if Transcendental Meditation is exactly the same meditation technique as that taught by Guru Dev, the Maharishi answered:-

MMY - 'Must be using better techniques than I am using.'

Questioner - 'Was he still using the long mantras and all of that?'

MMY - 'It's very difficult for me to find out what he was using, because initiation is all in private...And I was never interested who was given what mantra; I was interested in myself….Full of divine radiance. People don't have to do the mantra and meditation in his presence. Just, the transformation was in his air, so full of life.'

And what do other disciples of Guru Dev say about his teachings? A report by journalist Cyril Dunn seems to suggest that the Maharishi's teachings are at odds with those of his guru:-

'The Maharishi told me that the other disciples of Brahmanand - and there are thousands of them - "do not tally with me now". It is in fact evident that among most of India's holy men he [the Maharishi] is regarded as a kind of heretic or at least a dangerous and misguided reformer. Even ordinary Indians look askance at what they consider his intention to "popularise mysticism".'

A glimpse of Guru Dev's teaching style is provided by another of his disciples, Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati, Shankaracharya of Dwarka:-

'Shankaracharya Brahmananda Saraswati Ji Maharaj strictly adhered to the varna (caste) and ashram (four stages of life) systems. He believed in one's varna by birth. Whosoever came to him to become a disciple, he used to ask him which form of God he was in love with. Whichever form the new disciple had an interest in, that form he would explain to the new disciple. [Guru Dev] used to explain, either you should depend on your own inclination or else, he, after understanding your previous life and which form of God you worshipped then, would instruct the initiate accordingly.

Without having an ishtadevata (a personal form of God), no one could have a mantra from him.'

Guru Dev instructed according to the 'Smarta' teachings of Adi Shankara which inform that the divine is both manifest and unmanifest, and that both the form and the formless can be accessed by the aspirant. From this viewpoint all manifestations of the divine are treated with equal respect and devotion, each as part of the whole divine entity. Guru Dev would ascertain the aspect of the divine most uppermost in the mind/heart of the initiate and then explain how to worship that aspect. Part of this worship involves focusing the mind on the image of that 'god', and in preparation for this contemplation the mantra associated with that god is evoked and repeated. The teaching is that the mantra is not just the sound associated with the deity, it is actually also the form of the deity. And the reason that all the deities are part of the same entity is because they are composed of the same formless unmanifest Being. If the aspirant is suitable, then the technique is given for directly attaining the unmanifest divinity - nirakar - without form.

But it appears that in spite of his being revered as an enlightened jagadguru (world teacher) and pujyapad (worshipped), his actual teachings have been eschewed.

MMY - 'When His words thrilled the air with joy, the whole atmosphere was surcharged with delight as if waves were set up in the silent ocean of Omnipresent Anandam - The Immoveable was moved by "the Expression of the Inexpressible".' 25

Unfortunately, descriptions of his personality, however charming, afford very little insight into his teachings. The guru has been silenced and now serves merely as an icon. Fortunately though, some wire-recordings and quite a few transcripts of Guru Dev's satsangs do still exist, so, belatedly (more than half a century later) it is yet possible to fulfil the appeal that 'his elevating discourses may reach the masses in every nook and corner of our country and abroad'. --Dseer 02:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the article in the light of your statement that "The article gives the misleading impression that MMY is simply imparting his guru's complete teachings," and I'm not sure I would agree that it gives this impression. Frankly, I don't know anything about these matters. My impression is that Maharishi's mission has been to re-enliven the multifacted Vedic tradition. I've been meditating since 1974, and it's never been clear to me whether this technique comes from Guru Dev or from Maharishi, but it doesn't really matter. What I think I do understand is that Guru Dev was the embodiment of that unbounded field of life that underlies and permeates everything and that this is the essence of the Vedic tradition. And that Maharishi has sought to re-enliven this essence of the Vedic tradition.

In any case, we'd want to find good sources. Mason's self-published biography IMHO feels more speculative than authoritative. TimidGuy 11:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Maharishi has had the lifelong support and goodwill of Swami Shantanand Saraswati, whom Guru Dev, Maharishi's master, named as successor to the seat of Shankaracharya of the north. After retirement, Swami Shantanand's two successors have likewise given their full support to Maharishi. There are many occasions and quotes and rememberances of this. Guru Dev asked Maharishi to bring inner peace to the people in the world in a simple way they can understand and practice. This Maharishi has faithfully done, by teaching the essence of Vedant and in the technique of Transcendental Meditation.

a brief quote from pages 362 - 63 of Thirty Years Around the World, Dawn of the Age of Enlightenment, MVU Press:

While visiting the first Transcendental Meditation teacher training course which began in Ram Nagar and ended in Rishikesh, in 1961, His Holiness Jagad Guru Swami Shantanand Saraswati Maharaj, who was the nominee and successor of Guru Dev (Maharishi's master) as Shankaracharya of the Jyotir Math, said to the students on the course:

"Transcendental Meditation is the master key to the knowledge of Vedanta. There are other keys, but a master key is enough to open all the locks. This will enable you to get established in the Self and remain established through the thick and thin of life. ... This philosophy is so complete that you will be able to meet each man on his own level. ... It is very necessary until the mind becomes attuned to the cosmic mind. Only with regular practice can the servants of the Atma, that is, the senses, the mind, the intellect, and the ego, know the standards of the master - the soul. ... The vibrations of those who meditate become such in their surroundings that when an irresolute mind comes within range, it will begin to feel calm. This is a natural influence of one who meditates."

The Shankaracharya also set a paper of 21 questions intended to test the theoretical knowledge and gauge the practical experiences of all the course participants. He explained that the significance of limiting the questions to 21 was that the number 2 represents the diversity of life, while the number 1 represents the unity of life, and that Maharishi's method of meditation was a technique to harmonize the unity with the diversity. The Shankaracharya showed such interest in the examination that he personally went through all the answers. ... After one week the Shankaracharya left the academy. In his farewell speech, he told the course participants, "Although I shall be going from here, I am one with you all. My blessings will be with you all the time. ... Never forget that we are the sons of sat chit ananda."

There are numerous other occasions when Guru Dev's successor, Swami Shantanand, and Swami Shantanand's two successors to the seat of Shankaracharya, upon his retirement, upheld the worldwide teaching of Transcendental Meditation taught by Maharishi, as well as its advanced techniques including yogic flying. Swami Shantanand and his successor presided over the international yogic flying demonstration in New Delhi at Guru Purnima, 1986. Vijayante 13:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

TimidGuy, it's understandable if you are not familiar with these matters, but there is more than the little TM teaches the average student on the subject out there. After examinng further Guru Dev's teachings, both by refering to Brahmananda Saraswati and by googling [10], [11], on the material about him, and examining basic tenents of the various Santanana Dharma (commonly called Hinduism) schools all arising from the source Upanishads and Vedas, you would find it easier to recognize the issue, that while Guru Dev's teachings broadly touched on all three widely recognized major margas (paths), karma, bhakti and jnana yogas, wholly consistent with Santanana Dharma, MMY simply claims to be an agent of Guru Dev and has emphasized a more limited aspect of his teachings and a controversial, non-traditional elements which can seen (and are alleged to by some) be inconsistent with Guru Dev's documented teachings. I do encourage you to look further than impressions from TM literature to get a broader perspective. Keep in mind that due to the succession controversy [[12]], [13], [14] in which MMY publically took sides, there are competing Guru Dev lineages, not just one. That is not to say that MMY is not sincere in teaching what he learned and intuited from Guru Dev and his claims that he does so to reach householders, but he himself acknowledges he was never formally initiated in some of the higher levels of Guru Dev's teachings, and as it says in [15]: "On other occasions, questions would arise about what methods of spiritual practice did Guru Dev teach and what was his own practice. Again, it is important to consider the role of a spiritual master of Guru Dev’s stature. Charlie Lutes once said that Guru Dev was a "Universal Guru" and as such, taught a number of different spiritual practices, according to the nature and capacity of the disciple. In the Vedic tradition, there are three main paths to God realization: Bhakti-marga or the path of Divine love and devotion; Jnana-marga or the path of knowledge and spiritual understanding; and Karma-marga or the path of action in alignment with Divine Law. From the discourses that follow, it is clear that Guru Dev placed equal emphasis on all three methods. This supports the view that Guru Dev was a Universal Guru and embodiment of the Veda. Continued reading of his words will enliven deeper levels of God Realization in the reader." Furthermore, note that Paul Masson is published and cited as a respected source by others, (The Biography of the Man Who Gave Transcendental Meditation to the World; by Paul Mason, 1994, Element Books Limited. (A complete text is available online at http://www.paulmason.info)). As for Vijayante's citations, while it is fine to refer to TM sources, one must acknowledge that the publications of advocacy religious organizations must be considered with caution compared with more neutral sources, not definitive, and that relevant critical information should be addressed when appropriate. Again, I do not want to dwell at excessive length on the dharma controversy in the article, but it is sufficiently important and documented to be mentioned, along with attributable sources. I recommend the same collaborative and inclusive approach we used to resolve the Beatles issue. --Dseer 19:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Vijayante, your citation does not definitively resolve the issue. TM materials are a source but not a definitive source when there is a controversy. It fails to address the succession controversy which remains unresolved. It would have been unseemly in 1961 to critize a noteworthy disciple of one's guru based on what MMY was teaching, and futhermore, this "endorsement" does not address the changes since 1961, most notably the emphasis on siddhis like "yogic flying". The implication that yogic flying is widely endorsed is unproven. I urge you to be collaborative on this matter. --Dseer 19:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how this is relevant to the article. What's the point of saying what Maharishi isn't (or rather what people think he isn't)? Shouldn't the article focus on who he is and what he's done? Are you saying that because Guru Dev taught three methods, so should Maharishi? IF it could be documented that Maharishi's teachings are inconsistent with Guru Dev's, what point would that be making about Maharishi and why is it relevant to the article? To my mind, it's enough that Maharishi was with Guru Dev for a number of years and imbibed a deep understanding of the Vedic tradition. And he's now introducing facets of Vedic knowledge to a wider audience.

I've been at Maharishi University of Management for decades, and I've never had the sense that Maharishi's teachings are explicitly Guru Dev's teachings. It goes deeper than that. It's more on the level of Being. Guru Dev was the embodiment of that Being. Maharishi appreciated that essence. He is re-enlivening facets of the Vedic tradition in that context. The focus is on transcending, on experience of transcendence, and on verifying those experiences -- through knowledge about what's happening and through scientific research. It's the essence of simplicity. We don't get bogged down in worrying about this or that tradition or lineage of path or method. We appreciate that there are many different paths, probably equally valid. Maharishi has given us a simple technique that uses the natural tendency of the mind. It has the virtue of being effortless. And he's complemented that by introducing other aspects of the Vedic tradition, such as Ayurveda, Gandharva Veda, and Sthapatya Veda. But it's all for the same simple purpose of transcending and experiencing pure consciousness.

I think you'd need to demonstrate that the Mason biography was published by a reputable publisher. It seems like a collection of hearsay. No one that I know thinks of Charlie Lutes as an authority on the Vedic tradition or on Guru Dev. TimidGuy 20:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Your questions are very thoughtful and deep. To try and respond to them, all I can say in the simplest way is that Maharishi's teachings are that Transcendental Meditation in one stroke refines the heart, mind and body, bringing fulfilment simultaneously to Bhakti-marga, Jnana-marga, and Karma-yoga. Established in Being, perform action - established in Transcendental Consciousness, refine the feeling level and attain the highest devotion, established in Transcendental Consciousness, realize the highest wisdom. Maharishi teachings are that Transcendental Meditation balanced by a regular balanced healthy routine of life suited to the nature of the individual, brings fulfilment to all paths, and all paths merge as one. The endorsement from the 3 successive Shankaracharya's following Guru Dev, who have visited with Maharishi often and come to Europe to spend time with Maharishi is not a light thing of course. And for the knowledge of the Mantras and the advanced techniques and further on the Vedic Tradition and Maharishi's lineage, these are things brought to light in the context of a teacher training course under the guidance of Maharishi. It is an oral tradition passed on from teacher to student, and in different ways Maharishi has ensured the strict purity of the teaching. Those who wish to learn these things become teachers of Transcendental Meditation. No one is an authority on this topic except those who have passed through this training and are authorized by Maharishi. They would never discuss it in a public forum or publish it in a book. Your questions are good, but feel like TmidGuy you may be worrying unnecessarily about certain things. The important thing is that Guru Dev was Maharishi's master. Maharishi gives wholehearted credit to Guru Dev for everything he has ever done and all he has ever taught. Maharishi makes his lineage abundantly clear to those who become teachers of Transcendental Meditation and its advanced techniques. Those who knew Guru Dev personally and know Maharishi have said, as was the Master, so is the Disciple. Vijayante 22:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

All the above comments are very interesting, but IMO veering towards discussing the article's subject rather than the article content. So my suggestion is that User:Dseer propose some text that he thinks should be included in the article and then other editors can comment and suggest further additions, deletions, refinements etc. Regards. Abecedare 22:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be noted that a controvery section is just that, notable items in controversy for which there are attributable sources, not proven allegations. Paul Masson is not only a published author on the subject, but is referenced for his work on exploring life and teachings of Guru Dev. The very idea that Guru Dev is respected like a Paramguru and that MMY sees him as guiding his work implies that alleged discrepancies between the two are worth mentioning. A suggested outline of the text for a section on controversy would be something like this:

Controversy: There has been some controversy over alleged differences between the teachings and practices of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and his Guru Dev, Brahmananda Saraswati, and over the extent his guru authorized Maharishi's teaching role. One alleged difference is that while Guru Dev reportedly refused to accept donations, there is a cost for learning Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's methods, although ability to pay is considered. Another is that while Guru Dev reportedly those receiving mantras from him to have an ishtadevata (a personal form of God), Maharishi Mahesh Yogi only requires a short puja ceremony celebrated in front of a portrait of Guru Dev. Another is that while Guru Dev reportedly said "don't wish for the siddhis", Maharishi Mahesh Yogi encourages development of certain siddhis. [16]. The Maharishi began to teach on his own soon after the death of his Guru Dev, Brahmananda Saraswati, while the dispute among multiple lineages claiming to be his successor arose and remains unresolved [[17]], [18]. The lineage designated in a purported will has endorsed the Maharishi's role and teaching, but reportedly not all the claimants do so. The Maharishi reportedly acknowleged that his guru did not discuss or plan for his future teaching role, that it just "blossomed", but stated that "he must have known", and reportedly views himself as the only the "bulb through which the spiritual electrical current from Gurudev shines in radiating light on all". [19].--Dseer 08:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I just don’t think that any of this is relevant. We’re never going to resolve the guru wars. Even the Shankaracharya tradition itself hasn’t been able to do that. There’s always going to be someone with an opinion that your guru is lesser than my guru. There’s no objective standard for legitimacy. This just doesn’t belong in the article.

One thing that does characterize Maharishi is that he’s put his meditation on the objective platform of science. Disciples can argue all they want about whose guru is the best or most legitimate, but the science shows that Transcendental Meditation, whatever its origin, has very specific effects. And that long-term practice leads to a state of subjective experience and neurophysiological markers that are very different from the norm.

I say we keep your POV out of the article. In any case, Mason’s work is self-published and isn’t authoritative. (Plus he uses as a source a book that you earlier suggested we disallow: Thirty Years Around the World.) TimidGuy 11:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This is improperly framing the controversy, I do not have much time right now to address all points, will do so later, but clearly it is not about a guru war with some guru or I would agree with you, it is about a controversy about MMY's relationship to his guru and lineage and their teachings and practices. This is relevant in the light of statements like "Maharishi states that his teachings are based on the principles espoused by the Adi Shankara (c. 788-820 AD),[1] and taught by his own master, Swami Brahmananda Saraswati", assertions that have been challenged, and appropriate in a bio. And despite your dismissal, it is obviously not "my POV", I am not the originator of this controversy, I simply point out it exits and has been a subject of books and websites. And, despite your understandably poor opinion of Mason's book and the topic in general, the book has been published, expanded and republished, has favorable reviews, is listed on Amazon, and is hardly a vanity, self-published work. In the spirit of compromise, I will simplify and self-edit the proposal as follows (along with room for any rebuttals you want to make):

There reportedly has been some controversy over alleged differences between the teachings and practices of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and his Guru Dev, Brahmananda Saraswati, and his guru's and lineage's support for Maharishi's subsequent teaching role , an issue complicated by an unresolved dispute among multiple lineages all claiming to be Brahmanananda Saraswati's successor [[20]], [21]. The Maharishi reportedly views himself as the only the "bulb through which the spiritual electrical current from Gurudev shines in radiating light on all". --Dseer 04:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the offending statement wasn't sourced, and since it would be difficult to pin that down, I've made it more general.

Ironically, I've been feeling that you're the one who's improperly framing things (which is why I referenced your POV). You keep casting Maharishi into a guru role and focusing on lineages, etc. But Maharishi is simply a person who was a disciple of Guru Dev and who subsequently began teaching a form of meditation that he said would have many immediate practical benefits, as well as a long-term cumulative effect. And research and the experience of people who take up the practive have verified his claims. He has subsequently sought to revive various facets of the Vedic literature and, in general, to re-enliven the Vedic tradition. He didn't represent himself as a guru, didn't ask people to be his followers, didn't claim any authority based on lineages, etc. In a sense, Guru Dev was his inspiration. The only people who worry about this are the people with other gurus. They have to find a reason to delegitimize Maharishi. This is an invented controversy by a tiny group of people. It's not notable and doesn't belong in the article. And Mason's book is self-publshed and not scholarly. No scholar, for example, would cite Charlie Lutes as an authority on Guru Dev. TimidGuy 11:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Dseer, for your post on my Talk page. I guess I'd rather the discussion be here. Others, such as Vijayante and Sparaig, may want to participate.

I just can't accept Mason. He's not a trained scholar, his book isn't scholarly. If you check this page {http://evolutionpublishinguk.com/} you'll see that the publisher has published one book -- Mason's. That's what tells you it's self-published. I know many people who have self-published books. It's standard practice to create a publisher. Self-published books can be listed on Amazon. They can even find a distributor. One reason that this is important is that scholars generally try to be objective. Mason isn't neutral -- he's opposed to TM. You can check his web site and find a link to the most critical site that opposes TM. A historian and biographer doesn't usually approach his subject with an agenda. If this is such a major controversy among those who revere the Vedic tradition, then why can't you cite books from university presses? Or articles in scholarly journals? Note that WP:ATT suggests that the standard be books published by university presses.

I think the next step would be to an example of a specific thing that Maharishi has said or taught and then produce a scholarly source that says that that's wrong. (Web sites won't cut it. Mason won't cut it.) Then we can discuss it. TimidGuy 20:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This is going to go nowhere, I see. There is NO Wikipedia requirement that sources be "scholarly", and no requirement that sources be what you as an advocate consider "neutral", not have any criticism of TM. These are just fictional requirements you have created. There is also a requirement to skeptically view TM materials which you ignore. There are lots of interesting topics where there are no scholarly assessments. The book has had two publishers, you have no proof that this is the only work this publisher will publish, and so you are just being petty and making up pretexes as you go, and in the end, nothing will be gained without outside intervention. If you actually read Mason, you'd see that he links to lots of sources of which the link you refer to is only one, and is not totally critical of MMY. In any case, the only thing I was using him for a source on was the religious element of MMY, and since that is already accepted at TM and is evident to those less biased, what can be said about your motives? Your solution simply hides the evidence for a religious aspect to MMY, which obvisouly favors your personal interest in TM. This will never, ever be acceptable. Apparently you can't pull that off at TM where there are more editors, so you try it here where TM advocates predominate. We shall see how long you can do this. In view of the syncronicity between your denial that there is even a meaningful controversy that there is a religious element to MMY, I think I will pursue a COI determination for you TM folks in due course. --Dseer 05:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not requiring that a source be neutral. I'm simply suggesting that if Maharishi's teaching is a major contoversy among those who study the Vedic tradition, then it should be possible to cite the scholarly literature. Say, for example, the Journal of Vedic Studies. I'm just not confident in Mason. He didn't go to college.[22] His book appears self published. I tried to buy the recent edition on Amazon, but it's not available. It's not available on Half.com. If there are scholarly sources that dispute Maharishi's approach, then I think it would be fair to reference that in the article.

There does need to be some standard, as the [[WP:ATT} FAQ suggests: "Books and journals published by universities and known publishing houses" and "Books written by widely published authors." TimidGuy 11:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Beatles' songs

Vijayante recently deleted reference to the songs written by the Beatles about MMY and their time at the ashram. I have reverted because I feel "Beatles did not write first song. John did under misguidance of Alexis Mardas." Is unsourced POV and clearly untrue - and it doesn't matter who's "misguidance" it was under. Vijayante, please stop deleting sourced content. Sfacets 02:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't even see the motivation behind Vijayante's reversions, since these details are cited, relevant and neutral towards MMY. As I stated in one of my edit summary, I think it is important for the section named "Beatles" to present a broader (though concise) picture of Beatles interactions with MMY and TM rather than be limited to only the sexual advances rumors. Abecedare 02:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

in anthology on page 286 Paul stated that John wrote the song. It was by prior agreement that all John's songs and all Paul's songs were said to be written by both John and Paul, but Paul said this song was written by John. Paul's exact statement as per TimidGuy's quote some days ago was: Paul: "John wrote 'Sexy Sadie' to get it off his chest. That was a veiled comment on it all, but personally I don't think Maharishi ever did make a pass. He didn't seem like the kind of guy who would. ... Rishikesh was a good experience. I enjoyed it." end quote. Paul clearly dissavowed writing the song. Vijayante 03:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I've changed the Lennon-McCartney authorship to John Lennon. Abecedare 03:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Abecedare, I appreciate your point about making this section neutral, but a motivation for removing is to keep this section concise. Otherwise it violates the NPOV guideline of undue weight. There were other famous musicians on the course. Do they merit sections too? Donovan's wonderful autobiography goes into detail about his experiences there, and a few of his most famous songs were written there. Mike Love of the Beach Boys was there. Should we give him a section too? TM was important to the subsequent careers of both. The Beach Boys even had an album titled MIU, after the name of the university where I'm on faculty. It's all so much trivia and says nothing about Maharishi, the topic of this article. In the end, the Mardas rumors say nothing about him. A main argument for keeping the rumors in was Nima's: that if we determined they weren't relevant information about Maharishi's life and took them out, someone would just come along and put them back in, starting the battle again. So they're there to show that the evidence points to their falsity. So why start expanding the section at this point? Then other people will come along and add more trivia.

Sfacets, just because something is sourced doesn't mean it belongs in an article. TimidGuy 11:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

TimidGuy, it is true that many musicians and well known personalities have spent time at Maharishi's ashram. I think that The Beatles stand out though, not only because of the influence MMY had on them (that should be discussed in The Beatles article), but mainly because their presence at the ashram raised Maharishi's profile significantly in the West (similar to The Beatles' interaction with Ravi Shankar) even without reference to the sexual advance rumors. That is the reason I still think it is worth mentioning the songs in a short sentence, although this is not a sticking point for me. Abecedare 17:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Abecedare. If it's not a sticking point, maybe I'll remove it, in the intrerest of keeping the section concise (which four editors had agreed to). Seems like the reference to the Beatles is enough to satisfy your point that their association with Maharishi raised his profile. TimidGuy 15:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Refactoring from my Talk page

From Dseer:

Actually, although technically ineligible in his tradition, he is widely considered as a guru, and he claims to be acting as an agent for his guru, and your position itself is a well known controversy, over whether MMY is a religious leader or not. Your position might make sense from a western perspective, where the secular nature of the practice is emphasized, but not to those familiar with the Indian tradition and not in the biographical context of the tradition which MMY claims to represent. In other words, you can hold your position but it in itself is part of the controversy.

Just how familiar are you with the Vedic tradition? That gets right to the heart of the controversy, what you term "revive" and "re-enliven" can also be seen as revising and distorting by comparison with the actual Vedic tradition and the teachings of his own guru. I am disappointed that you can't see that you are operating from your own assumptions here, that just because you believe something like that makes it true, when it is just a belief like many others.

Again, an assumption at the heart of the controversy. Isn't it possible that some are legitimately concerned about the integrity of the Sanatana Dharma and the Vedic tradition, and that MMY might not be faithful to his guru's teachings? Even if MMY's practices are beneficial, how does that prove that greater benefit is not gained from a more traditional approach?

It isn't an invented controversy at all. It's actually pretty self-evident if you are more familiar with the traditions from which MMY comes. And it is relevant based on the article. How can you honestly ignore the religious claims MMY has made and that are being made about him?

Of course I'm operating from my own assumptions. But I believe I'm also characterizing the way Maharishi has presented his teaching and the way that he's perceived by most people. He's presented it as secular and scientific, and most people accept it that way. Most of the media reports present it that way. It's exclusively presented that way in the scientific literature. If there is a body of scholarship that disputes Maharishi's approach, I'm unfamiliar with it. If there is, then it can be referenced in the article. But for the most part, I believe the article should represent the way that Maharishi is viewed by most people. If you and some others believe he's violated the integrity of the Santana Dharma tradition, it's your point of view. You'll need to support it, and you'll need to show that it's notable. So far you've only referenced a book by a non-scholar and various web sites. On the other hand, there's a body of 700 scientific studies spanning nearly 40 years. Why should one book and a few partisan web sites define Maharishi and not the 700 studies on his form of meditation and the numerous books that have presented his approach, such as Dr. Schneider's recent book on Maharishi's approach to health? TimidGuy 21:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Most see MMY a secular, scientific figure?

So you are basing your argument on the claim most people see MMY as a secular, scientific rather than religious figure? That may be true for you and the sources you have seen, but you dismiss the obvious fact that many people associate him with being a guru or religous leader, proven by the results of [23], and [24], while Larry King refers to him as a guru and and even the Encylopedia Britannica refers to him as a Hindu Religious Leader, and Wikipedia also catagorizes him as such. He is widely remembered as "the Beatle's guru" among those old enough to remember the group. Wikipedia has already acknowledged that there is a controversy here: [[25]]. Futhermore, the issue of whether MMY teaches a religious practice or not is not only highly controversial, but the government of France has ruled it is, the U.S. courts have affirmed its religious nature, etc. Futhermore, significance of the science and its results is also in dispute, as has also been noted at the TM article. So the standard for relevance and non-triviality has already been met. While the desire of TM to disassociate itself from its religious heritage is well known, it is also a well known controversy, and Wikipedia has already established that. The secular aspect does not invalidate the controversy, and Wikipedia is under no obligation to frame the presentation the way some figure and their organization wants it to be without pointing out controversies. I don't have even have to show a majority of people see MMY as a religious figure, I only have to show a significant number do, and I have met that burden. Since I see no reason to accept such logic given all the prima facia evidence of it, logic which serves the interest of the TM organization rather than readers, and you are determined to dismiss the religious aspects rather than address it at all by claiming there really is not controversy, we may not be able resolve this one. I had hoped that you would accept some sort of compromise.--Dseer 22:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The thought that springs immediately to mind is that if an editor wants to portray MMY (or foo, etc.) as "perceived by most people", the burden lies on that editor to demonstrate (via some reliable source) that such a majority perception indeed exists. I think it is unlikely that such a source exists stating that a religious leader is in fact a scientific figure (maybe we'd have to go back to the days when the Pope argued against Copernicus?). I'm happy to be proved wrong, but I just want to be clear on where the burden lies (cf. 2nd paragraph at WP:ATT). regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 00:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to characterize how most people perceive MMY, but in order to characterize him as a religious leader (as opposed to a spiritual leader), you'd have to name the religion that he espouses, or is credited with founding. MMY clearly states that he did NOT want to be a guru in the classical hindu sense as opposed to merely a teacher and that he did NOT want to found a religion. The claim that he is universally (or whatever) known as the foremost scientist in consciousness is PR, IMHO, though even Herbert Benson credits him with opening up meditation to scientific research. MMY's own words on the topic make his views clear:

Spiritual and Material Values

"Every experience has its level of physiology, and so unbounded awareness has its own level of physiology which can be measured. Every aspect of life is integrated and connected with every other phase. When we talk of scientific measurements, it does not take away from the spiritual experience. We are not responsible for those times when spiritual experience was thought of as metaphysical. Everything is physical. Consciousness is the product of the functioning of the brain. Talking of scientific measurements is no damage to that wholeness of life which is present everywhere and which begins to be lived when the physiology is taking on a particular form. This is our understanding about spirituality: it is not on the level of faith -it is on the level of blood and bone and flesh and activity. It is measurable."

--Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

-Sparaig 01:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sparaig -- MMY's saying spirituality is measurable doesn't make it so, nor does it mean others accept his claim that it is. I'm not interested in putting MMY in any particular category, just in making sure he isn't improperly placed into one (e.g., "scientist in consciousness"). Saying who thinks what, and why, is fine; presenting such opinions as fact, not fine (cf. Wp:npov#The_neutral_point_of_view). That's not intended as praise or blame for MMY; it's just how WP functions. (Also, I don't have any opinion on "religious" vs. "spiritual", and am not sure there is a generally agreed-upon demarcation between the two.) Thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 07:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue of whether MMY is a seen as religious and/or spiritual leader, or just a scientific figure, does NOT have to be proven to be cited in Wikipedia, we are simply to present the information as it is. All that has to be shown to illuminate the controvery is that the issue is reasonably controversial, which there is prima facia evidence it is. And there is no proof provided that someone who used to be widely known as the Beatle's guru is nowadays seen by most as a scientific figure! I do NOT need an academic study or a proven neutral source, , as TimidGuy claims, merely an attributable, published source for that assertion. Nor are public figures permitted to simply self-define themselves without futher consideration. Since TimidGuy has chosen to consistently adopt a position rigidly denying this controversy is even relevant despite good faith compromises, reams of evidence, other Wikipedia articles, and even court cases to the contrary, in obvious syncronicity with his own personal beliefs and the position taken by his organization, I doubt any sources would satisfy him, I have done what I can and I will pursue available options in due time. If it gets to Arbcom, I seriously doubt they will adopt the position TimidGuy has taken that there is no significant evidence supporting a controversy over the religious elements in MMY's life and teaching, that MMY is most widely seen as scientist, and will take into consideration his involvement in said organization. Sorry it has to come to this, TimidGuy, but when faced with rigid, unsound positions after repeated attempts to collaborate, NPOV remains not negotiable, and I'll take my case elsewhere. --Dseer 05:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Dseer, I'm not rigidly denying there's a controversy. I'm asking for evidence for it. So far all that's been cited is a self-published book and web sites from what seems to be a small coterie of self-styled adherents to Guru Dev. Here's what I said: "If there is a body of scholarship that disputes Maharishi's approach, I'm unfamiliar with it. If there is, then it can be referenced in the article." TimidGuy 10:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, TimidGuy, you've got the burden of proof exactly backwards. Please re-read WP:ATT, especially the second paragraph, and also WP:NPOV. To rephrase your words: "If there is a body of scholarship that supports Maharishi's approach, I'm unfamiliar with it. If there is, then it can be referenced in the article." thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 18:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

There are many published studies that define spirituality and that clearly delineate spirituality and religion. This happens to be a very current topic right now especially in the field of business but also in the area of human development. Maharishi never defines himself as a religious leader nor does he mention religion in reference to TM . He does however mention spirituality. As an editor I can report that . I can also report the number of scientific studies. These indicate a highly scientific approach to this knowledge. This can also be reported and both go a long ways towards seeing Maharish as a spiritual leader and as approaching TM form a scientist's viewpoint.

I believe it is extremely important to report on how Maharishi views himself in a biography about "himself". Material contrary to his own opinion of himself I would think have to be very strong, and very clearly and strongly referenced.We cannot reasonably discount in any way this kind of reference , and I would like to suggest that Maharishi's view of himself must be heavily weighted in these arguments. Not to do so suggests that a bias is present that calls into question the person himself. Frankly if someone decided that I was something else than who I say I am I would want some very strong arguments to support that. I think that not working this way gives undue weight to opinions opposite to what the man says he is. This is who he says he is and this is who he is unless I find some really good material to support otherwise. The question of were to place the weight of the article definitely comes into question here.

I am surprised by the weight placed on the title the so-called "Beatles Guru" . I would think this article would have to be about the man himself and on who influenced him . There is no evidence that the Beatles played any greater part in Maharishi's life than any of the many other people who spent time with him. There is however plenty of evidence that the press thought this was a big deal . Who is this article about . If the connection between Maharishi and the Beatles was important I believe it was important to the Beatles and to the Press so lets put this in the right context, and in the right article.Maharishi has met with much bigger reputations than the Beatles - world leaders, so why not call him something that references one of these people.It wouldn't make very good press thats why. The title Beatles Guru comes from the press ..... and thats all it is. By seeing this as otherwise we fall nicely into the trap the press has designed for us.(olive 17:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC))

Jim Butler -- I don't understand your comments. Dseer has been making a very specific claim: That Maharishi isn't religious enough, that his teaching is a corruption of his master's. I was suggesting that this be well sourced. I'm not sure what aspect of Maharishi's approach you want me to document. His main teaching is that Transcendental Meditation is a simple meditation technique that has specific benefits. This claim has been examined by hundreds of peer-reviewed studies. TimidGuy 20:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I would really appreciate it if you would accurately characterize the issue, TimidGuy, and accurately assess Wikipidia policy regarding WP:ATT, WP:NPOV in your discussions. In starting this section, I was simply referring to what you yourself said to justify your position. Anyone can see what you said above.

The issue is that as a compromise, I proposed: "There reportedly has been some controversy over alleged differences between the teachings and practices of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and his Guru Dev, Brahmananda Saraswati, and his guru's and lineage's support for Maharishi's subsequent teaching role [1], an issue complicated by an unresolved dispute among multiple lineages all claiming to be Brahmanananda Saraswati's successor 21, [22]. The Maharishi reportedly views himself as the only the "bulb through which the spiritual electrical current from Gurudev shines in radiating light on all"."

You rejected all this, claiming that since Maharishi is according to you and him and his organization primarily seen as "secular" and "scientific", the above or any spiritual or religous information about MMY is irrelevant unless I can produce scholarly, neutral sources published by a mainstream publishing house proving to your satisfaction there is a notable controversy, compared with all the evidence for secularity and science you present (I wonder how well siddhis like "yogic flying" are accepted by mainstream science). The fact is that secular argument has been rejected by governments and courts, he is widely seen as a spiritual and religious figure, and there is much controversy over the "scientific" aspect of TM. And you have not shown that a book published by two different independent publishers which contains specific, sourced quotations by both the Maharishi and his Guru is "self published" as defined by the letter and spirit of Wikipedia policy. Your assessment that it is an anti-Maharishi book designed to "delegitimize" the Maharishi with manufactured non-controversies and is therefore unsuitable is simply yours. And again, I am not suggesting that Wikipedia give excessive weight to the controversy, only outlining what the controversy is. --Dseer 20:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Littleolive, dialogue must be based on Wikipedia policy to be fruitful. No one is saying that the Maharishi's characterization of himself should not be reported, to the contrary. But one is not limited to such self-definitions where sourced controversy can be demonstrated. Nor is anyone saying the bulk of the article should be devoted to criticism. But, public figures get criticized, and that is how it is, and Wikipedia does not arbitrate such criticisms and their validity based on the Maharashi's desires and opinion of himself, or those of his advocates. You state: "This is who he says he is and this is who he is unless I find some really good material to support otherwise." That is your own opinion and that of others that, given their view on the subject, is not surprising, but it is not Wikipedia policy, which instead is WP:NPOV and WP:ATT taken as a whole. Were Wikipedia actually to adopt such an unencyclopedic policy as you suggest, even the most controversial figures personal opinions of themselves, such as political and religous leaders, would be given undue weight, and if it were widely accepted, there would not be an essay, [[26]], which is totally contrary to this assertion. I remind you of what Vijayante was told when he tried to exclude critical sources: "Please note that BLP specifically allows the inclusion of a reliable source. I noticed that you say in the Talk page that you have personal information that the source is 'wrong', and you may be right, but that should not affect our consideration of its qualification as being attributable. If you have another reliable source that refutes that source, then you are welcome to add it, but we can't use personal knowledge to exclude a source." That is the Wikipedia standard. Be advised also of WP:COI.

Regarding the oft repeated argument that the Mason book is "self published" so no source has been provided, this is what Wikipedia actually says: "Self-publishing is the publishing of books and other media by the authors of those works, rather than by established, third-party publishers. Although it represents a small percentage of the publishing industry in terms of sales, it has been present in one form or another since the beginning of publishing and has seen an increase in activity with the advancement of publishing technology, including xerography, desktop publishing systems, print on demand, and the World Wide Web. Cultural phenomena such as the punk/DIY movement, the proliferation of media channels, and blogging have contributed to the advancement of self-publishing." Since the book was first published years ago by one publisher and has since been published by a different, new publisher, and has receieved independent reviews, [27], and the dedication [28] clearly shows that it meets neither the letter or spirit of a self-published, or regarding the other objection, a anti-Maharishi work, it is an attributable source for the simple contention there is a controversy. Combining personal belief or knowledge and Original Research to try and speculate otherwise is not acceptable, there must be reliable sources to suppport such a claim, particularly when there is the appearance of a personal bias. You are welcome to find other reliable sources to try and refute Mason, but these objections to the criticism itself are not Wikipedia based. --Dseer 20:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed paragraph

Well, I see you've been out enlisting your friends and that you've posted on the COI Noticeboard. You've been busy. Am starting a new thread. Here's the proposed paragraph (and by the way, I agree that it's relatively benign and do appreciate this version compared to your first):

"There reportedly has been some controversy over alleged differences between the teachings and practices of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and his Guru Dev, Brahmananda Saraswati, and his guru's and lineage's support for Maharishi's subsequent teaching role , an issue complicated by an unresolved dispute among multiple lineages all claiming to be Brahmanananda Saraswati's successor [[29]], [30]. The Maharishi reportedly views himself as the only the "bulb through which the spiritual electrical current from Gurudev shines in radiating light on all".

Despite your accusations of conflict of interest, I still want to go on record as saying that I don't feel that Mason qualifies an expert on the Vedic tradition and Guru Dev. But putting that aside for the moment, I don't understand how you can make a general statement like that and then simply reference the whole book. Is that proper encyclopedia style? Also, it's not clear to me why Maharishi's teaching must necessarily be the same as Guru Dev's in every facet. And I don't understand how the dispute regarding lineages is related. Has Maharishi claimed to be an authorized representative of a particular lineage. Where's the quote from? Finally, what am I risking by asking these questions? Will you go to ArbCom and open a case? Have you already? Thanks. TimidGuy 21:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You are once again misframing the issue and sorry but I've seen enough that is just how it will be from the Maharishi University perspective. Outlining a controversy simply does not require all the conditions you have put on it to be addressed, and you have rejected the premise out of hand because I see now you clearly understand what is at stake here if you acknowledge the controversy. The position and approach of denial of any religious element you are asserting is now familiar and predictable, I've seen it is already spelled out in the pro-TM case here: [31], which is an academically based and reviewed source, and there is already a substantive rebuttal to it which is conveniently not acknowledged in any of your communications claiming there is no controversy, so consider that rebuttal my reply. I understand now it is important for that case that Mason be discredited even when he accurately quotes both Guru Dev and MMY, and that the religious aspects of MMY's life be minimized, because acknowledging MMY offers a "reinterpretion" of hindu based practices taught by a noted scholar and guru like Guru Dev might not only undermine the attempt to circumvent the establishment clause of the US Constitution in the US with resultiing windfalls, but cause one to compare the differences and not just assume MMY's approach is superior, and to obscure that the unique religious indoctrination based on this reinterpretation comes later. Appreciate the gesture but positions have already been staked out, so let's see where the COI issue takes us first, and go from there. Mediation, and Arbcom at the end of the line is certainly not something I'm opposed to, I'd welcome a definitive end to this impasse and that is what it took at the Sai Baba article. --Dseer 23:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Having noted that there is a fair amount of material delineating spirituality and religion for whoever brought that topic up,suggesting that consideration must be given to present a fair view in the biography of a living person-taking into account and noting the importance of what that person has to say about his work and himself, making sure that the source for citing whatever is opposite to this personal view be very reliable as per Wikipedia guidelines, and wondering about the continued use of the term Beatles Guru, my contribution on these pages has been noted as unfruitful, and I have been treated to the point regarding conflict of interest. In addition I have been cast as one of those people in that group- a pretty big generalization. Whew! Whatever happened to assume good faith.(olive 22:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC))

I did not call your contribution unfruitful, I said that dialogues not based on Wikipedia principles were unfruitful. Anyone can see what I meant by the COI caution by referring to the body of your contributions and stated position on TM and the Maharishi. Take it as you will. --Dseer 23:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Dseer, I asked sincere and simple questions about the paragraph you are proposing to add. I guess I won't expect an answer at this point, given that your focus is now on COI issues. I don't actually think that will be a problem. I believe my editing record speaks for itself. My work has been praised by many, including opponents and also Admin Bishonen, who after watching me work on the TM article for a couple months, wrote, "I've been watching you improve the article a lot."

Regarding the particular New Religious Movements page that you referenced, note that it was written by two students in a 200-level sociology course and that it has many errors, including spelling and grammar errors.

I don't have any problem acknowledging that Maharishi offers a reinterpretation of certain teachings. One need look no futher than his commentary on the Bhagavad-Gita, in which he reinterprets many common understandings, such as the renunciation of the fruits of action. TimidGuy 11:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The devil is always in the details, isn't it? Once again, you skillfully reframe my position in a nice but inaccurate way while diverting attention from the real issues. Nobody said you hadn't done a lot of good here, the issue is that your financial and personal interests from association with the organization and your tendatious pattern in dealing with critical information affect the NPOV here. I am aware of the flaws in the page, but since done under the supervision of a professor and in an attempt to present all sides, that doesn't disqualify the link or invalidate the information, it is used on many similar articles while noting the caveats. As for your last point, historically, that seems to be a strategy to further distract from the controversy regarding the religious element of the founder of your organization by showing how he has distanced himself from his past, and I'm confident that is how you collectively will craft the results while citing collaboration for cover. Nice talk from a nice guy who just happens to be a paid employee of the organization, and whose positions just happen to be identical to organizational talking points, and artfully presented in the established manner, but that merely obscures that the long term results are always the same, editors wanting some balance only hit a brick wall. As Philosphus so wisely put it, and as I and other have observed: "These articles are being dominated by editors with various connections to the TM organization. Nearly any attempts at NPOVing result in reversion, and critical sources are being relegated to minor articles on specific subtopics so that the main articles are free from criticism. Of course, they are all very polite, but that doesn't mean that they aren't simply reverting critical edits with "let's discuss this on the talk page" (where they can then overwhelm us, or delay us indefinitely), or that they aren't gradually removing all critical information, making the critical information so convoluted as to be unreadable, and moving much of the criticism to minor articles on small subtopics." The "improvements" inevitably lead in that direction. I've studied the history here, and endless discussions end up only appearing to give legitimacy to the idea there is real collaboration supporting diversity of opinion tolerated here, diverting attention from the COI issue on critical material shown by the results. I do not have to presume good faith when there is a COI and ample evidence to the contrary, and the reports of multiple editors, experience with your organization and the history here suffice in my opinion to cast serious doubt. After looking at the history here and reviewing your organization's legal and PR strategy, I'm not going to assist you and the other TM associated or supporting folks here in this by providing more cover for the diversion. Whether Wikipedia guidelines will be enforced at this time is one thing, but an article dominated by those with personal interests in the organization who use that power to suppress sourced criticism is a problem, and the issue will remain. Maybe it will just take more time to make it apparent to enough editors. --Dseer 19:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Appreciate your saying "Nobody said you hadn't done a lot of good here . . . ." I guess I can count you among my supporters. ; ) Oops, reframing your position again. TimidGuy 19:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. Thanks for providing another example of reframing and diversion, while once again failing to address the basic issues of COI and NPOV.

I would like to restate what WP:NPOV has to say about the pattern many see in your editing which shows why the COI is relevant: Information suppression: A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted. In this manner, the full range of views on a subject can be unfairly presented or concealed whilst still complying with Wikipedia:Verifiability. Remember that Verifiability is just one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policy pages. The other two are NPOV and No original research. All three are necessary for an article to be considered compliant. Some examples of how editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject in an unfair way: Biased or selective representation of sources, eg: Explaining why evidence supports one view, but omitting such explanation in support of alternative views. Making one opinion look superior by omitting strong and citable points against it, comparing it instead with low quality arguments for other POVs (strawman tactics). Not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors. Editing as if one given opinion is "right" and therefore other opinions have little substance: Entirely omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it is claimed to be not credible. Ignoring or deleting significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Wikipedia terms (this could be done on spurious grounds). Concealing relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value. Thus, verifiability, proper citation and neutral phrasing are necessary but not sufficient to ensure NPOV. It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.

It also states: "Some Wikipedians, in the name of neutrality, try to avoid making any statements that other people find offensive or objectionable, even if objectively true. This is not the intent of striving for neutrality. Many groups would prefer that certain facts be stated euphemistically, or only in their own terminology, or suppressed outright; such desires need not be deferred to. On the other hand, these terms should be presented, explained and examples given, perhaps with views of other groups of why the term is used as well as the group itself."

I continue to request that you refrain from reframing my replies and responding to strawmen you have created, despite previous failures to honor that request. --Dseer 05:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Conflice of Interest Update

After much debate at the COI noticeboard, in response to concerns originally raised by Philosophus which I followed up on, it appears that there is a significant body of agreement among three expert, senior editors there, Durova, Tearlach and Athaenara, that WP:COI means what it says, and that it is not necessary to demonstrate anything more than an editor has or reasonably appears to have a Conflict of Interest. One does not have to also show that a given editor is not a "good editor", or that "bad things will happen if they don't edit the article" on the main page. Attempts to refute such "waffle defenses" are unnecessary and only muddy the water.

As Tearlach has stated in clarification: A basic report of COI just needs brief evidence of the relationship ("editor X is chief of Y's fan club - see Google/diffs/whatever"). And reams of "oh but everyone says I'm a good editor and Bad Things would happen if I stopped" waffle in defence are irrelevant. If such a relationship has been shown, editor X should follow the advice at WP:COI full stop."

Tearlach also said: "One possibility for cutting to the chase: do we need to get bogged down in discussions of whether an editor with a demonstrated COI is editing fairly? Seems to me that WP:COI is as much about being seen to avoid COI, as it is about actual proof/disproof that a known COI is biasing edits. I might be the most objective ever editor of the article on the hypothetical Tearlach Wonderful Products Inc of which I'm CEO, but there would always be some level of suspicion if I took a leading role in editing it: reason enough that I should stick to the Talk page so that propriety was seen to be observed.".

Durova said: "TimidGuy has a clear and immediate conflict of interest and for this reason would be well advised to restrict participation to talk pages for all transcendental mediatation-related articles. The particular reference in question appears to be published legitimately and appropriate as a reference source. I suggest an article content request for comment to settle the particular debate. I hope that resolves the problems, but in case it doesn't the likely alternatives are this: a user conduct request for comment and an eventual arbitration case, which would likely end in article paroles on TM topics. Another experimental option is community enforceable mediation."

Athaeanara said in follow up: Durova said: "TimidGuy has a clear and immediate conflict of interest and for this reason would be well advised to restrict participation to talk pages for all transcendental meditation-related articles." Given that this is the Conflict of interest noticeboard, a response like "Not sure why you're making this point" is not straightforward and intelligent. This section is about editors, you for example, and in fact you in particular, with, yes, clear and immediate conflict of interest issues which it would behoove you to take seriously. It is not about Mason's (or anyone else's) book. Wikipedia does not need another ream of paragraphs out of you, it needs you editing neutrally or not at all. No more long diatribes, no more changing the subject, no more disingenuity and smokescreens..."

Additionally, Ed Johnston noted the concern for the dearth of criticism was valid and was something to work on. And the header has been changed to note that "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents related to the application of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline: that is, situations where an editor appears to have a close personal or business connection with the article topic."

In summary, TimidGuy, such a COI relationship has been established for you in particular to the TM organization, as confirmed for you by three senior editors at the COI noticeboard whom I have quoted (resulting in clarification of header guidance to clarify who it applies to), and that there are no follow up statements by the other senior editors there supporting your position on why COI requirements don't apply to you because of the "good editor" defense you raised, and can also be shown for the other TMers in the original COI complaint in general, by Philosophus. In particular TimidGuy, if you want brinkmanship and continue to disregard WP:COI after repeatedly being told it applies to you and your editing in the TM related articles by using an irrelevant waffling defense, and given precedent at Arbcom, I'm serious about raising it to a level where real penalties are assessed for the sake of precedent and Wikipedia. It's true I wasn't quite sure how to handle this before and obsured the point by unnecessarily trying to address your defense on the COI noticeboard, but I now know exactly what to do if you do not cease, so I sincerely hope you do. A lesson to us all. --Dseer 03:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I gotta wonder at your obsession here, given that the description of COI says that one must be PAID or expect to be compensated in some way for editing the Wiki page in question in order for there to be a financial COI.The Maharishi University of Management employees are all posting anonymously because, as I understand it, the general policy of the various TM organizations is to "stay out of the mud" of arguing about TM in public unless you are a lawyer or PR person working in your capacity as such. None of the TM-related editors are being paid to edit this page as far as I know. the close relationships COI might apply, but only if you can demonstrate that the editors are not keeping a NPOV in what they post. That also doesn't seem to be the case. The fact that some "experienced Wiki editors" don't appear to understand the issue and support your claims is trumped by what the WP:COI page actually says. -Sparaig 14:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand that position, but there are various aspects to consider. The cases of editors with financial ties like TimidGuy, anonymous or not, are fairly clear cut, where because of this mere appearance is a problem, and using the "good editor" defense when they pushing disputes about critical material not obviously unsuitable rather than finding neutral editors to help advocate their case and when several editors have alleged COI is considered dubious, as noted in the firm responses to TimidGuy in dismissing that argument at the COI Noticeboard. The cases of TM practitioners, who have invested financial resources in learning the technique and who advocate for it here and do not like the critical information, are more subtle, but that is a "close relationship" and does require caution, particularly when pushing disputes about critical material, neutral editors should be found to look at the issue if there are concerns. The intent is not to exclude anyone from comments or truly neutral editing. But care must be taken to avoid any of the symptoms of information suppression which is very difficult to avoid when there is a COI. "It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability." Not a critical view as summarized by an editor who has practiced TM for decades and is actively advocating an opposing side. --Dseer 05:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• I dont work for TM organization, but I do enjoy helping work on the article as necessary (:OP (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 16:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

And you weren't included in the COI complaint that I can see. :-). --Dseer 05:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Dseer, I responded on the TM Talk page, and my comments were related to that article. In retrospect, it's odd that you reported me on the COI Noticeboard for my work on this article. I've done almost no editing here. I made a few very minor word changes in the past, and my only substantial edit -- ever -- was to rewrite the material you inserted into the Beatles section. And I did that only after there was consensus among a group of editors. In general, I've tried to avoid getting involved in this article, and did so only after it seemed like someone ought to actually look at the sources that were being referenced in the Beatles edit war that was taking. TimidGuy 16:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• I gotta support TimidGuy on this, from what I have been seeing these past few weeks, he has really helped find and add references (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 22:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

TimidGuy is not paid to do this. HIs honest attempt to is to present TM not shrouded by missunderstandings.

Again, TimidGuy, I did not originate the COI notice regarding the TM associated editors here, Philosophus did. I just reactivated it because his points were valid, and when it became apparent you were determined to dismiss an attributable source on dubious grounds and refused to acknowledge your COI had anything to do with that. Given the allegations of several editors which I agree with regarding information suppression, it was important to establish the parameters of COI did apply to you before engaging in further collaborative efforts on these articles. I am not saying you are a mercenary, I assume your beliefs are consistent with your position, but you also have financial ties to the organization. What you have not shown yet is an ability to develop and strengthen the critical material which is also the responsibility of neutral editing. --Dseer 23:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

So where is your attempt to develop and strengthen the non-critical information if this is a requirement of neutral editing? -Sparaig 04:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

How much more development of supportive information is required, when the suppression of critical information is the current problem? But I did point out that Deepak Chopra, considered at one time a potential successor to the Maharishi, claimed in a published interview the Beatles were kicked out due to drugs. --Dseer 23:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

TimidGuy's financial ties to the TM organization are that he is faculty of a Maharishi University, as he has let us know before, and as such he is self-supporting. He has no interest in saving his financial position as he has no financial position that needs saving. He is contributing to this page for no other reason than he would like to see Maharishi represented as he is, and not shrouded by false rumours. TimidGuys contributions to this page and to the TM page have been of great service to Wikipedia and its readers, I feel. Vijayante 212.178.127.50 07:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point, Sparaig. And I also told Dseer on his Talk page that I'd be watching to see if he adds critical and controversial material to the article on Ramana Maharishi. Perhaps also to the article that he created on Self-Enquiry (Atma Vichara). Dseer, you've never named the editors or given a shred of evidence that I've suppressed information.

Compared with contemporary gurus, there isn't much criticism of Sri Ramana Maharshi to be found, he's generally considered enlightened by the various hindu traditions, and there were no scandals, like Guru Dev, his character was impeccable, he didn't desire money, gifts, followers or fame, charged nothing for his teachings, and formed no organization. There are lots of misconceptions about Self-Enquiry and many find it difficult, but it requires no fees or initiaton or organization to do and is hardly a controversial meditation practice, it is widely accepted as a valid approach and has been taught by others like Sri Nisargadatta, etc. Outside of general criticism of the advaita/nondualist tradition and discussions of misconceptions, I don't know what you are expecting for an article on a popular hindu spiritual figure and his teachings. If you can come up with a sourced criticism, put it in. You are under the false impression that it is not possible to consider oneself a follower of a number of gurus, all considered enlightened, when the traditions state "all enlightened gurus are one". --Dseer 23:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

My reservations regarding Mason were reasonable, and that's a weak ground to build an entire case. His 2005 edition has all the hallmarks of a self-published book. It was a reasonable assessment. I cited the standards for sources given in WP:ATT to back up various reservations I had. And when you noted that there was a 1994 edition, I was unable to find any information on the publisher. Instead of pointing me to such information, you posted on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard.

I have the 2005 book and it is a valid source, it takes about a week to get it from the UK publisher. --Dseer 23:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, "financial ties" is something of an overstatement. I earn $400 per month, plus room (a dorm room for 20 years), board, and health insurance. If anything, being on faculty is a financial liability. I have to work a second job part-time to support myself. TimidGuy 11:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say you were just paid to be here. --Dseer 23:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ramana Maharishi was and is a spotless Mahapurusha, and there have been a number blessing the planet. But consider Dseer, before passing judgement, that because Maharishi has become well known, though in truth very few know him, that he is not equally spotless and a great Mahapurusha, for the saints are one. You may never see that and you are not required to, and you may choose to think that Guru Dev was great but his disciple not, and that is your freedom of choice and thought, but if you look beneath the surface even slightly, you may find that the disciple is as the master, and there is a spotless Mahapurusha there, and not someone out for name and fame and all the rest of it, despite what certain people's personal published opinions state. Regarding TimidGuy, he does very well, considering the criticism that has been heaped upon him for no just reason. Let bygones be bygones. Let the mind be open and free. Let truth and justice prevail. Vijayante 212.178.127.50 01:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, thank you for being honest about why there isn't a lot of criticism about Ramana Maharshi, it really doesn't exist, I really think TimidGuy doesn't understand that. And, he seems to have no intuitive sense of the ancient traditions Maharishi draws from, or the relationship between guru and disciple. Actually, I am not saying I believe in the alleged scandals, and am not discounting the obvious fact that Maharishi has had a great and positive impact on the West, his influence is one of the reasons many of us got interested in the ancient dharma. Mason, for example, is far more critical of the organization than anything else, and still practices TM. One could certainly take the position he gives those in the masses drawn to him, essentially householders, what they need based on their karma since only a relative few who practice TM are yet ready for what Guru Dev required for spiritual initiation, and obviously if some other path appealed to them they would have chosen it. I'm sure Guru Dev knew what he was doing on higher levels, including his work with the Maharishi. But we are supposed to also list the significant controversies and criticisms, along with rebuttals. You can't do that if you dismiss the spiritual aspect of Maharishi's teaching and his relationship to Guru Dev by claiming he is primarily secular and scientific and merely influenced by Guru Dev, as TimidGuy has done. Anyone who has studied the ancient dharma knows that such a distinction is artificial. Maharishi clearly believes that if people do his practice, they will eventually realize that too, but that the most important thing is to begin the practice. --Dseer 05:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Did I claim that he's primarily secular? You were arguing that he wasn't properly teaching in the tradition of Guru Dev. My point was that that's not how he's presented the teaching, so why must it necessarily be exactly like Guru Dev's teaching? He acknowledges the influence of Guru Dev but he has presented the technique as a secular technique. And he's encouraged the scientific study of its effects. Hey, we're finally getting back to our original discussion -- which in my opinion is both interesting and apt. Also, we'll want to return to the discussion of notability. I'm not opposed to the inclusion of criticism or controversy. But it must be well sourced, notable, and accord with the NPOV guideline regarding undue weight.

What I'd really like to do with this article is to present a chronology of the Vedic knowledge Maharishi has presented over the past 50 years. He's not only fostered meditation, but also introduced the Science of Creative Intelligence, practice of the siddhis, the use of Ayurveda, Gandharva Veda, Sthapatya Veda, yagyas, and Jyotish. He's established pandit training centers and is training thousands of pandits. His mission has been to re-emphasize the Vedic knowledge and to make it available to everyone -- just as you so nicely characterize it. As you say, I'm a householder whom Maharishi has given something valuable. We need to make sure we characterize what he's done. TimidGuy 11:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Dseer, a solution occurred to me that would effectively satisfy both our points of view (though I don't know if it would satisfy Vijayante, and we'll want to take her perspective into account as well). Are you willing to hear it? If so, I'll start a new thread. TimidGuy 15:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you did say he was primarily seen as secular and scientific. I think that is a minority view outside of TM, but its fine to present that view provided it isn't the only view presented. I'm not opposed to mention of any signficant view, pro or con, more can be said about MMY provided NPOV is followed. Everything you mention is fine, just be aware there is controversy around MMYs version of these topics also. It remains appropriate to discuss the evolution of MMY's spiritual teachings and relationship to his sources since first becoming Guru Dev's disciple because that is a known controversy. We can also incorporate the spiritual view Vijayante is advocating. The reward for doing all this is nomination for a good article. What is the proposal? --Dseer 02:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Dseer, for being open to adding those proposed elements. And thanks for being open to hearing the proposal. But first . . . .

Here's what I said: "Of course I'm operating from my own assumptions. But I believe I'm also characterizing the way Maharishi has presented his teaching and the way that he's perceived by most people. He's presented it as secular and scientific, and most people accept it that way. Most of the media reports present it that way. It's exclusively presented that way in the scientific literature."

I realize, in retrospect, what really stops me is "known controversy." I would have no objection if we referred to it as a criticism rather than a controversy. Does it matter to you? TimidGuy 15:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Calling it criticism is fine if you prefer. I really don't visualize a lot of verbiage, just outlining key points of criticism. That way the article stays concise and avoids overkill. This isn't about ranting against MMY, it about pointing out areas where readers should be aware of criticism. After mentioning MMY's role in making Ayurveda more popular, it's sufficient to make the sourced statement, for example, that not all Ayurvedic sources agree with MMY's approach. No need to elaborate on that criticism, let the source do it. Hope that will be satisfactory regarding issues, in which case, I am satisfied. --Dseer 03:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Dseer. TimidGuy 11:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

new Time magazine reference

• http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,947229,00.html Oh my god! I found this Time magazine article on TM and maharishi! if anyone wants to use this article to help add more information to this article please do so! Its from Oct. 13, 1975, its a classic! (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 17:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• i went ahead and put it into the article's referenced section, if someone wants to use it please do so! (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 16:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

This article does not reflect any critical comments and was subject to a reversion war over the inclusion of critical perspectives. The sources are all favorable and thus the article suffers from POV. There is no Fair Use rationale for one image. This article must be balanced to achieve GA status. I recommend listening to those who have tried to balance it. Argos'Dad 03:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Argos. Note that the edit war was resolved amicably and that we achieved consensus among the various parties for the present version of the Beatles section. TimidGuy 11:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Amicably ended or not, there was a recent edit war on this article. Consensus on the "Beatles section" does not even come close to presenting a balanced view of this figure. There is a not-insignificant amount of criticism and critical commentary about Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and a committed corps of editors remove all of this consistently calling it libel. As a neutral observer, I will keep my eye on this talk page and point out how dissent is stifled and the article maintains its POV. Until this changes, I don't see how the article cannot advance to GA status. Argos'Dad 16:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Gotta ask, which critical stuff did you think was worthy of inclusion, and why? There are entire blogs and websites dedicated to criticizing Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and his organizations. Which ones are Wikipedia-worthy?-Sparaig 18:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not interested in debating the various points of view on this individual. I am merely interested in ensuring that an article that I review for GA status meets the criteria. One of the criteria is NPOV. The absence of any of the (as you point out) many critical perspectives renders this article POV, and not GA status in my view. Argos'Dad 21:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

These TM related articles only appear NPOV to convinced TMers, who tend to unconsciously apply double standards to criticism and drive away critics. I'm sorta busy right now, but my assertions on how COI and information suppression applies have now been validated by a number of senior editors with the power to impose sanctions if needed, so lets see where it goes from here first assuming good faith based on TimidGuy's latest framework. Now that Timid Guy has the earlier Mason book (I have both, the second provides a little more updated information), I am hopeful that at least he will agree with the neutral COI editors that Paul Mason is a valid source for biographical information and on MMY's tradition. MMY may have been a physicist a half a century ago, but for example his assertions about a unified field are not accepted by mainstream science, and not one of the studies touted by TMers on his techniques has proven that the free or lower cost techniques by ex-TMers who learned the TM methodology are not equally effective, or that there are no cases where TM has not contributed to psychological harm, or that humans can actually fly as he claims by learning yogic flying. There is no need to turn the article into an anti-MMY rant, but the lack of meaningful criticism where it clearly exists is evident to any neutral observer. --Dseer 19:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Dseer, note that your COI Noticeboard case was closed as a content dispute. You didn't show any sanctionable mainspace edits. You didn't show any violations of guidelnes. You simply made a lot of unsupported accustions. Your constant harping on COI is a personal attack and a case of harrassment. Either open an ArbCom case, or stop trying to intimidate other editors. And note again what EdJohnston said, please.

"The general WP practice is to leave each article in the hands of those working and responding on the particular talk page, unless there is gross abuse, which didn't seem to be in evidence. If you had asked for a very specific remedy, it might have been considered, but it seemed like there was no short answer to any question from any of the participants. Note that a serious page like WP:ANI expects short postings, with diffs, and very concentrated evidence, none of which was presented on the COI noticeboard. A complaint like 'Go investigate those guys, they are being unfair' is hard to get much traction on. A ban on editing by college employees, if it were applied to every college in the world, seems too severe."

The reliability of Mason will depend on what he claims and what his sources are. I have two other biographies of Maharishi in hand, as well as a PhD dissertation. If we disagree on something, we can do an RfC.

Argos also resorts to unsupported accusations. He refers to a "committed corps of editors remove all of this consistently calling it libel." What on earth is that based on? There was one edit war in the 8 months I've been watching this article and one editor who repeatedly removed something calling it libel. On the other hand, by my count a dozen different editors and admins reinserted the material that this single editor removed.

Again, I'm not opposed to criticism, if it conforms to the guidelines, including the NPOV guideline of undue weight, if it's made by an acknowledged expert, and if it's notable. TimidGuy 20:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm rather sick of the distortions of truth here, which have caused me to abandon efforts to make these articles respectable. Look at the edit comments for the COI you claim was "closed as a content dispute" - the closing admin closed it because the discussion there had become a content dispute, and suggested that you be blocked from editing these articles. --Philosophus ^T 22:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear. I was referrring to the parenthetic notation in the archives that apparently indicates the closure of each case.[32] I'm not denying that by definition I have a conflict of interest. I've long acknowledged that. But I think the reason I wasn't sanctioned is that no one has given evidence that my editing has been problematic and has violated the policies and guidelines. On the contrary, my work has been praised, even by opponents. TimidGuy 15:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This is correct, thanks. Regardless of how they try to distort the truth, TimidGuy and Sparig's assertions were rejected as dishonest and worthy of sanction, and there is assurance from those there at COI with the power to do so that if they don't voluntarily get it and continue to exhibit COI editing, they will be progressively sanctioned and blocked. The only mistake I made was not knowing the process enough to get a simple determination thinking that I had to justify the obvious point which irritated some of them, but now I get it. I did succeed in getting attention to the issue and precedent established for dealing with editors like this who offer lame excuses if they go too far, notice they just cut them off now at COI. The determination was, and I quote: It's quite simple. This is a single purpose account who chooses to construe policy in ways he or she deems convenient. Single purpose accounts often attempt this on some topic or other, but that doesn't actually alter policy. We do our best to explain how this site really works. If they understand and adapt, all is well. When they respond with strident denials and other inappropriate behavior then editors warn them and at some point a sysop like myself imposes a userblock. Once the first one happens other blocks can follow rather quickly because the editor gets away with less and less. If they come around, all is well. If they don't we show them the door. Inform this editor (and others as appropriate) that this is how I handle matters. If they refuse to oblige, show me appropriate evidence and I will. It takes me five seconds to implement a block so it's really no imposition at all - not for me anyway. What is going on here is now well known and obvious as the article reviewer noted. I simply have higher priorities, but have laid all the groundwork and the shoe can drop at any time if they continue to suppress information when any editor complains with some evidence to those that are sysops they have ignored the warnings. At this time, since they refuse to listen and there is ample evidence they drive everyone away, and choose to think I'm harassing them, I'm not going to aid them further in pointing out what they are doing, and I am in favor of us giving them the slack and all the rope they want to produce even more evidence than they already have, then anyone of us can act at will and pull the rug out from under the propaganda machine based on what I've quoted above when it gets too much, since the problem is obvious. --Dseer 06:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd llike to know what DSEER thinks WOULD be acceptable criticism? in the MMY article? Criticisms about TM belong in the TM article,I would think. At most, a mention that not everyone accepts his theories, including "blah, blah, blah..." according to "blah blah" would be as far as the MMY article itself should go, IMHO. __Sparaig 22:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The article rather is an advertisement for the TM-Organization, a religious sect. See: http://www.agpf.de/TM-Dutt-1988.htm (It is in german though, sorry for that. Perhaps google language tools can help those who are interested.)

The article is a biography of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the founder of Transcendental Meditation, which is not a religious sect, but the teachings of Maharishi are from the Vedic Tradition, and even the United Nations has called the Veda the common heritage of mankind. Veda is not a religion, but it gives nourishment to all religions, as the root or sap of a tree gives nourishment to all the many branches and leaves, etc.Vijayante 21:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please cite your sources for the UN statement. As for the rest, your argument is like a Christian saying that Christianity isn't a religion because God actually exists. --Philosophus ^T 22:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This type of thinking is common among sect members across the religious spectrum, who believe their own propaganda. There is no evidence the UN ever exclusively recognized the Vedas as stated. --Dseer 06:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

2003 UNO proclamation as far as I recall. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.178.127.50 (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

UNESCO proclamation: Masterpiece of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity : "The Tradition of Vedic Chanting" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sparaig (talk • contribs) -Sparaig 02:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

neutrality tag?

• why has this tag been added again? (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 22:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'd have to agree with the tag. I don't think the article has a consistently neutral tone. Much of the discussion here has been about proposed content, but there are some problems, in my opinion, with the current content. Vijayante, I think we need to be careful to avoid effusive language. And it may not be appropriate to have the long quote. I believe we could tone the article down a bit. I'm also hoping to eventually add more information about what Maharishi has done in the past 30 years. The 9/11 material could be reduced. The section that Sethie added about how Maharishi and followers view his role seems weak and too reliant on quotes, in my opinion. The overall organization is a bit odd, with two main headings: "Biography" and "The Beatles." The Transcendental Meditation sections could be combined and made more concise. Anyway, just some thoughts. TimidGuy 15:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I was referring to the NPOV tag, not the advert tag, which I don't think is appropriate. TimidGuy 15:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I looked at this article today and started to do some simple copy editing.The article, as TG noted, has some long quotes and rather ornate language not really appropriate to an encyclopedia. I would like to continue the copy edit work, but I think serious consideration must be given to streamlining some of the other material. Also as TimidGuy noted the organization of the article seems inappropriate. I would like work on it along with anyone else who feels the need to.(olive 23:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

Thanks, Olive. I'm glad you agree. Yes, please do go ahead and work on these things. TimidGuy 11:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Editing of article

Although, there are many beautiful and interesting phrases and quotes in this section.... Early Life.....I realized the style of writing is more suited to a Literary paper. I have attempted to reduce quotes and some material while still maintaining some of the language, and the information in this section. This is a first rougher edit so there may be finer editing points necessary.(olive 16:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC))

Have also reorganized the article somewhat.... "Beatles" seems pretty hefty and possibly should be reduced somewhat. (olive 17:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC))

Yes Olive, sensational rumours have no place on Wikipedia I feel, but there are those who disagree. I got a personal reply from Stephen Kent who had been quoted before and his book is still cited on the biography and think it should be removed, based on his message below. I wrote to his University of Alberta email address and this was his reply on 4th of June:

All I can say about the entry is that I should not be quoted as the primary source, since I based my conclusion on the works of others (whom I in turn cited). I even discussed the controversy about this interpretation in the footnotes, again citing sources.

Wikipedia would be wise to use my citations to get to other sources, then drop me.

Best Regards, Steve

He has acknowledged in this message that he did not do original research. Kali Yuga being what it is, it is doubtful that those who like rumours will allow a clean page, as when it was tried to remove this section in the past, other editors put it back in. You can certainly try though, as maybe the times have changed, hearts and minds are purer with purer vision.

Hindu?

• Britannica - " Hindu religious leader who introduced the practice of transcendental meditation (TM) to the West"
• [http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/audiointerviews/profilepages/maharishi1.shtml Mahesh Yogi Maharishi

Hindu mystic]

Merely using the same line as Britannica.Bakaman 00:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Maharishi embraces the Vedic tradition, but seems to make a distinction between that and Hinduism. I don't think he would identify himself as a Hindu. Seems like his self-identification should have as much weight as Britannica. I would think that if someone is associated with a religion, that that person should identify himself as such. Would be perfect if there were a category "Vedic Teachers" or something like that. TimidGuy 00:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Self-identification is compulsory, as Maharishi is still alive. Hornplease 00:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions regarding material that seems POV

I deleted the following material from the lead:

and he is regarded by many as the greatest exponent of Vedic Science in this generation. For example, educators, Drs. Sanford Nidich and Randi Nidich, have described him as "the greatest scientist and teacher in the field of consciousness." Nancy Lonsdorf, M.D., Veronica Butler, M.D., and Melanie Brown, Ph.D. have called him "the preeminent Indian scholar and teacher in the Vedic tradition." Vedic scholar, Peter F. Freund Ph.D., in the introduction to his doctoral dissertation, explains that Maharishi has succeeded in pulling together the various texts of the scattered Vedic Literature into a systematic science, consisting of 40 branches, and has guided its practical application to the field of education. Maharishi has also been recognized as both a silent and a vociferous peacemaker, who has on many occasions gathered volunteer groups of practitioners of his advanced techniques. Their collective practices were said to stem the violence in war-torn areas.

I think I see why it was inserted in the article: Maharishi has sought to introduce many facets of Vedic knowledge in addition to meditation. I think that's a valid point to make in the lead, but we should just give the facts about the various facets (such as Ayurveda and Sthapatya Veda) that he's brought attention to in the West. It doesn't seem appropriate to quote authors saying Maharishi is "the preeminent Indian scholar and teacher in the Vedic tradition" because it seems POV. It's acceptable style for a magazine article, for example, but not an encyclopedia. We can still use the cited sources. Also, we can make the point about Maharishi organizing the 40 branches of the Vedic literature and cite Freund's dissertation, but no need to attribute him in the lead.

Have deleted for now. Let's see what we can do to address these issues. TimidGuy 20:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I defer to your wisdom and experience, being a newbie myself.Sueyen 20:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Sueyen, for your work on the article. It's really starting to shape up as a more fully developed bio. TimidGuy 16:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Politics/Natural Law Party

I feel unable to contribute authoritatively to the article, but I am aware of the UK's Natural Law Party in the 1990s whose manifesto was based on the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's teachings, and stood many candidates around the country for election as Members of Parliament in the General Election. I am however unclear as to whether the NLP was directly connected with the Maharishi's organisation although I seem to remember that there was some connection other than the merely philosophical. May I respectfully request that the article be extended to include this highly significant development which is so far conspicuous by its absence? Jonsilver 10:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's a good idea to mention NLP, and I believe that Sueyen, who's been adding a lot of material to the article, will likely put something in. I don't think there was a direct connection between any of the organizations founded by Maharishi and the Natural Law Party. But his teachings certainly inspired the philosophy of the Natural Law Party. TimidGuy 11:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

history

What is the source for the claim that MMY has a masters degree in physics or even graduated from a university? Judyjoejoe 02:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Judy. I don't have any of the biographies in hand right now, but if I remember correctly, they generally agree that he got a degree in physics. I do think, though, that the point about it being a master's degree is very questionable, and I've changed that. Thanks for raising it. I have in the past been in a position where I had to determine degree equivalency, and it's quite difficult to establish. A college degree in India is typically three years, and often isn't considered the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree. Many universities require a degree beyond the Indian college degree in order to admit students to graduate programs. We do need to find a better citation regarding his having earned a degree. TimidGuy 15:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the proof for his degree: a webarchive-link. The fact that his name is somehow else is discussed here. --Josha52 (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Reference that Maharishi attended Allahabad Uni

Does it work that he's listed as one of the famous people to have graduated from this institution? See, which is cited in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allahabad_University#Alumni Sueyen 19:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Sueyen. That cites a Wikpedia page, which isn't considered reliable. The link on that page used to go to an alumni page of Allahabad University, but the link now seems to be dead. TimidGuy 20:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

New material on Maharishi

Although I have enjoyed reading the anecdotes on Maharishi's life, I am wondering if the article is becoming top heavy with stories and is straying from an encyclopedic style. Wikipedia seems to indicate to keep things shorter rather than longer, and more fact based perhaps rather than anecdotal.(olive 15:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC))

I believe the guidelines for the writing of biographies are somewhat different than writing about soccer, for example. Thus, giving the individual's birth information, etc. in the opening paragraph is what's suggested in the guidelines, and some amount of narrative is acceptable, as well. Thanks for your editing. Sueyen 20:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

your welcome ... It's always easier to come in and do some micro edits after someone else has done all of the work . I notice that some biographies have the date in the intro and some don't. I moved this one because there was other material on Maharishi's parents, birth name in a later paragraph so it seemed logical there but am not attached either way.(olive 23:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC))

Generalizations

I guess my concern isn't with whether "others" believe this but that as far as I can tell Wikipedia suggests that the use of a general term like "others" is non-specific. My deletion wasn't about the belief but wondering if more specific terms could be used to explain who these "others" are .... I just found "some" in some of the edits I did and realized that this is non-specific and in the worse case scenario could be construed as an attempt to misinform just because "some" could be anyone or everyone....although your reference tells us who the others are, the sentence in the section does not. That was the question I had .... who are these others and could they be noted to make this clear. Your call.(olive 21:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC))

above response to Sueyen .... sorry didn't specify.(olive 23:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC))

POV

This needs to be modified to present a moderate POV, this thing reads like a Press-Release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.164.21.130 (talk) 01:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Sueyen has done a great job of adding historical material and finding sources, but it does seem that now that we have a solid draft we do need to adjust the tone and delete some of the sentences that make it sound like a press release. Also some of the transitions that give it a narrative feeling rather than sounding like an encyclopedia entry.

Also, the citations are good but we may not always need attributions -- unless it's opinionated material. For example, in the Ayurveda section, seems like we can just say that Maharishi introduced it in the 1980s and cite the book in the references but without necessarily identifying the author or book in the article itself.

Really appreciate all the work you're doing on this, Sueyen. When there was an edit war in the article earlier this year, one of the main comments from Jossi, a very prominent Wikipedia Admin, is that the article should be filled out more. Now it's finally happening. Maharishi has introduced much more than Transcendental Meditation to the West, and it's good to be getting that in here. TimidGuy 11:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear SineBot,

Thanks for your feedback. It's very helpful to have another pair of eyes look at your work. Could you possibly go a step further, though? Could you identify for me the areas where you felt the POV was lacking, and where it sounded like a press release? That would make it easier for me to make the changes you may have in mind. Thank you so much.Sueyen 18:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add to the "press release" comment above that we also get the repeated ref to him as "Maharishi", as if that were his surname (or equivalent). My understanding is that that is a title, as we'd say "Dr". The article seems to have been written by an enthusiast. What is his name: Yogi? Mahesh? The test is how would one index him? I'd opt for "Mahesh Yogi, Maharishi". Ajarmitage (talk) 10:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

We really do need to deal with this. The press typically uses "the Maharishi." The entire appellation is a title. His real name is uncertain, with Varma and Shivastava variously given as his surname. But the title has, in a sense, become his name. I think we should consider using "the Maharishi." TimidGuy (talk) 12:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Does using "the Maharishi "indicate he is "the" one and only. Maharishi is a more familiar term so maybe not appropriate and POV.I can go with either Maharishi or "the Maharishi", although "the Maharishi" seems awkward.(olive (talk) 17:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC))

Does this help or apply:"Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules cover a specific problem." WP:NCP(olive (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC))

Comment on recent tagging of article

Although the editor who did a lot of the rewrting on this article has obviously spent a lot of research and editing time here , I also have felt the article had veered toward a more journalistic, anecdotal style.I see that TimidGuy has edited for NPOV, and I think I can do some work here as well. I think some of the quotes may be unnecessary for an encyclopedic style for example, and can be deleted or paraphrased. That may help with the POV feel. I'll be able to so some of that later today.(olive 14:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC))

My thought is to edit first and then if other editors have concerns they can revert the edits and the material can be discussed. Hopefully this will take less time than discussing every edit.(olive 17:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC))

Notice: aggressive and substantial editing since tagging

The article has now been aggressively and substantially edited since tagging and includes changes in terms of POV or non-neutral wording, reduction of quotes that possibly added a POV flavour, condensation of some material and deletion of redundant and/or possibly fringe material.(olive 19:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC))

I have deleted the tags. Several days have passed and there is no discussion. As well the article has undergone subsantial editing by several editors addressing the issues of concern when tagged.(olive 13:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC))

PS... and thanks to editors TimidGuy and Sueyen for their efforts in bringing the article to a more Wikipedia compliant state - a good group effort.(olive 13:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC))

Revision of Beatles section

With the heavy editing and removal of material recently, the Beatles section was disproportionately long - was in fact longer than any other section. I have compacted the material removing most quotes. As well, a new reference has been added that I came on recently that gives more information on the rumors that have circulated on this issue . Because this is the biography of a living person, this kind of recent material I believe is important to add in order to be as fair as possible to a "living person".(olive 18:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC))

Request for Comment on NPOV and Fringe

Please also see Transcendental Meditation and its associated talk page. Some of Maharishi's employees and associates are the main editors of the page, as well as this one, and I have requested comment on COI editing and subtle NPOV problems. Michaelbusch (talk) 08:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

As New Religious Movement (NRM) articles go, this one is not too bad, but it still has a way to go to achieve NPOV. Phrases such as "continue to this day" seem to be lifted from promotional material, and the general tone is too admiring. The theories taught by TM are accepted without discussion or dissent, which implies that they have a wider acceptance than they probably do. More neutral editors needed, I think. Rumiton (talk) 12:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

All true. The article definitely needs more neutral editors! They have long history of being blocked by the more numerous TMers, however. --Dseer (talk) 05:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say the same of Transcendental Meditation, which is edited by the same group of TMers. Now, I'm going to ask a potentially explosive question: should Wikipedia consider TM / Maharishi's teachings a religious movement? TM itself, as a meditative practice, doesn't seem to be, and Maharishi has said that it isn't. But then we have the weird, at times pseudoscientific, statements about consciousness, quantum mechanics, and occasionally even levitation, not to mention the honoring of Maharishi that goes on. I do not know myself. Michaelbusch (talk) 05:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

As editors, it isn't up to us to make that call. What do neutral sources say? Rumiton (talk) 15:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the problem - TM/Maharishi's group have been termed many things - cult and new-age religion as well as mostly harmless derivative of very old relaxation and nervous-control techniques. Michaelbusch (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This, Michael, is not a "problem" but only the fact: the pure reality. Therefore a WP-article on this subject has no other job as to mirror this fact: that some are thinking so and others don’t. And as you can see in the almost dominating long, long part about "controversies": the article does its job already quite well. The real problem starts when editors appear with an absolutely no neutral POV saying from THEIR point of view that "Yes, it is accurate to say that TM "is a mildly cultic new age religion". No, no and again no: It is of no interest at all what any editor is thinking or not thinking. Mildly and kindly: Stop thinking as long you are a WP editor. But keep describing WITHOUT pointing in the one or other direction.

The TM article describes quite well the inside view (theory of consciousness), describes quite well a very important outside view (research, peer reviewed), and describes quite well the different controversal point of views.

So start, please, make concrete edit suggestions instead of using these discussion pages for advertising your personnal non neutral point of view in regad to TM. Thanks. --Josha52 (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

My reading of various sources leaves me with the view that many would find it agreeable to consider the group as a mildly cultic New Age religion, which incorporates into its dogma and praxis various derivative teachings and meditative techniques. Accepting this definition doesn't so much answer your question as explain its groundlessness. That's all to no end, however... the question we're concerned with is whether a NPOV is being preserved. Do you think it is not? Naturezak (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so - even if there isn't anything blatant, this article has the same subtle wording problems as TM. This is likely due to the editors' admitted conflicts-of-interest. Michaelbusch (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable perspective. I'll try to focus my editing on the enhancement and preservation of NPOV in this article. Naturezak (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is accurate to say that TM "is a mildly cultic new age religion which incorporates into its dogma and praxis various derivative teachings and meditative techniques". TM is deliberately inconsistent. In India, TM is marketed as both religion and science. In the US, it is advantageous for TM along with some other cultic organizations to avoid emphasizing religious aspects and to claim to be "scientific". The article lacks NPOV in a number of key areas. It implies scientific credibility for and lacks mainstream criticism of fringe scientific claims beyond those reasonably associated with psycho-pysiological effects of this type of meditation, and fails to mention the association between funding of and/or TM involvment in what scientific studies are cited. Undue weight is given to the unreliably sourced claims of those involved in the group, while criticism is lacking and any controversial material is swamped by pro-TM rationalizations. There is consistent evidence of information suppression. It is ironically indicative of the problem with this article that in the related TM article is overwhelmingly pro-TM already that claims that TM exhibits cultic signs (readly apparent here) take up less space in that section that a rebuttal by a faculty member of the TM associated University claiming that TMers are "less" cultic than others ;-). Regarding NPOV, many more neutral editors have pointed out over and over that NPOV is inadequate, but since the solid majority of TMers here owns this article and sees no problem with the pro-TM slant, nothing is accomplished. Even when the COI noticeboard editors find their rationalizations for why COI doesn't apply to them "disingenuous", nothing changes because the TMers currently control this article. More neutral editors can help. --Dseer (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Let’s have a litmus test. Tell us one single sign of "evidence of information suppression", please. --Josha52 (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Examples too numerous to mention and not worth explaining now to TMers for reasons above. If a body of neutral editors arrive, it will all come out.--Dseer (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe the articles in question could actually progress, and that is of course what Wikipedia is about, the articles, with the input of all editors making specific comments in reference to the articles rather than continually attacking the other editors. As it is this feels pretty much like a lynching, with no sheriff in sight(olive (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC))

Olive, while I've had issues with the accuracy and applicability of some of your edits, you are the only TMer I've seen here who has seriously attempted to do more than lip service to NPOV. TimidGuy hasn't, and he's been deliberately mischaracterizing others and dishonest about what actually transpired as a result of the COI complaint, and he should comply with the already made determination of the COI Noticeboard and recuse himself. You won't agree but that is just how it is. --Dseer (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Degree

Here is the proof for his degree: a webarchive-link. The fact that his name is somehow else is discussed here. --Josha52 (talk) 08:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

TimidGuy et al and COI

TimidGuy is once again disingenuous and since I'm accused of harassment over at the TM talk page I'm calling his bluff. If TimidGuy considers speaking the truth about his COI and article ownership "harassment", as all other attempts at resolution including the COI Noticeboard have failed, I encourage him to walk his talk and take me to arbitration where we can resolve this once and for all with appropriate penalties for the offenses.

The following is taken verbatim from:[33].

After much debate at the COI noticeboard, in response to concerns originally raised by Philosophus which I followed up on, it appears that there is a significant body of agreement among three expert, senior editors there, Durova, Tearlach and Athaenara, that WP:COI means what it says, and that it is not necessary to demonstrate anything more than an editor has or reasonably appears to have a Conflict of Interest. One does not have to also show that a given editor is not a "good editor", or that "bad things will happen if they don't edit the article" on the main page. Attempts to refute such "waffle defenses" are unnecessary and only muddy the water.

As Tearlach has stated in clarification: A basic report of COI just needs brief evidence of the relationship ("editor X is chief of Y's fan club - see Google/diffs/whatever"). And reams of "oh but everyone says I'm a good editor and Bad Things would happen if I stopped" waffle in defence are irrelevant. If such a relationship has been shown, editor X should follow the advice at WP:COI full stop."

Tearlach also said: "One possibility for cutting to the chase: do we need to get bogged down in discussions of whether an editor with a demonstrated COI is editing fairly? Seems to me that WP:COI is as much about being seen to avoid COI, as it is about actual proof/disproof that a known COI is biasing edits. I might be the most objective ever editor of the article on the hypothetical Tearlach Wonderful Products Inc of which I'm CEO, but there would always be some level of suspicion if I took a leading role in editing it: reason enough that I should stick to the Talk page so that propriety was seen to be observed.".

Durova said: "TimidGuy has a clear and immediate conflict of interest and for this reason would be well advised to restrict participation to talk pages for all transcendental mediatation-related articles. The particular reference in question appears to be published legitimately and appropriate as a reference source. I suggest an article content request for comment to settle the particular debate. I hope that resolves the problems, but in case it doesn't the likely alternatives are this: a user conduct request for comment and an eventual arbitration case, which would likely end in article paroles on TM topics. Another experimental option is community enforceable mediation."

Athaeanara said in follow up: Durova said: "TimidGuy has a clear and immediate conflict of interest and for this reason would be well advised to restrict participation to talk pages for all transcendental meditation-related articles." Given that this is the Conflict of interest noticeboard, a response like "Not sure why you're making this point" is not straightforward and intelligent. This section is about editors, you for example, and in fact you in particular, with, yes, clear and immediate conflict of interest issues which it would behoove you to take seriously. It is not about Mason's (or anyone else's) book. Wikipedia does not need another ream of paragraphs out of you, it needs you editing neutrally or not at all. No more long diatribes, no more changing the subject, no more disingenuity and smokescreens..."

Additionally, Ed Johnston noted the concern for the dearth of criticism was valid and was something to work on. And the header has been changed to note that "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents related to the application of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline: that is, situations where an editor appears to have a close personal or business connection with the article topic."

In summary, TimidGuy, such a COI relationship has been established for you in particular to the TM organization, as confirmed for you by three senior editors at the COI noticeboard whom I have quoted (resulting in clarification of header guidance to clarify who it applies to), and that there are no follow up statements by the other senior editors there supporting your position on why COI requirements don't apply to you because of the "good editor" defense you raised, and can also be shown for the other TMers in the original COI complaint in general, by Philosophus.

It's time you stop fantasizing, dissembling, and spreading misinformation about the decision about the problematic and damaging nature of your editing and ownership history on TM related articles, TimidGuy, and recuse yourself to an advisory role, the only appropriate role you have here now per Wikipedia standards. The issue has been fairly decided already, TimidGuy, you just won't accept the verdict. Otherwise, if you continue despite this warning to block attempts to make this article more NPOV as you have done in the past and if you refuse to take this "harassment" to arbitration, I suggest concerned editors consider taking you to arbitration to enforce the decisions of the COI noticeboard which you have ignored, so we can resolve this once and for all and get on with a more NPOV article. The only reason I haven't confronted you recently is there are so many TMers with COIs editing here backing you up it requires a body of neutral editors to make it worthwhile. Since you have exceeded your authorized role in editing on this article, I submit and will support a determination that more neutral editors do not need your agreement or consensus from TMers to proceed. --Dseer (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Dseer

Life is short. Enjoy the sunshine. You seem to not being able to distinguish between negativity and neutrality. Be careful of how you choose to see the world. What you see you become. -- signed, an occasional visitor to this page, who has your best interests at heart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.178.127.50 (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[citation needed] --Philosophus ^T 04:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

criticism

The article is wholly positive. Surely someone has written analyses of TM which say it's rubbish. We should mention a couple of them. Johncmullen1960 (talk) 09:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Johncmullen1960. Wikipedia is not a place for any theory building. Quote: "Surely someone has written analyses of TM which say it's rubbish. May be! May be not! Find out by yourself. Find out if those sources, if they are existing, are relevant and in accord with the rules of Wikipedia. If so, suggest a text on the discussion page. --Josha52 (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

reply to above

This is actually not a page on Transcendental Meditation but on its founder, who is owed a great deal of respect for what he has done and is still doing 24/7 since 1955 - to bring the peace of the Himalayas to all mankind. You suggested some research be done. Over 5000 pages of documented peer-reviewed research in SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ON MAHARISHI’S TRANSCENDENTAL MEDITATION AND TM-SIDHI PROGRAMME - COLLECTED PAPERS, VOLUMES 1–5, contain over 600 scientific studies conducted in over 33 countries, at over 250 universities and research institutes, including Moscow Brain Research Institute of the Academy of Medical Sciences; University of Edinborough, Scotland; Harvard Medical School, USA; Stanford Medical School, USA; Yale Medical School, USA; National Institute of Industrial Health, Japan; and many more. You may like to also have a look at page http://www.globalgoodnews.com/research.html and consider the many schools in South America where thousands of students and their teachers practice TM twice a day and a growing number of inner city schools in the USA and other parts of the world. You may also like to visit the David Lynch Foundation at http://www.davidlynchfoundation.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.178.127.50 (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Is the NPOV policy compatible with your statement that the yogi is owed respect?Naturezak (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is definitely: since 212.178.127.50’s statement is a statement HERE, on the discussion site, and not a statement anywehre in the article.--Josha52 (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate that this article is not on the TM technique.Although everyone is entitled to an opinion on the talk pages,material added to the article must cite reliable, verifiable sources or possibly be labeled POV(olive (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC))

MMY's fame arises from the TM technique and his religious teachings, not as a physicist, scientist or peace advocate. Your statement demonstrates the depth of the COI problem here with TM editors. No, Wikipedia does not owe MMY a "...great deal of respect for what he has done and is still doing 24/7 since 1955 - to bring the peace of the Himalayas to all mankind." That is a belief you and others associated with TM may have, that is all, which affects your editing. The facts are that the "Maharishi Effect" of influencing behavior in surrounding areas has not been demonstrated to be the case, and he hasn't even produced yogis who can fly around yet, let along being a significant factor in bringing peace to the world in his lifetime. --Dseer (talk) 03:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Dseer. Why do you insist on huge blanket statements," A belief you and other editors associated with TM have." How can you even begin to think that you can fathom the complex personalities of human beings, TM editors or not.(olive (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC))

I'll agree here that, to the best of my knowledge, olive isn't 212.178.127.50, and most TM-practicing editors probably don't agree with everything 212 says. To Dseer: this really isn't the place to be arguing about Maharishi's worth to society. The only important thing to inform 212 about is policy, especially NPOV, V, NOR, RS, and the Arbcom case ARB/PS. --Philosophus ^T 04:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"See Also" Section

I was not happy with the See Also section so I did a little tinkering to make it better (I think). That said I still wonder why its there. This general point was brought up by WillBeBack on the TM talk page. What is the purpose of a "See Also" section? I assume it is so that readers can go to other Wiki articles and get more information on the Maharishi from a different angle. If that is accurate, then a link to the Brahmananda Saraswati (Maharishi's teacher) article seems valuable. However, many of the other names listed there I question. If you visit those links you will find only a very brief one sentence mention of the Maharishi. To me that does not seem worthy of a See Also link. One suggestion might be to take the few who had significant involvement in the Maharishi's life and mention them briefly in the article and people can click on the embedded link if they want to go to that article topic and see more detail. We would only do this for the most significant names. The rest of the names, in my opinion, should just be deleted. What do others think? --Kbob (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I beleive your general assessment of "see also" sections is correct. They should link to articles that are significantly related to this article, or that may interest readers of this article, but which have no logical reason to be included in the text of the art article. People like the subject's teacher shold be mentioned in the text. Followers or TM practitioners might be less relevant, unless they had a personal connection to the subject.   Will Beback  talk  19:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree to a good extent, the section is scattered and does not on the whole makes a lot of sense. I checked the names mentioned and most of them seem to refer to famous people who learned TM or are followers of the Maharishi. I think we could start a new section called Notable followers of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi , perhaps as a greater section that would include “The Beatles” as a subsection. There we could list these names and others. However, if these are simply people who learned TM, maybe they should not be in an article about the Maharishi at all. maybe they should just be in an article about Transcendental Meditation.

Also, some names I cannot recognize, not off hand. Who is Neil Patterson, this obscure Canadian politician; can someone explain why he should be in this article? --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Neil Patterson ran for Prime Minister of Canada. Although obscure as a politician he did run in a major election, for a major office, in a major Western country, which may be notable.(olive (talk) 03:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC))

Good comments, all. So there seems to be some consensus that the section is not appropriate. So how to proceed? I like Will's idea to incorporate appropiate names into the article. The Maharishi's teacher is already discussed in the article but John Hagelin is notable and had/has a significant role in the Maharishi's work and the same goes for Chopra. Should they be in the article? All of the others in my opinion should be deleted unless we want to incorporate them as famous followers into the Popularity section. I have today removed Brahmananda Saraswati, Howard Stern, Doug Henning, Mike Love and The Beatles from the See Also list since they are already integrated into the article and have embedded links that the reader can click on to learn more. Any thoughts on adding Hagelin and Chopra to the article and deleting the rest of the See Also section? What do you think? --Kbob (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I definitely agree that Hagelin is relevant to this article because of his well known connection to the Maharishi; as for Chopra, I am trying to find reliable third party sources that detail his relationship to the Maharishi, thus far I have just found a personal blog which violated pretty much every tenet of WP:SELFPUB and therefore cannot be used to prove Chopra's notability in reference to this article. Are we ok with eliminating the rest, Olive perhaps had some reservations? --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

One more thing, are we in agreement? We change the Beatles section to "Notable Followers" and start incorporating names? --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

OK if the relationship of the Maharishi with Chopra is not significantly notably sourced we can leave him out and put Hagelin in pending the location of reliable sourcing and consensus from other editors. Regarding the Beatles section. It is clearly about the Beatles and the various aspects of their rather complex and long term relationship with Maharishi. I would object to changing that section. Do we really need a separate section for notable followers? Are there really that many other than those already mentioned in the article? Is it really so notable it needs to be in an article that is 1-2 pages long? I think it would give over weight WP:WEIGHT the article in that area. --Kbob (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding followers: Are followers different from TM practitioners? Is every TM practitioner a follower of the subject, or vice versa? I'd suggest that a comprehensive list of notable followers or practitioners would be bewt placed in only one article. For the time being, that might be the TM article. OTOH, the Beatles had a notable personal connection to the subject, so regardless of what is done with other people it is still appropriate to metnion them here.   Will Beback  talk  20:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes the media uses the word followers (of the Maharishi) which is OR on the part of the press, but it is more accurate and appropriate for this Wiki article about the technique to think and talk in terms of practitioners, in my opinion.--Kbob (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Whichever way we call them, I am thinking that adding a whole section on John Hagelin is a waste of time, he has his own article in this encyclopedia and a paragraph is not really needed. I think that a simple paragraph which says. Notable practitioners of the TM techniques who have been linked with the Maharishi include: John Hagelin ... and anyone else we might wish to include. I think we need to say that they are linked with the Maharishi instead of just saying that they are TM practitioners because, after all, this article is not on TM. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 00:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Since no one seems to object I have today removed these four names from the See Also list: Neil Paterson, Leon MacLaren

Vaidya Brihaspati Dev Triguna, [[Sri Rishi Prabhakar]. If there are any editors who can find reliable sources showing that these individuals had significant relevance to the Maharishi then we can find a way to incorporate them into the article. This leaves Hagelin and Chopra as the remaining names still in the list and under active discussion. --Kbob (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Luke, I was thinking we could add a sentence for Hagelin and/or Chopra depending on what sources our research turns up. I personally don't see the need or significance of a special section for Notable Practitionars since most or all of them have already been incorporated into the article. My thinking is that the article is about Maharishi an overview of his life and accomplishments at a glance. I'm not sure that a special section of notable people really adds to the purpose of the article. What do other editors think? --Kbob (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to look at this in a slightly different way. Since the article is about Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, I would suggest that we only add those people to the article that had considerable impact on him . The first obvious person would of course be his own teacher. Adding people whom he impacted could be an article in itself and maybe it should be, but those people may not belong here. How many people did he impact, and how do we choose those who would belong in this article. The number is probably too large to even gauge, even among those who are notable, and probably choosing them would be a relatively indiscriminate exercise in the end. As well, adding notable practitioners will look like endorsements to some readers. Because of the history of these articles, their contentious nature and the criticism that they tend to read like advertisements, I would tend to adhere pretty strictly to the idea of adding only those who impacted Maharishi.

Given this delineation the Beatles would be included since their fame may have impacted if not Maharishi himself, at least the organization. It would appear that the Beatles and Maharishi are linked in and by the press for all time. Who else had that kind of impact, and are they in the article right now or should they be added? Anyway, some thoughts.(olive (talk) 03:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

I'm not sure about Luke's addition but would prefer not to revert.Can this be discussed further.(olive (talk) 03:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

I had for a while added the following to the "Popularity" section: Other notable current and former practitioners of Transcendental Meditation connected with Maharishi include John Hagelin, to whom Maharishi eventually gave the title Raja of Invincible America, and Deepak Chopra. I felt this would actually be the obvious place to put such names since other are listed there too, but then thought better of it because the section was created for popular figures in the 1960 and 70's. However, I still feel that it would be the most appropriate section to add new names to, perhaps with some explanation about the time span, therefore I would ask how the other editors feel about reinstating my quote or something of that sort. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess as per my comments above I question this addition at all since I am suggesting looking at this in a different way then we are presently. Maybe we can discuss this tomorrow.(olive (talk) 04:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

My apologies, I had another comment in response to your idea of using a different standard, but somehow it did not save. We can certainly discuss at another time. For the moment though, here it is again:

Olive brings up several good points. The Maharishi's teacher presumably had a strong impact on him. He is mentioned in the first and fourth paragraph of the article, but not extensively. Perhaps with some research a new section could be added. That being said, I am not sure that limiting ourselves to names of people who impacted the Maharishi directly would work, as evidence of such persons is likely to be scant; impact on his organization might work as a standard. Also, since Donovan and the Beach Boys have already been included, I feel that it would still make sense, at least for the sake of consistency, to include other "famous" or notable people who have interacted extensively with Maharishi. Any thoughts? --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that we clearly delineate what we are talking about so that we can exclude who we add. One of the concerns with the topics of the so-called TM articles is that they are easily interconnected and muddled together. Without clear delineations the door is open for any and all kinds of additions that really have no place in the articles. The histories of these articles are quite full of additions and the endless discussions that went on attempting to clarify why those additions were there. Many of the topics were split off to create individual articles in order in part to create clear boundaries of why certain edits were added. I have no problems at all with scant information in this area, and actually see no need to add a lot of names or even a few unless we have very clearly defined why they are there. My point above is that we have to look at the article as about MMY not anything else and we have to look at who impacted him rather than who were involved in his movement . It seems to me those are two very different criteria. If we don't define that very clearly we open the door for more subjective, POV decision making in terms of additions to the article. There are so many "notable" people who have interacted over the last 50 years with the Maharishi .... who of those is notable and why. What makes one notable above someone else in terms of their interactions. I've heard that most of these people in Maharishi's eyes were not notable but just human beings who wanted or needed his help. If we create notability we are doing so from a POV rather than from any real criteria in terms of impact on his life, and I can't see that that POV is compliant in terms of Wikipedia policy.(olive (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

Olive I think I am saying a similar thing, though I may not come to the same conclusion. My feeling is that, with the exception of his teacher, it is very possible that no one impacted the Maharishi personally and in any case we cannot know. If we use that standard, all names should be removed. But a few impacted his organization. Perhaps this is not the place to list those people, and maybe some day someone will have to create a new article about the organization itself, maybe that is the solution. For this article, I am okay with include only the names of people who were there in the 60's and 70's if that's what everyone wants, but I don't really understand what the logical reason is. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, it sounds like you two are splitting hairs and that generally you are in agreement. I don't want to get in the middle, though maybe I just did :-), but let me add two small things. While I agree that we don't need to add anymore notable names, if some are deemed notable they should be added because the Popularity section is not limited to just the 60's and 70's. Point two is that in case you are not aware there already exists a separate article for the Maharishi's teacher; Brahmananda Saraswati. Peace out! --Kbob (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• The subject's views of the importance of other people in his life is mostly irrelevent to how we write this biography. The intro says "He became known in the Western world in part due to his interactions with The Beatles and other celebrities." The body of the article needs contain sufficient material to support that statement. If there are others who are prominently linked to the subject, like Hagelin, then they deserve to be mentioned too. What we don't need to mention in this article are people, no matter how prominent, who are simply known for practicing TM but who are not known for their connection to the subject.   Will Beback  talk  22:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

What we are discussing it seems to me is how to precisely define notability for the purposes of this article. I in no way meant to suggest that notability should be established based on Maharishi's opinion, and I'm sorry if that was implied. To summarize the discussion so far: We seem to have several positions for how to define notability in this article - 1. Add those who impacted Maharishi. 2.Add those who supposedly added to his fame in the west. 3.Add those who are notable in their own right and who began Mediation. 4. Some combination of these four. Its also possible to have different sections or subsections for any of these we use.(olive (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

I don't think that point #3 makes sense for this article. Just because a notable person began practices TM does not appear to be reason enough to mention them in this article unless that person has alo had meaningful conenciton with the subject as noted in relaible sources. It does suggest that having a "notable practitioners" section in the TM article would make sense.   Will Beback  talk  22:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. Point 3 doesn't work here. My concern with adding notable practitioners in the TM article is that this would look like advertising and endorsements. What do you think?

I think it's standard for any college, club, or religion to list the notable people associated with it. So long as the list is sourced I don't see any objection.   Will Beback  talk  00:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually I do see Kbob's point. I did not realize that there already was an article about the Maharishi's teacher, In which case I am starting to feel that adding much more would imbalance the article as per WP:WEIGHT. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Leon MacLaren probably had no appreciable effect on MMY. On the other hand, MMY had a big impact on him: subsequent to his visit in 1961, MacLaren, with others, began a periodic relationship with two Shankaracharyas in India, wrote at least one book, and added a mantra-based meditation similar to TM to the SES, Practical Philosophy, and The Philosophy Foundation (now the Advaita Meditation Center) curricula. Should MacLaren be mentioned in this article? I would suggest it. David spector (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Concerning Brihaspati Dev Triguna, I hope you can find a citation to retain his name in this article. Were it not for Dr. Dev Triguna, MMY would not have had such an active Maharishi pulse analysis and diagnosis program for so many years. David spector (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)