Talk:Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

previous discussion (ended 2006-06-25)

Wording of allegations

please use the word "alleged" in the article. Even if only for legal reasons. Ethically, it is required.

the "Criticism of TM" section

Re allegations re sexual advances etc.

The source is given as scholalry but a look at the source shows that what is presented at best deserves to be described as second, third, fourth (or n) hand rumours mentioned in passing. Kent's book is not a clinical study. It is not even devoted to critizing TM - it is the author's own walk down memory lane of the counter culture 1960s.

Who in their right mind calls this fact?

Re an anonymous anti-TM site that keeps forgetting it has been declared dead (behind-the-tm-facade.org).

A lie does not become truer just because it is repeated ad nauseum.

Find a clinical study demonstrating that practice of TM results in depersonalization, derealization, anxiety, suicide attempts, assaults, homicidal ideation, other serious psychotic episodes - and what else.

Get real - if this was what TM is about, it would have been abandoned/stopped many, many years ago.

Peterklutz 17:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

RE: TM and derealization... The DSM-IV actually was changed to allow for non-pathological derealization induced by spiritual practices based at least partly on interviews with long-term TMers who reported long-term, non-pathological derealization. The moral of the story is that one man's pathological disorder may be another man's spiritual attainment. Of course, the fact that there may be distinct physiological correlates found in the TMers that may not be found in people reporting pathological derealization may be another diagnostic tool. Sparaig 02:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Re allegations of sexual advances: several sources have now made it clear that a man called Alexis Mardas, known as Magic Alex, invented these allegations in a successful attempt to turn the Beatles against Maharishi and to whisk them away from his ashram and influence. I am happy to cite these sources if required. In the meantime, I am putting everyone on notice (for their own sake) that to repeat these allegations at this stage would be libellous. Various sources also show that the Beatles later realised the deception and their mistake in doubting Maharishi. --Acrat 09:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Several women have stepped foward over the years claiming to have been MMY's lover. MMY claims to have no children, so who really cares? Sparaig 10:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I've not seen any reputable sources telling the Alexis Mardas story, only Deepak Chopra and the like. --quadpus 12:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

These sources tell the Mardas story:

Spitz, Bob, The Beatles -- The Biography, Aurum Press, 2006, ISBN 1 84513 160 6

Miles, Barry, Paul McCartney -- Many Years from Now, Vintage, 1998, ISBN 0 7493 8658 4

Lennon, Cynthia, A Twist of Lennon, W. H. Allen, 1978, ISBN 0 352 30196 1

Paul Mason, The Maharishi -- The Biography of the Man Who Gave Transcendental Meditation to the World, 2005, Chapter 12 (Online http://www.paulmason.info/themaharishi/mmytitle.htm)

--Acrat 07:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

SFacets and the V word

Haven't you read the response posted to you on your talk page?

Do you really think wikipedia admins will allow themselves to hoodwinked again by unfounded lies of what's going on?

Why are you here..?

What is the purpose of your existence?

Who are you?

Peterklutz 05:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I am of the Adsforffinkle order of the Jedi. My purpose is to eat shrimps without the prior chucking of them on the barbie. Sfacets 09:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

confessions of ignorance (copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sethie)

Ran a check to list the top editors[1]

Toward the top of the list I found i.a. Sethie, here's what SFacets and he - one of the article's other TM-critical editors have to say with reference to his own knowledge regarding a subject CFacets persistenly defames:

SFacets: I agree that there is alot of pro-TM biased editing, however it is important to let them contribute to the article for it to grow (after all followers are logically the ones who would know the most about the organisation). Of course the edits made should be monitored..

Sethie: I concur 100%. Since Peterklutz, 186. has been around, I believe the articles have improved, a lot... I am definatley opposed to totally censuring anyone, unless every edit is absurd...

Peterklutz 08:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

My point here - please take note of this wikipedia admins - is that the top "contributors" to the TM and MMY articles by their own admIssion don't know what the subject-matters they are editing.

My guess is that unless wikipedia adapts its policy to the facts on the ground in Cyberspace; it will in time stagnate (as admins choosen by popular vote) pull wikipedia down into the gutter - as this new elite entrench itself and proves to become an immovable layer of article-subject ignorance

Bon chance!

Peterklutz 12:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't made any biased edits. I truly don't know much about the TM movement, this makes me an ideal moderator - which is what I have been attempting to do - moderating, something made difficult by your constant vandalism and biased edits to the article, as well as your unfounded and unhelpful accusations which do nothing to further the article. Sfacets 09:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

More vandalism by Peterklutz

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maharishi_Mahesh_Yogi&curid=176796&diff=61800866&oldid=61675218 The Beatles incident certainly did cause a stir. Do you think this needs references? And yes, he was their "guru" in the public's eye, they were followers and had a personal relationship with him. If you think this should be rephrased, you give it a try.--quadpus 08:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

How to refer to the subject

The article at present refers to the subject alternatively as "Maharishi" and "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi". The second mouthful seems to me to be quite a bad choice for running text (though proper as the page name and in the lead section). Does anybody have a problem with changing the word used to "Maharishi" throughout? I understand that it's an honorific, which would normally be an inappropriate choice, but it seems to me that a) it is the appellation by which he is best known and most often referred to, and b) is there any real alternative? "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi" is too cumbersome, and the surname, Srivastava, would be mystifyingly unfamiliar. Any other suggestions? The usual place to look, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), is very little help for an unusual case like this, so I invoke Wikipedia:Use common sense and suggest using "Maharishi" throughout, getting rid of the Mahesh Yogi except in the lead. OK? Bishonen | talk 19:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC).

As I've said, I agree. Even MMY admits that its become something of a name, rather than a title.Sparaig 20:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutral point of view, talkpage consensus, and Peterklutz

I haven't been following this article or talkpage closely, but now that I see Peterklutz's post above ("Reading your post I assume you're looking for a fight"), I have to say it's something of a low water mark in my experience of talk page discussions, and truly deplorable as a response to Quadpus' logical example. Peter, if you're going to dismiss other editors' constructive arguments, others should simply feel free to form a consensus without you, and revert you if you edit against that consensus. Please rethink your attitude, discuss collaboratively, and read Wikipedias basic policy on writing from a neutral point of view before you edit the article again. Bishonen | talk 19:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC).

As a matter fact, Quadpus' logical example is convincing enough for me to change my mind on the issue. I'm now more in favor of addressing Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in subsequent references by his birth name, Mahesh Prasad Varma. Wiki shouldn't elevate him above Pope John Paul or any other religious leader. Askolnick 20:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Mahesh Prasad Varma? All that? Every time? Well, I'm fine with anything people can agree on, I don't have a dog in this fight. Bishonen | talk 20:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC).

Aside from the possibility of offending true believers everywhere, perhaps the wikipedia entry should go with the most common way he is referred to in various dictionaries, newspaper articles, encyclopedias, etc. Anything else would be a non-NPOV, would it not? Larry King calls him "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi" in an interview. Britannica Online calls him "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi." The official chronicle of the Hindu saint, Sri Anandamoyi Ma, refers to his visit with her using the name "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi." Etc. What possible reason would there be for Wikipedia to use a non-standard name? It would only cause confusion. In fact, merely proposing such a thing smacks of a non-NPOV, IMHO. For brevity's sake, Maharishi, the Maharishi, or MMY might also be used, but almost no standard reference uses "Mahesh Prasad Varma." Sparaig 21:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Come to think of it even Andrew Skolnick's Askolnick own article in JAMA refers to him as "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi," as does his article about the subject in the Fall 1991 issue of Science Writers, as do US legal documents, and even IRS references [2]. Sparaig 21:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I guess I didn't make myself understood, you're answering a different question. As I said, it seems appropriate to use "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi" as the name of the page, plus in the first mention, in the lead section. My concern was how to refer to him in subsequent mentions. In the running text. No, Encyclopedia Britannica, for instance, doesn't do the whole "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi" in the subsequent mentions, it consistently uses the locution "the Maharishi". This Wikipedia article needs to be consistent too. And since the name is—and needs to be—repeated often, it seems to me that consistently using the long, heavy "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi" would be stylistically lousy. (And "Mahesh Prasad Varma" equally so.) But I'm done belaboring this detail, you people figure it out. Bishonen | talk 22:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC).

My take is to go with common usage. While a few Hindus use "Yogi Mahesh," the only time I've seen the man's given name used is in articles by people attempting to make the point that he's not "really" a Maharishi --usually in the context of baiting a true believer. Sparaig 22:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

But that is very silly. It's like arguing that Cardinal Spellman should not be called Cardinal Spellman. If a group gives someone a title, then that person has a title. But the issue really is this: What is Wiki's policy regarding the use of names in references after the person's full, formal name is given? As Quadpus pointed out, Wiki does not keep calling Pope John Paul II "Pope John Paul". Wiki articles involving MYM should use a style consistent with the style used for other religious figures. Askolnick 23:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

just thought i should point out to you that MMY is not a 'religious figure'. according to even wikipedia, the definition of 'religion' is 'beliefs concerning ... a person ... considered to be .... highest truth ... and the practices ... moral codes etc.' TM is, as its name suggests, a form of meditation intended to help accelerate transcendance. 'worshipping the maharishi' by treating him as a 'religious figure' is therefore to be absolutely discouraged, and your belief that he is an'other religious figure' therefore rings rather large alarm bells. lkcl 21sep2006.

If that's the issue, please click on my link to the Manual of Style. Here it is again: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). But, as I mentioned, it's not a lot of use here, and is obviously not designed for a case like this. We're going to have to see by the light of reason. Bishonen | talk 23:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC).

• He should be referred to by his accepted surname throughout the page. He is not the figurehead of a religion (his followers are very firm and specific on that point) neither is he a titled head of state. Hence his surname alone is sufficient to globally and unambiguously identify him, especially on a page devoted to him. Giano | talk 18:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Mahesh-Sama definitely has a nice ring to it... Sigh. Different cultures have different expectations of politeness. You NEVER refer to someone in Japan without adding an honorific of some kind, for example, even if its just "chan" to signify that they're a cute kid. I refer to my kung-fu teacher as Sifu or Sifu fong even though I haven't seen him in years. I refer to my Japanese teacher as Yamashita-sensei or just sensei. Indians who respect MMY often refer to him as Maharishi-ji, as though "Maharishi" wasn't enough and I don't mean Indians who practice TM, either. I use "MMY" as an abreviaion, usually. Using a name no-one has heard of save people who read passports is silly. My vote is for "Maharishi" or "the Maharishi" as is common useage everywhere. Sparaig 20:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Quite right, but we are not in Japan or even India, we are writing an English speaking encyclopedia where we can refer to individuals by their surnames alone without giving offence. Giano | talk 21:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Except that virtually no-one has heard of his surname and frankly I'm not quite sure what it is either. I've seen two different names given for his family name. It may be due to an obscure Indian court ruling a few decades ago concerning the caste-status of a specific set of scribes in a specific part of India who happen to have a certain name, while the same caste of scribes in a different part of India who have a different name are of a different caste so his family may be trying to keep their status quiet... Aren't religious issues a wonder to behold if you're an outsider? One of my favorite examples of the contradictions found in modern (ancient?) Hinduism is the assasination of Tatewalla Baba, one of the most famous yogis in the world. Even though most people don't know his name, he's a world-wide icon --the ultra-long-haired guy in the loin cloth who lived in a cave in the Himalayas. Tatewalla Baba was apparently the guy who said "Madam, I AM London,"...

He was killed by a rival yogi who apparently was jealous of all the attention he was getting from the tourists. Anyway, using an obscure name doesn't seem to be proper. "John Paul II" may be OK for the Pope, but that's not his original name anyway. Sparaig 09:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If his name is obscure then that is his own fault for calling himself somethin else. Maharishi is not his name just an assumed title. Some people are called Professor, but one would not refer to them as just "professor" throughout an article Giano | talk 16:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Not being TOO serious here, but how would you refer to the Professor in an article about Giligan's Island? Would you dredge up the episode (if there is one) where his real name is mentioned and insist on referring to him that way? Sparaig 20:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The difference, in fact quite a large difference, is that Mr Prasad Varma is a real person, at least he ws the last time he had a medical. Giano | talk 21:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You've just proven my point about there being a question about what IS MMY's original name. Your original text referred to him with one name, and your current revision uses a different one. Which one is correct? Perhaps both are, in which case, which one do you use? The fact is, MMY's public persona uses a title, and almost no-one knows his "real" name, and almost no public reference uses it. Why do you insist on going with a name that isn't in common use in ANY venue, save, apparently, his passport? Sparaig 23:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• This reminds me of a New York Times article that kept referring to Meat Loaf, the rock-and-roll singer, as "Mr. Loaf" in accordance with their style book. It was ridiculously bad writing because it kept calling attention to itself instead of being a neutral voice so the content of the article was the focus of attention. In our case, the name/word/title that everybody knows the man we're writing about contains the word "Maharishi." To not use that word when referring to him would be ridiculously bad writing and non-neutral voice. The fact is, he is "the Maharishi" -- unambiguous, brief, accurate, and neutral. EddieC Vito 19:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

other side of research argument

Added quotes by non-meditating researchers who dispute NRC conclusion cited by Skolnick. Sparaig 21:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Pagels original link is no more...

While I'm sure that he said it, the Pagels link takes one to the skepdic website which in turn cites trancenet as the source of the Pagels quote. Trancenet no longer exists so there is no reference to where the Pagels quote comes from. Sparaig 20:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Lawson. I fixed the problem by adding a link to your favorite JAMA Medical News & Perspectives article, which also has Pagels quote. BTW, as a freelancer for The Sciences, I ghost wrote for Dr. Pagels when he was president of the New York Science Academy. We had a number of very interesting talks about pseudosciences. He was a great scientist, a great educator, and a great author. His mountain climbing accident was everyone's enormous loss. Askolnick 21:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sfacet for catching my error. My memory was incorrect. My JAMA article did not have all the Pagels' quoted material, so the previous Skeptical Dictionary source will have to do. It really doesn't matter that the link in Skeptical Dictionary no longer works. That link was to a court document, well known to many supporters and critics of the TM movement, which I and many others have copies of. And Skeptical Dictionary is a solid, reputable source well recognized by Wiki. Askolnick 22:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Just curious. Was he familiar with John Hagelin's professional work or was he going by the QM Consciousness For the Masses brochures? Sparaig 09:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't know. Askolnick 12:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Edits by 203.144.160.242

I see that 203.144.160.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) immediately started editing the article when Voice of All removed the semiprotection, and among other things reverted my removal of some crude POV (such as the use of the word "sell" rather than "teach"). Considering that this is a controversial subject, could you please edit logged in, to avoid making the history and your own contributions list more confusing? Anonymous editing of an article like this simply encourages edit warring. And it gets worse when you neither use edit summaries nor discuss on the talk page. Please don't make me semi-protect again. Bishonen | talk 15:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC).

All right, then: semiprotecting again

203.144.160.242 continues to edit without logging in, without edit summaries, and without responding here, so I've semiprotected again. Bishonen | talk 19:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC).

Gack...

The latest round of editing by a former true believer now turned anti (I assume) has messed things up royally. Is there any way we can revert the page that we can all agree on? Otherwise, we're left with deleting/editing stray words and phrases all over. E.G., '"Transcendental Meditation Movement" cult'... Sparaig 02:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, there actually isn't that much of it, in fact considering the number of edits, there's amazingly little. But it's all POV. "An album considered the worst album they ever made by most music critics"—without even giving the name of said album? Yeah, THAT's encyclopedic. Lennon "found out [MMY] was having sex with western women on the course after feeding them chicken in his bedroom". Oh, he "found out"? As spoken directly in the voice of the encyclopedia? It HAS to be true about the chicken, then! No sources. Editing stray words and phrases looks quite feasible to me, if anybody or -bodies would like to undertake it. But on the whole I fully endorse Sparaig's proposed revert. The additions will in any case mostly have to go, they're just non-neutral. Just as a suggestion, I would be in favor of wiping out these additions: of reverting to CheNuevara. Might there be agreement on that? Any other suggestions? Bishonen | talk 02:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC).

Fine by me, obviously. Even the first edit, about the "personal net worth" is questionable since, AFAIK, all the money is in non-profits. They may well be controlled by MMY's relatives, but given this is India we're talking about, that's not terribly unusual. Nepotism is a way of life. It's built into the caste system, afterall... Sparaig 03:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The above is an absolutely classic example of a TM apologist at work: I bet the transcending apologists could even make people sympathetic for the Menendez brothers, because poor Lyle and Eric have been orphans since blowing their parents away.Askolnick 11:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I set you off, Andrew. I have NO idea whether or not the family members are in charge of the money --I have heard that MMY's favorite nephew sits on the board of directors of just about all TM movement organizations, so there's at least SOME validity to the suggestion. I certainly have no idea whether or not the family is stealing from theorganizations or mis-using the funds in some way. My point was simply that family ties in India are extremely important, especially to conservative religious people like MMY. Even elected officials often are related. A Nehru/Gandhi has been Prime Minister of India for most of its modern existence, for example. Sparaig 16:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a vast difference between citizens electing people who are related - ie. Teddy and FD Roosevelt, John, Bobby, and Ted Kennedy -- and people who put give their family members powerful and lucrative positions. It's NOT nepotism when the public elects somebody. Nepotism is when a person in power uses his power to put relatives into important positions! Nepotism is associated with corruption and poor management, because often the relatives are not qualified for the jobs. Here is yet another excellent example of how TM apologetics work: It's what some TMers refer to as the "SIMS shuffle." Start talking about one thing, switch mid-stream to another, and most of the time, your bliss-seeking listener won't have a clue. Not this time Lawson.

I must say I'm impressed with your suggestion that family ties are more important in India than they are in other lands and that this therefore justifies turning the TM organization into a family business. Like I said, not this time. That dog of an apologetic won't hunt. Askolnick 17:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Serveral points: Do you really think that the Kennedys didn't give each other powerful positions, or that others didn't give them powerful positions in government because of their name? Also, I never meant to imply that there was NOT the potential for abuse--India may well be in the position it is in BECAUSE of the cultural tradition of nepotism. My only point was that just because there is a strong sign of nepotism in the TM organization, isn't a reason to assume that the abuse is any worse than normal. For all we know, MMY's nephew does a bangup job. In fact, given the True Believerism that is rampant in the TMO, having a skeptical family member on board might make things BETTER, not worse. Again, we don't know. I simply meant to say that given the cultural tradition in India, its not surprising to find nepotism and you certainly can't be certain of what it means without direct evidence of wrong-doing. Sparaig 20:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Which vandalism is which?

Things have gotten pretty silly here. Is it POV to say MMY has a personal net worth? Is it POV to say the non-profit educational organization sells TM? Is anyone neutral reading this stuff or are there just silly little camps of pro-TM and anti-TM editors enjoying reversing each others' edits, with the anti-TM camp being a bit more sophisticated in how they play the wiki game? Just wondering...Sparaig 07:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, Maharishi took a vow of poverty among his other vows. This means he doesn't own anything. It means he has no personal net worth. All the courses are offered by non-profit registered organisations (according to the laws of the various countries)and the trustees, managers, directors etc. are probably unpaid. So if family members are appointed, they are getting a very onerous responsibility rather than a (well-paid) sinecure. So the reason for appointing them must be for trustworthiness mainly. In any case, this presumably applies to a minority of the worldwide organisations, limited perhaps to those in India, which would only receive funds from Indian course-fees. These managers are required by law to ensure the funds are used for the registered objects of the organisation, which would exclude any personal benefit for anyone. Therefore, it has to be presumed that all the funds are properly accounted for, unless any specific evidence can be provided to the contrary, such as a conviction for embezzlement or fraud. Otherwise, any suggestion that Maharishi has accumulated a personal fortune from the proceeds of TM fees is unfounded. Furthermore, where is the list of his assets? I mean, can anyone name even one asset demonstrably registered in his name?

--Acrat 09:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, one may even ask to what purpose one should engage in communicating with such entities. How much new information are such mental dead-enders actually capable (let alone willing) to absorb? Peterklutz 12:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

While you're posting these apologetics, would you please explain to us why Maharishi Mahesh cannot go back to India, where he's wanted on charges of tax evasion or fraud? I love to watch TM apologists at work, don't you? Always fascinating. They spin better than any spider known to arachnologists.Askolnick 13:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I've heard this rumor for years. Do you have documentation of it? If you do, then it belongs in the wikipedia entry, obviously. If you don't, then its just another rumor that you have accepted as fact because you don't like anything or anyone who smacks of "New Age." Sparaig 16:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Very good suggestion, thanks. I will when I have some time. Askolnick 18:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

<blink> I'm at a loss to understand why you haven't bothered to before now... Sparaig 20:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Maharishi's age and former name

A quick Google search showed several estimates for Maharishi's year of birth from 1910 to 1918. We have seen two suggestions for his original name and year of birth recently, even in this article. If there is no reliable source, I suggest we delete these details. Please comment. While here, may I also comment that Maharishi is called Maharishi, not 'The Maharishi', in Movement circles. Is there any reason to change this normal usage? --Acrat 09:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

No, but I am sure you'll find a minority whose size is proportionally opposite to the volume with which the yodle that would like it to be otherwise

Peterklutz 12:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Peterklutz, make sure you read your latest Wiki administration warning. You have violated the 3RR. That's your final warning. Askolnick 13:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The I suggest this fact be added -- not covered up as you propose. Readers should know that it is very difficult to get facts about MMY's early years. That in itself tells us something.

I do agree that "The Maharishi" should not be used. It is wrong. He's not "The" Maharishi. He is one of many. Askolnick 13:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I dunno. We write, "In his remarks, the President quoted the bible..." without implying he is the one and only president. The context makes it would be clear which president is referred to. Note, too, that in my example quote I capitalized "President" while outside of the quote, when talking about presidents in general, I did not capitalize the word. EddieC Vito 20:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The Sanskrit word "Maha" means "great", and "rishi" means "seer". Thus, "Maharishi" is a Indian title for a great seer. In the TM Movement, "Maharishi" is an abbreviation to address "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi", and also a title just as one say "Doctor", "Professor", etc. I think it is more proper to use "Maharishi" rather than "The Maharishi" because this is the name Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is known to the world and his followers.

More competing True Believers...

Dharmabatteries has done his/her own bit of stuff here. I'll not indulge in reversions though I think Bohenen should. "Attempted Rape" of Mia Farrow was never even hinted at by Mia Farrow, to list the most obvious POV entry. At one time, she said that he put his arm around her in private and attempted to get her to sit on his cot. She scurried out. Given that she's probably 6 inches taller, I doubt that this counts as "attempted rape." Certainly she never claimed it. Sparaig 03:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll support Sparig on this. I've never, ever come across any allegation of "attempted rape." Mia Farrow and those who were at the ashram at the time reportely were shocked and dismayed to discover that their giggling guru was just a man - and one who does not live up to his sacred word. Farrow, John Lennon, and later on Ned Wynn were stunned to learn that MMY, who had taken a sacred vow of celebacy, was a dirty old man who had tried to get into Mia's pants. Later on, when Farrow explained to Wynn what had happened, he wouldn't believe it: "Mia, he's a Brahmachari. He took vows of celibacy with his guru. You must have misinterpeted his intentions." Writing his autobiography years later, and a whole lot smarter, Wynn explained: "The former Mrs. Frank Sinatra turns to me. 'Ned,' she says with great patience, 'don't you think I know when a man wants to fuck me?" (Wynn, Ned, We Will Always Live in Beverly Hills, William Morrow and Co., 1990, p.259). By all accounts I know of, the giggling guru was only guilty of being a dirty old man (being nearly 3 times Mia Farrow's age) and being innept at his attempts to add yet another notch to the Holiness' bed post.Askolnick 11:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes Bishonen please delete reference to attempted rape. See my comment on dharmabatteries' talk page under heading Libel. --Acrat 10:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the "rape" reference is to a Rolling Stones interview with one of the Beatles years later.Sparaig 22:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

POV template...

Is this the best wording for the controversy template? "The neutrality of this article is disputed because: This article contains very little information on it's subject, the Magharishi Mahesh Yogi, and rather serves as an advertisement for transcendental meditation practices without addressing concerns about the Maharishi's behavior or indeed any useful information about the man himself. For details and discussion of this dispute, see the talk page." Sparaig 22:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I have turned the 'incident' into an 'alledged incident' as I think it is morally wrong and non-neutral to claim that it did definately happen when we do not know the true facts of the matter, and to my knowledge it was never taken to court. I am not on either side of this argument, I do not know as much as I should to decide what I think of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and his teachings, however I just though that the change was needed. Sigurd Dragon Slayer

facts about awards for Maharishi School in Iowa...

sfacet asked for a citation to support using the phrase "award winning" for Maharishi School other than a video. Does the school website count?

comprehensive list of awards at Maharishi School 2004-2005 archived prior to 2004-2005

sarcasm mode

If not, googling '"maharishi school" award OR science OR sport OR chess OR photography OR speech OR history OR champion OR "first place" OR "second place"' got quite a few hits. It holds the record for prizes won in several state, national and international competitions, BTW.

State Record: 41 state championships in creative problem-solving competitions Destination ImagiNation and Odyssey of the Mind World Record: Three-time winners of the Global Finals of Destination ImagiNation, and more top-ten finishes than any other school in the world State Record: Most Critic’s Choice State Banner Awards for speech in the past decade State Record: Congressional Art Competition, “An Artistic Discovery,” grand prize three years in a row State Record: Tennis Triple Crown winner two years in a row State Record: Boys’ track 800 meters

Eliminating TM-related sites, we find URLs like:

[3]

[4]

GRADES 9 AND UNDER - SINGLE IMAGE Grand Prize Award: Sylvia Shay, Maharishi School, Fairfield, IA USA, “Grill Eyes.” Teacher: Greg Thatcher. Second Prize Award: Lanie Goldstein, Maharishi School, Fairfield, IA USA, “Shadow Friends.” Teacher: Greg Thatcher.

[5]

[6] [7]

[8] [9]

No Critical Content

There is just about no content critical of MMY in the article. This is contrary to neutrality, since all major points of view are not being reflected. Here are some points that ought to be included:

• MMY's most important single point these days (in his press conferences and in his actions) is that all habitations with doors facing south or west should be destroyed and rebuilt facing east or north
• He has stated in his press conferences that only rich people deserve this technology of the infinite
• Initiations in TM have slowed to a trickle due to his policies; this is contrary to his stated desire that everyone ought to practice the technique
• MMY forbids TM teaching in England due to their participation in the war against Iraq (although it is okay for USA teaching to continue)
• Formerly devoted TM teachers are being alienated and are breaking away from his movement and setting up competitive instruction in transcending

David 01:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Should I add this to the article? David 13:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Nothing should be added that's based on your original research rather than on reputable sources, which you would need to cite. You also need to do a better job writing those points to make them: 1) clearer, 2) more accurate, 3) more NPOV. For example:

"MMY forbids TM teaching in England due to their participation in the war against Iraq (although it is okay for USA teaching to continue)"

I never realized that TM teachers were participating in the war against Iraq. I suspect you mean that MMY has forbidden his teachers from teaching in the United Kingdom because of its participation in the war in Iraq (even though he has not forbidden teaching TM in the United States, which led the invasion and has by far the greatest number of troops in Iraq.

My understanding is that MMY recently banning teaching in all of the UK, not just in England (remember Great Britain consists of Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, assorted islands around the world, as well as England.)

"Formerly devoted TM teachers are being alienated and are breaking away from his movement and setting up competitive instruction in transcending."

Surely not all formerly devoted TM teachers are doing this. So it should say "Some formerly devoted..." or, if you can document it with a reputable source, "Many formerly devoted ..."

"Important" is an opinion, not a fact. So whose opinion is it that you're referring to about MMY's most important single point? What source is the statement based on?

If MMY stated in his press conferences that only the rich deserve the benefits of his teachings, then you should be able to directly quote him, right?

Where is a reputable source to back up your claim that TM initiations have "slowed to a trickle" and that it is "due to his policies"? Askolnick 18:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

allegedly celebate

Actually, close parsing of MMY's statements and so on a year or two after the Mia Farror incident took place suggest that he stopped claiming to be celebate: he had already dropped the title "brahmacharyi" in favor of "maharishi," and he went on the radio in ENgland suggesting that had he known it was possible to gain enlightenment without becoming celibate, he would have gotten married rather than becoming a monk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparaig (talk • contribs) 22:18, 18 July 2006 UTC (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked user Peterklutz edit warring anonymously

Peterklutz clearly doesn't mind mind how bad he makes any organization he's a member of look, the TM movement look by defending it[10], so I've range blocked the IPs that I'm aware of, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Peterklutz. I'm not sure I'll bother with any more if he comes in from some other open proxy or whatever. Please just revert, and if it gets really annoying, drop me a line and I'll s-protect. Bishonen | talk 11:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC).

Or you can let me know. I've got the page watchlisted and I reverted him myself a few hours ago. --Woohookitty^(meow) 12:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick comment: the "membership" in TM means that Peter paid a course fee and that is it. Given that about 1% of all adults living in he USA learned TM at one point or another, its not surprising to run into people like Peter. You can also run into people far WORSE than Peter. Ask Andrew about how awful I am or that Judy Stein is. Sparaig 14:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sparaig, that's quite a misleading statement. One percent of the adults in the United States do not spend much of their lives defending the TM Movement and its guru (as you know Peterklutz is doing.) One percent of adults in the U.S. do not post thousands of messages attacking Maharishi's critics on Web sites and chat groups. The same goes for TM's famous "Junk Yard Dog." She is hardly someone who you describe as having "learned TM at one point or another." I also don't agree that Judy is "far WORSE than Peter." As a matter of fact, I think old age has softened both her bite and growl. I wish you would have provided this example of her snarling instead: "Lawson, do try to make sure you're actually *awake* before writing a post. This will cut down considerably on the number of idiocies emanating from your keyboard." Now that's the old Judy at her Junk Yard Doggest.

Well regardless of whether or not I'm asleep, or Judy is better than she used to be, my point stands: 1% of the adults in the USA have probably tried TM and there are likely worse examples of TMers out there than Peter simply because there are a million+ people who learned TM ove the years. And I was joking about Judy being worse than Peter, although I note you haven't set up a Peter Klutz worship page on your website as you have for Judy...Sparaig 18:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come now Sparaig. You know that Judy has style. Even the Dormouse had some of that. Style is what is totally missing in Klutz' semi-literate tirades. And "worship" is not quite the right word. That's kind of like saying the National Holocaust Museum in Washington "worships" crimes against humanity. In its minor way, the Junk Yard Dog web site is a useful archive. Over the past eight years, it's received dozens of visitors a day. Based on feedback I've received, at least some of those thousands found the archive "enlightening." Jai guru dev. Askolnick 22:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Shrug—your point stands and its irrelevance stands too, I guess. I've changed my inexact phrasing about "membership" above. Is that better? Bishonen | talk 18:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC).

Shrugging back atcha. I guess I'm not making myself clear. Whatever. Peter makes himself look bad. I guess if you assume that he's the way he is BECAUSE he does TM, he makes TM look bad as well. Sparaig 19:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Who's assuming that Peterklutz is disruptive because he does Transcendental Meditation? That's a strawman argument. What Peterklutz's conduct does suggest is that the claim that regular practice of TM and advanced TM techniques leads to bliss and enlightenment is as goundless as the TM claim for "yogic flying." The day pigs fly will come long before Maharishi or his devout followers will ever hover even an inch off the ground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Askolnick (talk • contribs) 22:16, 22 July 2006 UTC (UTC)

Peterklutz range-blocked

Crossposting. Sorry guys, I wasn't watching very closely. I have now blocked Peterklutz's entire IP range for a month to give you a bit of peace. I'm hoping it won't cause a lot of collateral damage to innocent anons. And if he starts riding the open proxies again, I suppose I'll semiprotect Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and Transcendental meditation if you give me a shout. Mind you, MMY is such a mess anyway... anybody feel like cleaning it up a bit? Bishonen | talk 02:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC).

Update: Peterklutz apparently static IP 85.30.186.206 immediately took over and reinserted the edits, so I've blocked that too for a month. Bishonen | talk 08:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC).

Oi vey. I'm also trying to keep my eye on proceedings, but I have a smorgasboard of crapola going on at the moment. --Woohookitty^(meow) 08:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

How mouth-watering! Bishonen | talk 09:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC).

"However, according to several authors, Alexis Mardas deliberately engineered the Beatles' disillusionment (Miles, 1998; Spitz, 2006; Lennon, 1978; Mason, 2005), and Mia Farrow refers to the incident in more innocent terms in her autobiography. (Farrow, 1997). Nevertheless, in an account told many years before to her friend and fellow TMer, screen writer Ned Wynn, Farrow made it clear - in crude and certain terms - that she believed the professed celibate monk had clumsily tried to seduce her (Wynn, 1992). " is simply a series of opposing weasel words and POV responses to previous posts.

So rephrase it... if it is referenced there should be no reason for its exclusion from the article.

Sfacets 04:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello and my initial proposal

Hello everyone, I'm just now "joining" this page. I'm somewhat new to Wikipedia, although I've learned a bit in the last week or so from the folks on the Transcendental Meditation page.

I would like to jump in by proposing a change... The statement "based on the principles of Mantra Shastra espoused by the Adi Shankara (c. 788-820 CE,[1]), and taught by his own master, Guru Dev Brahmananda Saraswati" is only an allegation by MMY and is completely unverifiable. It is also disputable (find "A Visit to the Shankaracharya" here[11]

I would propose changing it to a new sentence reading "Maharishi states that his teachings are based on the principles of Mantra Shastra espoused by the Adi Shankara (c. 788-820 CE,[1]), and taught by his own master, Guru Dev Brahmananda Saraswati." Tanaats 21:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I like your rephrase, and I would add to that, we need a source even for that. Sethie 21:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a good change.TimidGuy 12:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I made the change. Dunno' what to do about a citation though. Tanaats 00:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Traditional meditation technique?

The passage "began publicly teaching a traditional meditation technique" is disputable and unverifiable. I propose changing it to "began publicly teaching what Maharishi states is a traditional meditation technique." Tanaats 23:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No feedback so I went ahead a did it. Tanaats 02:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

New templates

I put a "main" template at the top. Should I replace the "see also" section with a navigation template? Tanaats 01:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I went ahead and added the "navigation" template before the "see also". Deal with it :). We might want to merge the "see also" into the "navigation" template someday. Tanaats 01:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Why was the source Stephen A. Kent removed?

[12] Andries 20:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That was probably before my time. What did it say? Tanaats 20:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Just press on the link and you will see. Andries 20:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I was unclear. What I meant to say was "What does it say that is relelvant to the article". Tanaats 20:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand your question. Read it and judge for yourself if it is relevant or not. Andries 20:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, I didn't see the link and I was looking at the Kent article instead of the link reference. So my answer to this whole thing ends up being "I have no idea". Tanaats 21:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Maharishi's views of himself

Yeah Timidguy, I don't have the sources right in front of me... so for the time being I will accept your claim that they were not his claims about himself IF you are willing to go look up the two citations and see if they are Maharishi talking about himself or someone else talking about him.

If you aren't willing to do that, I will revert them back to how they were. That's my initial proposal, let me know what you think.Sethie 15:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Sethie. I believe that a proper bibliographic citation includes author, name of the book, publisher, and date of publication. (According to Wikipedia, you have your choice of style guides to follow.[13]) I would think that if you're citing books, you should provide a proper citation. And in so doing, it will help to resolve the issue.TimidGuy 16:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Heya. You know doing the citations correclty isn't a joy for me, and I notice other people are in to it, so I'll let them tend to it.....

I don't have the books in front of me, so I am unsure how that would solve whether this was said about him or by him?

BTW I like the word changes on the section heading. Sethie 17:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The TM Movement has consistently used modern technology to teach?

The sentence "The TM Movement has consistently used modern technology to teach" seems a bit meaningless, and is probably impossible to source. May I take it out? Tanaats 19:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks for asking.TimidGuy 19:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It's history. Tanaats 20:01, 29 December 2006 (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)

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)