Talk:Maharishi Mahesh Yogi/Archive 3

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 23:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Inappropriate edits by "Maharishi International Publications Department" 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Unbalanced 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Beatles' miscellanea 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Libel 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 . 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Opinions may change over time. We can report that and later beliefs, as well. . 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)
thread_title:  Saltzman quote; rewrite 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citation 

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

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

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. .--Dseer 04:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Beatles section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Kent 

message: Here is what Mia Farrow says with regards to her interactions with MMY in her autobiography "What falls Away" (). 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Mia Farrow Quotes 

message: "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)
thread_title:  "taught to millions" citation 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for all your constructive efforts. Vijayante 17:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beatles section: thank you everyone 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Refactoring from my Talk page 

message: * 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)
replies: text: *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)
thread_title:  new Time magazine reference 

message: *why has this tag been added again? (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 22:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Self-identification is compulsory, as Maharishi is still alive. Hornplease 00:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hindu? 

message: 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." Nidich, S. I. & Nidich, R. J. Growing up Enlightened: How Maharishi School of the Age of Enlightenment is Awakening the Creative Genius of Students and Creating Heaven on Earth. Page xiv. Fairfield, IA. Maharishi International University Press. ISBN: 0-923569-03-0 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."  Lonsdorf, N., Butler, V. & Brown, M. A Woman's Best Medicine Page 4. New York. G.P. Putnam's Sons. ISBN: 0-87477-740-2 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. Freund, P. F. Vedic Literature Reading Curriculum, Volume I, page 2. Ann Arbor, Michigan. University of Michigan Dissertation Services. UMI Number: 3222115 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. Oates, Robert M. Permanent Peace. Fairfield, Iowa. Institute of Science, Technology and Public Policy. ISBN: 0-615-12070-9
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)
replies: text: I defer to your wisdom and experience, being a newbie myself.Sueyen 20:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions regarding material that seems POV 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Politics/Natural Law Party 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  history 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reference that Maharishi attended Allahabad Uni 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New material on Maharishi 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Generalizations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Comment on recent tagging of article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Notice: aggressive and substantial editing since tagging 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Revision of Beatles section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Request for Comment on NPOV and Fringe 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Degree 

message: 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:.  
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)
thread_title:  TimidGuy et al and COI 

message: 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)
replies: text: [citation needed] --Philosophus T 04:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply to Dseer 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  criticism 

message: 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)
replies: text: Is the NPOV policy compatible with your statement that the yogi is owed respect?Naturezak (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  reply to above