Talk:Maharishi Mahesh Yogi/Archive 1

message: Inserted fact citations in  some of the many unbased facutal claims made.
I currently am not taking your edits seriously. Myself and Sfacets have raised issues with you on your talk page to which you haven't responded.
You also have yet to pick one account to use.
It is wiki ettiquite to sign you posts, and to put new posts at the bottom of the page- neither of which you did for this section. 
Why would I take your edists or insertions of the "fact" claim seriously, given that you can't even play by the basics of wikipedia? Sethie 04:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  get your facts right 

message: This page should probably be moved to Mahesh Yogi. Maharishi is a title and a term of respect, and shouldn't be in the article title any more than Doctor would. - Nat Krause 05:20, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: By convention, Wikipedia is pretty tough on this sort of thing, though: for instance, Jesus instead of Jesus Christ; Thich Nhat Hanh instead of Thich Nhat Hanh. The Maharishi here doesn't really seem necessary to identify him, and it's definitely an honorific. - Nat Krause 06:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Is there some kind of general policy for this stuff? It certainly appears that, if Maharisihi Mahesh Yogi is going to be here, that Nhat Hanh, for instance, should be at Thich Nhat Hanh. - Nat Krause 08:13, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding Page Move

message: It would be helpful to cite a reference for the NIH study and its results (as well as those of similar studies). -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 05:02, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NIH study? 

message: Dear all, it is lovely that you are such great TM fans. Best of luck to you all. However, unless you can establish a link or a source for "the 50 studies" that is not a TM homepage, I think you need to delete this sentence. "Maharishi has also developed programs, based on TM and the advanced TM-Sidhi program, with the purpose of promoting world peace. Over 50 research studies have confirmed that these programs are capable of reducing crime, violence, terrorism and war activities and promote peaceful and constructive tendencies, see http://www.permanentpeace.org/" Frankly, as a non-believer, I find the claims made on the website absolutely absurd. Terrorism declined when a peace event was going on! How exactly do we measure that! That being said, if you do want to keep this, I suggest you write "On a TM webpage, Maharishi's organization points to over 50 research studies that are purpoted to have confirmed that these programs are capable of reducing crime, violence, terrorism and war activities and promote peaceful and constructive tendencies, see http://www.permanentpeace.org/
I have reworked the sentence. This is because of my wonderful good nature. I would rather simply remove it.
Nitangae
What's the problem with using a TM homepage? Maharishi University of Management is an accredited university and only gets to keep its accreditation by playing straight. Of course the TM homepages are best sources for research on the effects of TM and group meditation. But many of the studies are published in reputable journals, often and quite understandably with editorial caveats saying 'the data and methodology are good, but we still don't understand how it happens'. New paradigms are like that. I took part in some of the TM Peace Projects as a group meditator and was myself quite astonished to see changes, so no suprise others are sceptical. You ask how one can measure terrorism going down. The answer is fewer people get killed. My own experience was meditating in Damascus near Beirut with a big group in 1978. Independent scorers were recording reports of casualties and incidents of violence. A third group correlated the numbers of 'peacekeeping' meditators with violence reports. The results were confirmed and are strengthened by the fact they are often predicted ahead of time, and have been replicated. Sadly, violence returns after these peacekeeping groups leave. Scientific journals accept the science is good. Like sunshine, TV and transistors it works, whether you believe, understand, or not. Put a big enough group of meditators in Iraq, and fewer American boys and girls will get killed, for 99.999% sure. This verifies a prediction in the Yoga Sutras "In the vicinity of Yoga (meditation, settled mind), negative tendencies settle down." It's that simple and costs less than a cruise missile.
Google on 'Maharishi Effect research' and you will find plenty of links to books on the topic, and research in respectable journals, as well as the TM movement's 7 volumes of collected papers of research, which include papers published in 'recognised' journals as well as TM house journals like 'Modern Science and Vedic Science' 
David Saunders
From the 'recognised' journals can you cite some articles and how they support this statement, if you want to list them i am happy to summarise them for this or another page Bedel23 10:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: The current version only mentions his Hindu monastic name. Not mentioning his real name is a very serious omission, I think. Andries 23:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What was his real name?

message: To me it makes an impression of thinly disguised Hinduism, not New Age. Andries 23:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the category new age?

message: It is important to know who has an opinion, so an opinion must be explicitly attributed, but a fact needs only be sourced. Attributing an opinion is natural, but attributing a fact can insinuate that that whoever claims the fact might be lying. We attribute an opinion to transform it into a fact, but there is no need to attribute a fact -- it is already a fact. If you want to dispute the reputability of the source because you think this is a strong claim, you can try. You will need a consensus.  --Lumière 04:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of meditators 

message: * The Beatles' experiences with Maharishi
The webpage was changed and had nothing about MMY or the Beattle anmore (but perhaps I didn't look carefully). This is not the only justification to remove this kind of links, but it is clearly sufficient.  --Lumière 21:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed link 

message: Mantras are NOT meaningless sounds, albeit that is the official TM stance. They are, in fact, the name of Hindu deities.
: There is no such thing as a meaning per se. Meanings of words are defined by usage and have to be conveyed, that is taught. -- mizar ॐ Talk 00:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: The following section reads like a long quote and a sales pitch. If it can be re-written so that it doesn't read like a sales pitch, I would be happy for it to be in Sethie 14:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed section 

message: I have moved this section to the TM article, it is more about Transcendnetal Meditation then it is the Maharishi Sethie 12:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Theory of Consciousness 

message: One of the policies of Wikipedia is that Wikipedia is not a collection of weblinks, it is an encyclopedia. I will let some of the links sit there for awhile, however if those sections aren't expanded, I will remove them. Sethie 13:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: excess links

message: I think this controversial branding of the article is an insidious attempt to scare readers away. For the record I wish to make it clear that previously the article was only a promotion piece for Paul Mason's book about Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.
Now the scope is broadened and includes more about the subject (aside sleazy allegations).
It this charade of branding and threatening to ban contributors continue I say Wikipedia has gotten itself a credibility problem. 
Maybe it needs the rethink the way it handles controversial issues overall.
User:PeterKlutz
I support keeping in the POV tag as long as the article has numerous excess links in it, as my comments clearly indicate.
You are welcome to think whatever you like about my or anyone's motives for wanting to keep the POV tag in.
 I like how Sfacets has reduced them, I propose reducing them more, and then removing the tag.Sethie 15:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding POV branding

message: There are a few empty sections in the article featuring nothing but external links (which I have hidden rather than removed as they may prove useful) and no content whatsoever. 
External links (unless backing up and supporting a quote, effectively doubling as references) should be placed in the external link section.
03:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Links vs content

message: Two observations re the last added section under the heading Research (expanded for clarity): 
* the citation given is not to the "study," but a well-known TM-critical site. 
* The referenced "study" is not a study, but a 10-page review of "75 scientific selected articles in the field of meditation, based on a Medline and Psychlit search from 1989 until June 1999 and earlier relevant papers."Article Data
Even if a direct citation could be given for this review I would still find it more natural to put this para under the subheading Criticism, than research. User:PeterKlutz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.30.186.206 (talk • contribs) 
I am not going to respond to anymore of your comments until you learn how to ACCURATELY SIGN YOUR POSTS! I have told you numerous times how to and your user page has instructions on them.
It would be one thing if you were not signing them, however each time you sign them as "PeterKlutz", you litterally are lying. Please, learn some of the basics! Everyday at Wikipedia I learn a new rule, a new technique, etc., and I understand there is a lot at the begining, but please, try and get some of the basics down. Sethie 13:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that normally an article is organized either per subject or chronological, not per POV: it is generally considered bad style to lump all the criticisms in one section, though this is not forbidden. Andries 14:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Please not that a reviewing several studies is research too. The review does not come from a fundamentalist Christian sect, but from a reputable source. The information is hosted on a Christian website, but that is not the same. Andries 17:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  scientific criticism 

message: Found the POV tag reinserted without explanation. Reviewing the article, the single final bone of contention appears to be the location of the last para under Research. Given it's current wording I don't feel this be enough for a POV tagging (and I am the one that finds it's location odd), and therefore remove the POV.
I leave the source tag in place since the criticism levelled against TM's Founder are still awaiting  substantiation. 
Needless to say, if solid sources for this cannot be presented - the 'wikipedian' thing would be to remove the allegations.
User:PeterKlutz
Please SFacets - if you insist to brand articles as POV, at least motivate why. If you read the talk you'll find that quite a bit of work has been accomplisehd in your absence. Remove the tag until such a moment a good motivation for it (and a chance to address any overlooked deficiencies) is given. 
user:Peterklutz
I re-inserted the POV tag in light of several edits made by yourself. Au contraire, keeping the tag in place will motivate people to edit the article in such a way that is becomes non-pov, by monitoring edits and adding their own information to the article. 
Sfacets 03:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reinserted POV tag 

message: Good initiative, Sethie. In my view, what remains now is to create a TM Critique article, consolidate  the bulk of the TM critique there, and then link to it. After that I think the TM article is ripe for an overhaul.
User:Peterklutz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.30.186.206 (talk • contribs) 
:I disagree, creating a special article that deals with criticism is generally considered a bad idea, because it is often, but not always considered a Wikipedia:POV fork. Andries 18:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to external TM Critical section 

message: Article text reads:
The 'Maharishi Effect' establishes the principle that .. when one percent of a population is doing the Transcendental Meditation program this has a trend breaking effect .. for the whole population. In 1976 .. a radically improved effect was found, which indicated that now only the square root of one percent of a population is required to create the same effect.
This is confusing, to say the least, as the square root of 1% should probably be interpreted as requiring 10% active participation in TM courses - a much higher threshold. 
--Philopedia 13:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing Discussion of the 'Maharishi Effect' 

message: Without a citation, I support the removal of that paragraph. Sethie 23:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Christian criticisms

message: Six or seven revisions without any major stuff being changed. Does that mean this tag is now redundant?
I support removing the citation tag. Sethie 22:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  time to remove disputed tag? 

message: No.
Sfacets
What references do you lack?
I support the removal of the refferences tag- I am not really seeing much lack of refferences now. Sethie 00:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  time to remove the unreferenced tag?