Talk:Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

previous discussion - archive 1 (ended 2006-06-25)
previous discussion - archive 2 (ended 2006-12-31)
previous discussion - archive 3 (ended 2007-03-31)

Conflice of Interest Update

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

new Time magazine reference

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

Failed GA

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

{{subst:#if:|

---

{{{overcom}}}|}}

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   {{subst:#if:|{{{1com}}}|}}

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   {{subst:#if:|{{{2com}}}|}}

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   {{subst:#if:|{{{3com}}}|}}

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   {{subst:#if:|{{{4com}}}|}}

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   {{subst:#if:|{{{5com}}}|}}

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   {{subst:#if:|{{{6com}}}|}}

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   {{subst:#if:|{{{7com}}}|}}

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