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 2007-07-15)

Suggestions regarding material that seems POV

I deleted the following material from the lead:

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

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

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

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

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

Politics/Natural Law Party

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

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

history

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

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

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

Reference that Maharishi attended Allahabad Uni

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

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

New material on Maharishi

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

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

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

Generalizations

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

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

POV

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

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

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

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

Dear SineBot,

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

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

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

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

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

Comment on recent tagging of article

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

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

Notice: aggressive and substantial editing since tagging

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

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

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

Revision of Beatles section

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

Request for Comment on NPOV and Fringe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Degree

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

TimidGuy et al and COI

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

The following is taken verbatim from:[1].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply to Dseer

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

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

criticism

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

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

reply to above

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Died on Jan. 12th?

There are rumours that the Maharishi had died on Jan. 12th, and the movement hasn't published it yet. Comment from insiders, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karpada (talk • contribs) 10:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The rumours are false.He spoke publicly on Jan 12th.(olive (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC))

Yes. the rumors came about because he said in public, quote: “Invincibility is irreversibly established in the world. My work is done. My designated duty to Guru Dev is fulfilled.” And, quote: “It is such a joy today when I am closing my performance and closing my days of life, when I am hearing all these beautiful realities of all successes on the basis of which we have built up Invincibility to be the perpetual phase to be lived in life. I am expressing it is not `I` that has done it. If it is `I`, it is a `big` I.”

He told the world in a public statement that from now on he will spend his time for the fulfillment of a commentary of the Ved: “It will take two or three years.” --Josha52 (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What Olive and Josha say is true. Maharishi also can be heard these days to speak on Channel 3 of http://maharishichannel.org in broadcast replays of the 12th of January, and before and after the 12th.

Word is he just died. Trying to verify... -- Twistedghost (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Verified.(olive (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC))

Verified by what source? Naturezak (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Announced on www.maharishichannel.org, channel three, by Nader Raam. I guess that Veda commentary isn't going to get done. So much for perfect health. Judyjoejoe (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

For reference check and discussion re: John Lennon addition

I am moving this material for discussion and a reference check since this is a biography of a living person and guidelines are strict as per additions. For discussion, WP:Weight might be considered.(olive (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC))

Regardless of the underlying cause, Lennon remained bitter towards the Maharishi, penning the song "Sexy Sadie" about him (with the refrain "what have you done? You made a fool of everyone").

I moved the material back. The citation is trivial to check: see here. Nandesuka (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

A reference is never trivial in regards to biography of a living person, and there was no lack of faith, just a check on a highly contentious article . I feel that this addition does violate WP: Weight somewhat so that should be discussed, I think . However thanks so much for linking the reference. It saves a lot of trouble getting a looking for the book and quote. I believe the addition could be left in place for now since there is a reference.(olive (talk) 04:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC))

I wonder if we should consider chronology and sequence. Lennon passed away in 80, but it was later that in retrospect Paul and George said that Mardas had made it up. Closing the section with Lennon gives him the final word. Plus, the way it says he "remained bitter" makes it sound he wrote the song long after, but it he wrote it soon after departing Rishikesh. The sequence is Beatles leave, Lennon writes song, Mardas is fired in 69, Lennon passes away in 80, in the 1990s Paul and George realize that Mardas made it up and endeavor to set the record straight. TimidGuy (talk) 12:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

We could say "Lennon was clearly bitter about the split..." which is supported by the interview (Lennon himself comments on it), without implying anything about timeline. Nandesuka (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nandesuka and TG. In reviewing the policy on biography of living persons I realized that material already in this section does not comply by Wikipedia standards. Since I recently did a pretty extensive rewrite of the section I felt this was in part my fault. The policy states:

Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm".

The information, in what was in the article until today, on John Lennon, seems to have no reference, and is in addition, given the later explanations of what happened at that time, to be merely sensationalist and not appropriate for any biography . Thanks to Nandesuak we now have a sourced comment that explains how Lennon felt. I quote directly, although Wikipedia does not encourage quotes I felt that we could be most accurate in this kind of article with a quote. I also left out reference to Sexy Sadie because I think the words imply wrongdoing and again we must do no harm. I think this provides a appropriate compromise to the dilemma of what to do with the new source Nandesuka provided, and the appropriateness of considering a time line in terms accuracy of the claims and material presented.(olive (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC))

Your edit doesn't really capture the spirit of the quoted sources, implying as it does that all discussion on this topic is based on "rumors". We don't have rumors, we have sourced discussion by some of the parties involved. I've rewritten for accuracy. It does no harm to the Maharishi to note "John Lennon didn't like him, and wrote a song about him" when John Lennon has been quoted in published sources as saying "I didn't like him, and wrote this song about him." Nandesuka (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a question I have: Maharishi has been a public figure for 50 years. There are probably thousands of published opinions about him. Does every published opinion merit a mention in a bio? What significant does it tell us about Maharishi that John Lennon didn't like him? Does Lennon have some sort of special credibility? Of course there are many published opinions saying how wonderful Maharishi is? Would they merit inclusion? Just thinking out loud here. Eager to hear what you think. TimidGuy (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If the Rolling Stones wrote a song inspired by how awesome they thought the Maharishi was, I would think that deserved mention. If an unknown band no one had ever heard of wrote the same song, I would think it probably didn't deserve mention. "Every published opinion" doesn't necessarily merit a mention in a bio, but commentary by John Lennon about a song on what is, according to some reliable sources, the 10th greatest rock album of all time [2] is not "every published opinion". Nandesuka (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right . The line immediately following the new addition makes reference to "another rumour" I will remove that actually since its not accurate . The Lennon material is rather, controversy. I have to disagree though on adding Sexy Sadie. This is insulting to a spiritual leader and does refer to rumours that circulated on inappropriate behaviour ... all rumours proved false multiple times including in a public performance by Donovan, also present at the Ahsram, and who explained the attempt by press and others to draw the Beatles away from Rishikesh. I'm not sure how to deal with this. I believe also including this much material violates WP:Fringe and WP:Weight Best wishes.(olive (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC))

Whether those rumors are true or false (I don't even know what they are) isn't really at issue here. There are only several hundred Beatles songs in existence, and they hold great cultural significance to the Western world. What is relevant here is the fact of the song's existence, and Lennon's attribution of it as being about the Maharishi. Wikipedia is in no way insulting the Maharishi by reporting its existence. If you would care to explain to me how a single sentence mentioning a Beatles song constitutes a violation of WP:FRINGE, which is mostly about crackpot scientific or philosophical theories, or WP:UNDUE, I'm all ears. Nandesuka (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's look at it this way. This is an article about Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and not an article about the Beatles, their cultural significance or their albums. Although, I am a fan.:0)

Rather, this is an article about a spiritual leader who during the period of his life's work, over fifty years, interacted for a very short period of time, probably no more than a few months, with these people.He has interacted with numerous famous and not so famous people during his life. Where does one draw the line. The line is drawn at the point where realization is that, this not about any of those people but about Maharishi himself. In terms of his life and this article four people no matter how famous we might think them, were four of a multitude. In that sense the entire section is likely fringe since it focuses on only four people. What about all of the others. Adding anything more to this section seems unnecessary given the weight given to this section in the article. In terms of this life, this information is fringe material and devoting too much more space to this would constitute undue weight. I however will not edit war over this or fight this too much further. I've tried to provide a compromise. If you feel this additional materiel is appropriate, then so be it, from my side, unless other editors have objections. (olive (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC))

I have added sources that say rumours were false concerning Mia Farrow and Maharishi upon whom the Sexie Sadie song was based. As well, I realized that all of this section is about the Mia Farrow rumour. So the section is a bit of an overkill on this subject. I removed mention of the lines from the song since the reader can link to the song in Wikipedia, and to create balance removed the affirmative statement in the last lines referencing Deepak Chopra. This seems to be better balanced and more concise section in terms of information, and of "fringe" and "weight" as I noted in my post above.(olive (talk) 05:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

Your invoking of WP:FRINGE here makes no sense. That Lennon wrote a song about the Maharishi -- that appears in one of Rolling Stone's 10 greatest albums of all times -- isn't a crackpot theory. In other words, I don't think WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE mean what you think they mean.

I've restored the quote from the song, since it is central to the whole controversy. Nandesuka (talk) 05:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Fringe "An appearance on Wikipedia should not make something more notable than it actually is." The focus in this article is on the life of this man and not on the ten greatest albums of all time. In the context of his life the creation of a Beatles song cannot be considered notable unless you have a reference saying he thought this was the case. I see no reason to include this material or the words to the song which are linked, unless there is some wish to discredit. This entire section is about the Mia Farrow incident adding more to that violates Undue weight. Why does this incident deserve even this much space in the context of the article and the life rather than a single line mention somewhere.(olive (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

Every single reputable obituary of the Maharishi discusses the Beatles allegations. Consider this, from the New York Times:

The visibility and popularity of the organization can largely be 
attributed to the Beatles. In 1968, the band, with great publicity, 
began studying with the Maharishi at his Himalayan retreat, or ashram, 
in Rishikesh, in northern India. They went with their wives, the folk
singer Donovan, the singer Mike Love, of the Beach Boys, the actress
Mia Farrow and Ms. Farrow’s sister Prudence.

They left in the wake of rumors of sexual improprieties by the Maharishi,
an avowed celibate, though no sexual-misconduct suits were filed and some
of the participants later denied that anything untoward had occurred. 

I have no wish to discredit the Maharishi. Nor do I have any wish to create a hagiography. The New York Times devoted two entire paragraphs to this topic in the Maharishi's obituary. For you to suggest that this topic is not notable, or deserves only a single sentence, is absurd. Nandesuka (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

:I believe the issue isn't the allegations but how much attention be given to a single song. By the way, the New York Times article might be a good rule of thumb for how much this should be emphasized in this article. The paragraph about the allegations is 34 words in an article of 1,109 words. TimidGuy (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No, Nandesuka its not absurd. Do you really think the press is interested in whats fair when it comes to writing about this . What makes good press?.... the Beatles, or a monk who wants world peace. But lets do this. I will do my best as I have been to make this section neutral, and you can assume that I know what fringe and undue weight are, and that I am not making absurd statements but rather that I am looking at this from within another context, and that is from the life of the person involved here, and what is notable in context of this life, and not from what the press at this time considers to be notable. If we can come to the agreement, that we are looking at this from different perspectives, not either one right or wrong but just different. then there may be better understanding. By the way I am not accusing you of wanting to discredit anyone, only that if this section becomes weighty it does discredit, and the allegations do indeed discredit. I apologize if I seemed to be referring to you.(olive (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

I combined the Mia Farrow incident with the Lennon song but in fact as the references indicate they were not connected, so I have removed reference to Farrow in the sentence. (olive (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

(While discussing "Sexy Sadie")

"When did you realize that he was making a fool of you?

I don't know, I just sort of saw.

While in India, or when you got back?

Yeah, there was a big hullabaloo about him trying to rape Mia Farrow or trying to get off with Mia Farrow and a few other women, things like that."[3].

Please explain to me how "the references indicate they were not connected?" Did you check this reference and not see it, or did you see it and not understand it? Nandesuka (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Only this source says something like this. I've looked at at least 10, including Patti Boyd's bio, Cynthia Lennon's bio, quotes from John, Paul, and George in the Beatles Anthology, etc. Every other source tells a uniform story: that Mardas said that Maharishi was having sexual encounters with an American nurse and that John and George left because of it. George says in the Beatles Anthology that it wasn't Mia Farrow. George and Paul also later said they thought that Mardas made the whole thing up. And regarding the extreme statement above, you can read Mia Farrow's account of it in her autobiography. TimidGuy (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC) In fact, John himself tells it differently in the Beatles Anthology. I feel like the quote above says more about John than it does about Maharishi. And I say we remove it, because it so directly contradicts what Farrow says in her autobiography. TimidGuy (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It is perfectly appropriate to quote other reliable sources that say they don't believe the incident happened (and, in fact, we are already doing that). What is not appropriate is to ignore a relevant, reliable source just because we are more interested in writing a hagiography than an encyclopedia. In that quote, John is explaining that he wrote the song because he didn't trust the Maharishi, because he heard rumors about Mia Farrow. That the rumors weren't true is irrelevant. The point is that John Lennon is an authoritative source for what John Lennon thought.

I only brought up this quote because of olive's simply astonishing claim that "the references indicate that [the song Sexy Sadie and the rumors about Farrow] were not connected." The references indicate no such thing. Nandesuka (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Date of birth

Opening para:

• ...born ... between 1911 and 1918 ... He was born in India, around 1917, as various years are given for his birth: most frequently 1911, 1917, and 1918

Infobox:

• Born 12 January 1917 (without qualification).

Are we saying he was definitely born on 12 January, but the year is uncertain? Or are we saying his exact day of birth is unknown, not even whether it's 12 January or some other day of the year? This needs to be clarified. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jack. As far as I know there is nothing definitive about the day or year of birth. Maybe information will come up in the next few days, though. By the way I happened on your user page and like it a lot.(olive (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

Thank you, olive. I'd better remove the date in the infobox, in that case. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

POV problem: is this a Press release?

This article seems like an advertisment rather than a NPOV encyclopedia article. I didn't see any serious critisism. Is it that there was never any major critisim or negetive aspect to the life of this person?Farmanesh (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)