Talk:Maharishi Mahesh Yogi/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Further reading

I suggest that we eliminate the “Further reading” list from the article. WP:FURTHER READING suggests that if a FR section is “primarily intended for publications that were NOT (caps added) used by editors to build the current article content, but which the editors recommend.” [1]. I notice that the one and only book listed in the FR section to this article is already referenced 20+times in the article, so it would not seem to be a good candidate in this light.

Also, WP:FURTHERREADING [2] says that “the inclusion of a Further reading section is optional, and many good articles, and more than half of all featured articles, omit it entirely. This section is present in fewer than 3% of Wikipedia's articles.´

Any objection to simply removing it? EMP (talk 21:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Good catch EMP. Having the Mason book in further reading is definitely redundant, and I think it should be removed. We can then remove the section too, since there won't be anything in it. However, in the future we could, if needed, bring the section back.(olive (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC))

I think it is a good idea; we can always recreate the section when and if we locate something that appropriately should be there, meaning, reliable sources, that have not been used in the article itself and deal with the subject matter (i.e. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi). --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction between related articles

In this article, it says, "During their stay, the Beatles heard that the Maharishi had made sexual advances towards *Mia Farrow*.". However, in the article "The Beatles (album)", it says, "According to some reports, Lennon left Rishikesh because he felt personally betrayed by rumours that Maharishi had made sexual advances toward *Mia Farrow's sister Prudence*, who had accompanied The Beatles on their trip.". Which is it, Prudence or Mia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patientbomb (talk • contribs) 22:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. The majority of the sources say it was Mia, and the sentence you mention was actually unsourced. WP:BLP says that unsourced material about living people should be removed. It has now been changed to Mia, and sources have been added.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose that the two sentences of primary sourced content at Maharishi Ved Vigyan Vishwa Vidyapeetham (see content below) be merged to the appropriate section in this article. Comments?

• Maharishi Ved Vigyan Vishwa Vidyapeetham (MVVVP) is a self described educational institution located in Uttar Pradesh, India. It was founded in 1982 by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and reports that it has trained 50,000 pundits in traditional Vedic recitation. <refUnknown author E-Gyan web site accessed March 9, 2013 <refUnknown authorMVVVP Maharishi India web site accessed March 9, 2013-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I have added the above content to the article. If anyone strongly opposes this merger the may revert me and we can have further discussion. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC

Is everyone comfortable with the text I've added? What about the self reported claim of training 50,000 pandits? Should that be retained? removed? Any suggestions?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Another merge proposal

The article MERU, Holland is a coatrack (see discussion [3] here) I propose that:

• Content about the University be moved to Transcendental Meditation in education
• Content about administrative headquarters be moved to Transcendental Meditation movement
• Content about the Maharishi's residcence be moved here to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

Comments? suggestions? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, the article is very short and I agree that it is mainly a coatrack. It seemed to me only one paragraph was about Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and some of that information is already contained here. The rest could easily be moved to this article.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Oops, did not intend the preceding to be in bold-bold eliminated. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Luke, I have moved most of the the MERU, Holland]] article into the TM movement article and the text about MERUniversity into the TM in education article. Some of the content I moved to the TM movement article is about the Maharishi and his residence in Holland. Please take a look at it and see if there is something in that article about organizations that would be better suited for this Bio and copy or move text as seems appropriate. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggested removal

I suggest that the extraordinary claim cited to a primary source be removed from the article.

• According to a TM website, the performance of yagyas by 7,000 pandits in India, plus hundreds of Yogic Flyers in Germany, brought "coherence and unity in the collective consciousness of Germany" and caused the fall of the Berlin Wall."Maharishi's Programme to Create World Peace led to fall of Berlin Wall: Rising coherence in national and world consciousness". Global Good News. 9 November 2009. Archived from the original on 29 August 2010. Retrieved 29 August 2010.
• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

There are other independent, reliable, secondary sources which report that the TM Organization makes this extraordinary claim. [4][5]. Those sources should be cited rather than removing the text from the article. Fladrif (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Fladrif, that is helpful. I think secondary sources could be added and the current text adjusted to accurately reflect those sources. That's certainly an acceptable outcome. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I am happy to look through the sources reported by Fladrif and add the ones that are reliable.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I have added several sources, so I think the section can stay as it is.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Organisations and businesses

This section [6] discusses "organizations" only in the loosest possible way, and not beyond the first paragraph. The second paragraph discusses MMY's earnings and his view of money. Some of this information is actually in the Characterization section [7], verbatim, in some parts. I am proposing we merge the second paragraph to the Characterization section to avoid repetitions. Any other ideas?--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 06:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

What I understand from your post is that there is some verbatim duplication of content. Can we start with that issue first? And can you post here, what that content is? I think its best if we proceed on one issue at a time.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

from the "Characterization" section

According to The Times Maharishi attracted scepticism because of his involvement with wealthy celebrities, his business acumen, and his love of luxury, including touring in a Rolls-Royce. A reporter for the The Economist calls this a "misconception" saying: "He did not use his money for sinister ends. He neither drank, nor smoked, nor took drugs. . . . . He did not accumulate scores of Rolls-Royces, like Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh; his biggest self-indulgence was a helicopter. " When some observers questioned how his organisation’s money was being used, the Maharishi said, "It goes to support the centres, it does not go on me. I have nothing."

From the "Organisations and businesses" section

In his biography of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, The Story of the Maharishi (published 1976), William Jefferson suggests that the financial aspect of the TM organisation was one of the greatest controversies it faced. He says the paradox that a movement whose concern is spiritual growth should have generated so much controversy about finances is unfortunate, and notes that other organisations handled finances differently from the TM organisation. Jefferson says that the concerns with money came from journalists more than those who have learned to meditate. The controversy circled around the Maharishi's mission, the comments from leaders of the movement at that time, and fees and charges the TM organisation made. According to Jefferson, Maharishi said in response to concerns about finances in the TM organisation that, "Money is never on my mind. When I created the world plan to establish centres in every country on earth, I didn’t consider whether we had the necessary money to do it, I saw only the possibility…". The Maharishi also said, "We cannot take away the economic aspects of the movement…even though my message concerns the non-economic fulfillment of life. If initiations were free we could not cover the overhead for spreading the movement throughout the world."[267] According to The Times obituary, the Maharishi said he had no interest in wealth: "It goes to support the centres, it does not go on me. I have nothing."[91]

It seems to me that the first part of the "Organisations and businesses" paragraph is not about Maharishi at all but about the TM Organisation, and, in spite of the title of the paragraph I do not find this section content appropriate for the article on Maharishi. Even the "Organisation" portion of the article should relate to Maharishi, but the whole first part of the Jefferson discussion does not. I was expecting an Organisation section to list a number of organizations founded or directly administered by Maharishi, but that did not.

The second part, about Maharishi’s relationship to money in my opinion should be moved to the characterization section so duplications can be removed.

Thoughts?--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 03:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits by Losbellos

Please discuss the concerns and changes to content here before adding them to an article. All of the content must be sourced to WP:RS. Wikipedia is not a forum for opinion-what any of us thinks about the topic but rather about what the sources say about the topic. My edit summary directed you to TM article .... I apologize. The discussion for this article is here on the MMY talk page. (olive (talk) 16:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC))

Content added by Losbellos: For discussion

• • I've moved the content recently added by Losbellos here for discussion. First, I'd suggest we look at verifiability of the content. Then note the reliable sources and finally weight per mainstream sources. Finally if the content is RS we can decide which article it belongs in. I've divided the content into subsections but when commenting please comment on a sentence at a time and quote the sentence you are commenting on. I hope this will make discussion easier. Thanks.,(olive (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC))

Losbellos has been indef blocked, but I think this may a good time to look through his additions anyway, for content we could add to the article. A quick scan of the edits shows almost no reliable sources if any, some OR, and lots of opinion but let's take a look.(olive (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC))

Edit #1

• According to his passport the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi was born on January 12, 1918 in Pounalulla, India and was originally named Mahesh Prasad Varma Srivastava and was the son of a tax collector and local official. It is important to note that he was born into the Kayastha caste.

Comments

This edit by banned User:Losbellos removed a lot of contentious content and several sources. (below):

• Various accounts give the year of his birth as 1911, 1917 or 1918.
  • ref name=Woo/
• Authors Paul Mason and William Jefferson say that he was born 12 January 1917 in Jabalpur, Central Provinces.
  • ref name="Una Kroll">Kroll, Una (1974) John Knox Press, The Healing Potential of Transcendental Meditation, chapter 1: The Guru, pp 17–25</ref, ref name="Jefferson">Jefferson, William (1976) Pocket Books, The Story of The Maharishi, pp 7–21</ref
• The place of birth given in his passport,
  • ref>Passport image
• and others that he was a schoolteacher
  • ref name="Guru-Vy"Tresniowski, Alex (1998). "Feeling Guru-Vy". People. Time Inc. Retrieved 31 March 2013.</ref
• Srivastava is the name of his nephews and cousins,
  • ref name=Coplin2n/
• While a few sources say Mahesh came from a lower-caste family,
  • ref name=Simon
• the predominant view is that he was a member of the Kayastha caste, a high-status caste whose traditional profession is writing.
  • ref name="Jefferson"/, ref name="Odd Gods"/, ref>Coplin, J.R. (1990) p. 48 Note: Maharishi Mahesh Yogi . . . was most likely born into a family of Hindu Kayasthas, a well known and high status literary caste of Hindustan – with reference to varna, a kshatryia not a brahmin jati.</ref

And replaced it with this abbreviated content supported by a citation containing only his/her editorial content (below):

• According to his passport the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi was born on January 12, 1918 in Pounalulla, India and was originally named Mahesh Prasad Varma Srivastava and was the son of a tax collector and local official. It is important to note that he was born into the Kayastha caste.
  • ref>In the Hindu caste system Brahmins are highest acting as kings and priests, Kshatriyas (or Kayasthas) are soldiers and civil servants</ref

That's not an acceptable edit to me, what do others say? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

comment olive

• The text Losbellos added is not, in the article, reliably sourced, a first problem. Second the content replaces, as Kbob is saying above, a lot of content that was included after long discussion, and it is well sourced. I see no reason to replace well sourced content with content that may be considered marginal in terms of possible sources like the Maharishi's birth date which depends on a potentially primary source, a passport. (olive (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC))

comment Luke

I have to agree, I do not see a reason to remove properly sourced content in favor of unsourced content. At most, had Losbellos cited a RS, the new content could have been added, but not used instead of the original content, but it isn't sourced, so the addition should be removed. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 02:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit #2

• added content in bold

• Mahesh studied physics at Allahabad University and earned a degree in 1942.He worked in Gun carriage Factory Jabalpur for some time For unknown reasons Mahesh began to have a religious calling while a university student and became a follower of the Brahmin spiritual teacher Swami Brahmananda Saraswati (also known as Guru Dev). Later after joining Guru Dev, he became an administrative assistant to the Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math, Swami Brahmananda Saraswati and took a new name, Bal Brahmachari Mahesh. Coplin refers to bala brahmachari as both a title and a name, and considers that it "identified him as a fully dedicated student of spiritual knowledge and life-long celibate ascetic".

Comments

Comment Luke

Again these additions have no sources so they may be OR.If any of the four cites stated he was an "Administrative" Assistant instead of simply "assistant" we could leave that. I will try to find the sources mentioned and review them--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Olive

Unsourced opinion not WP compliant, and adds nothing to the article.(olive (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC))

Edit #3

• However Maharishi remains an accountant only in the temple because the spiritual knowledge was only available for the highest class, only for brahmins.

Comments

No source, and I don't really understand it. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 03:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Not really clear what the meaning is but there is content in the article about the Maharishi's caste and his suitability for carrying on the tradition of his master:

Although Brahmachari Mahesh was a close disciple, he could not be the Shankaracharya's spiritual successor because he was not of the Brahmin caste. so this is redundant, assuming I'm understanding the edit.(olive (talk) 02:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC))

Edit #4

• Guru Dev represented the tradition well, he did not allow anyone who was not of the Brahmin varna, the caste of the priesthood, to teach. Since Mahesh was born into a scribe caste (kayastha), he was not allowed to join the order of monks, and to teach. Thus when Saraswati died in Calcutta in 1953, Mahesh would not have been considered a candidate to replace him. Of course not! Thus Shankaracharya, at the end of his life, never charged Brahmachari Mahesh with the responsibility of travelling and teaching meditation to the masses!

Comments

This appears to be OR, it is a personal opinion of the authir without any sources. I don't see that it can be used. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 03:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:OR not WP:compliant.(olive (talk) 22:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC))

Edit #5

• Brahmachari Mahesh left Uttarkashi and began publicly teaching what he developed a meditation technique misleading people that he learned it from his master Brahmananda Saraswati, (remember he was not a Brahmin class) and that he called Transcendental Deep Meditation. Later the technique was renamed Transcendental Meditation. It was also then that he was first publicly known with the name "Maharishi" an honorific title meaning "great sage" after receiving the title from "Indian Pundits".

Comments

The first half of this sentence does not seem to have proper sources, old sources have been recycled but the sentences have been changed and thus those sources no longer apply. Losbellos did introduce a new source, but it is a blog and OR. However, there is a sentence about the Maharishi renaming the technique "Transcendental Meditation" at a later time, which cites a book by Peter Russell. The source may be accurate for that purpose, thought I could not check it. Losbellos also cites a book: "The Splendours And Dimensions of Yoga" [8]and asserts that the book states that the Maharishi "received the title Maharishi, from some Indian Pundits". However I have been unable to find any reference to pundits conferring that title, so this may not be accurate either. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 23:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• In bold beginning "misleading people...." WP:OR/an opinion. Not WP compliant.
• Rechecking sources to text in the next day or two.(olive (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC))

"...an honorific title meaning "great sage" after receiving the title from 'Indian Pundits' ". Clarified this in the article, checked sources which seem reliable for the content and removed a dead link/unneeded source since content is sourced in other two sources.(olive (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC))

Edit #6

• In 1955, Brahmachari Mahesh left Uttarkashi and began publicly teaching what he stated was a traditional meditation technique learned from his master Brahmananda Saraswati, and that he called Transcendental Deep Meditation. Later the technique was renamed Transcendental Meditation. It was also then that he was first publicly known with the name "Maharishi" an honorific title meaning "great sage" after receiving the title from "Indian Pundits".

Comments

This appears to be a rehashing of point 5 above, and thus the same comment would apply to both. This section too appear to be haphazardly sourced, and with three separate sources attesting to the year "1955', it really does look as if Losbellos has recycled old sources used earlier but cut out the content the sources referred to.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 03:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

My fault:This is the stable content from the article. Sources are fine. Not sure why I put it here. Asleep apparently.(olive (talk) 03:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC))

Edit #7

• It must be also added that the researches on Transcendental Meditation has been invalidated by the us government sponsored research, that tells that researches done by the TM movement are not valid, because they miss very basic criterias of valid researches, and because of this these cannot be used to define any final characteristics of tm on health. However the german highest courts valid research states that 76% of those who learn TM will have serious psychological problems.

Comments

This sentence as many others written by Losbellos does not belong in an article about MMY as it is about TM and its worth, and not MMY. I think that similar assertions more correctly made already exist in the TM technique article, This sentence should be moved and reformulated unless it already exists. The second sentence is OR and cannot be used anywhere unless properly sourced. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 03:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Redundant and wrong article. Content on research, grants, is included in the technique article and TM research article. This is opinion, badly worded, and should be removed given that content on the research, grants and quality of the research is sourced and included in other articles appropriate to content on the technique itself. (olive (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC))

Edit #8

There are ten thousands of reports, including TM movements own researches that tm technique causes very serious mental breakdowns, including murders,suicides. A research explaining the major change in serotonin level while practicing tm. It is known that this is the main reason behind many problems with the TM technique because it is a scientific evidence that serotonin imbalance causes psychological problems

Comments

The first sentence does not have a citation or source, merely an anecdotal account; the second sentence makes a reference to a primary source and is very general. The sentence about changes in serotonin level during TM practice does link to a study named in PubMed which seems to report higher serotonin levels during TM practice. However the conclusion of the sentence is sourced to a Wikipedia article that explains a theory linking depression to a lack of, among other things, serotonin. The PubMed abstract seems to show that TM promotes higher serotonin levels, so this last source is both not an RS, as it violates WP:COPYWITHIN nor does it support the concept expressed. I'd prefer if someone had a second look, especially at the scientific study, but I was not able to find anything that was properly sourced in this section. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• There are ten thousands of reports....". Not sourced, and I don't see a source that supports this claim. Supported here by anecdote.
• "A research claiming..."primary source/single study non compliant per WP:MEDRS.
• Wikipedia is not a compliant source for itself,generally. The statement is synthesized and results in original research

I don't see that we can use any of this content.(olive (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC))

Science of Being

Here is the current text from the article on the Science of Being:

• The book is divided into 4 sections: "Science of Being", "Life", "Art of Living" and "Fulfillment". The first section, "Science of Being", "is a deep and practical philosophy of life."[225] The other 3 sections "present the most practical wisdom of day-to-day life", "based on the deep philosophical significance contained in the section on the Science of Being."[226] Section 2 covers the topis "What is Life?"; "Purpose of Life"; "Normal Life"; and, "Individual and Cosmic." Section 3 describes the "Art of Living", which the Maharishi explains "enables a man to live full values of life, accomplish the maximum in the world, and at the same time, live a life of eternal freedom in God consciousness." In the final section, Section 4, the Maharishi presents the idea of "Fulfillment", and how fulfillment can be brought to various aspects of life - religion, psychology, philosophy - through the application of the "Science of Being". Section 4 also contains a discussion of the "Paths to God Realization". The 1995 edition, contains a Foreword by Bevan Morris, President of Maharishi University of Management and gives a historical summary of the Maharishi's attempts to bring his Transcendental Meditation and Vedic science to the world.[227]

While it is generally neutral information (not subjectively picked like the Gita section), it is more like a book report and again here as with the Gita section the book itself is the only source. I'd like to replace the above text with info from secondary sources that give an overview of the book. Comments? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, we should try and find some secondary sources rather than using the book itself. I will look for some --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I am placing here the material that I don not think belongs in the section, it was also above but here it is complete with references. I have removed it from the article as there seem to be consensus that it should be replaced with proper secondary sources but it can be reinstated if people feel it should be:

The book is divided into 4 sections: "Science of Being", "Life", "Art of Living" and "Fulfillment". The first section, "Science of Being", "is a deep and practical philosophy of life." The other 3 sections "present the most practical wisdom of day-to-day life", "based on the deep philosophical significance contained in the section on the Science of Being." Section 2 covers the topis "What is Life?"; "Purpose of Life"; "Normal Life"; and, "Individual and Cosmic." Section 3 describes the "Art of Living", which the Maharishi explains "enables a man to live full values of life, accomplish the maximum in the world, and at the same time, live a life of eternal freedom in God consciousness." In the final section, Section 4, the Maharishi presents the idea of "Fulfillment", and how fulfillment can be brought to various aspects of life – religion, psychology, philosophy – through the application of the "Science of Being". Section 4 also contains a discussion of the "Paths to God Realization". The 1995 edition, contains a Foreword by Bevan Morris, President of Maharishi University of Management and gives a historical summary of the Maharishi's attempts to bring his Transcendental Meditation and Vedic science to the world.

Thoughts?--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 05:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that the content you've removed would be legitimate content for an article on the book itself and it would be OK to cite the book as a primary source but I question its appropriateness in a BLP. What we want is a one or two sentence synopsis of the book by secondary sources and maybe some info about how the book impacted the Maharishi's life or his teaching or his organization but details of book content seem out of place here in this article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, then, unless we locate an appropriate article for this content, it should remain on this talk page, as it does not really belong in the main article. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Possible Sources:

• His worldwide Transcendental Meditation movement became a major international business and his 1964 book "Science of Being and Art of Living" sold over a million copies in 15 languages.--Devotees of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi carry his coffin which was...Getty Images, February 9, 2008
• His 1964 book 'Science of Being and Art of Living' was translated into 15 languages and sold over a million copies. ---Beatles yogi dies at home.(Obituary), 7 Days (Dubai, United Arab Emirates), February 7, 2008
• "I favor direct, first-person writing, and I have been profoundly influenced by authors who have written in this style. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is one such writer. His book, The Science of Being and the Art of Living, and his interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita come to mind. I like the intimacy of this style of writing. When I have read Maharishi's books, I have felt in a privileged position, like I was in on a great secret or truth of how life and the universe work. I like the personal connection associated with this style of writing.--Gale Group Publishing (2005) Contemporary Authors: A Bio-Bibliographical Guide to Current Writers in Fiction, General Nonfiction, Poetry, Journalism, Drama, Motion Pictures, Television, Chapter: O'Connell, David F. 1953-
• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Final comments on edits by Losbellos?

I have given my opinion and am wondering if there are others who might weigh in. I do not see how Losbellos' additions, for the most part, are properly sourced, or could be kept, but before I do anything I'd like to know if any one else cares to comment. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 08:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm working through the content added by Losbellos and most of not all is un RS opinion. However, in reading the article, it leans toward the flowery and could use a read through to make sure its NPOV. Any thoughts on that anyone.(olive (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC))

I just want to make sure I understand it correctly. You are saying that Losbellos's comments were not reliably sourced. But you are also saying that you are not sure that about the article as a whole, in terms of its being NPOV, is that right?

If I understand you correctly I think we might choose to handle the two things separately. Deal with Losbellos's comments in terme of RS and then review each section of the article to see whether it needs to be balanced somehow, would that be a good way to proceed? --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Luke, I thought I'd answered this. Yes we should deal with Losbellos' edits, then look at the article as a whole. I wouldn't go so far as to say its not NPOV but its language is a bit flowery, and on on the non encyclopedic side so we could, as you suggest, go from section to section and see how it reads adjusting as we go along and checking for NPOV .(olive (talk) 02:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC))

OK That sounds good.

I saw your comments above, sounds like for the most part Losbellos' sources were noncompliant and some of the comments were either OR or redundant. Should we then remove comments 1-4, 7 and 8? --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 02:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The content was removed by an uninvolved editor already so what were discussing really is putting some of it back in. In hindsight I think this format and discussion was overkill. Clearly the content Losbellos added was not compliant per its sources, and often, wording. I had wondered if we could find content that could be readded, but from what I see any content Losbellos added that can be found in the mainstream seems to be dealt with in the article already or if not appropriate here, in anther article.

I think you had a concern about the paragraph I mistakenly added which is not Losbellos addition. If that's still a concern we could hash that out.

Then I'd like to look through the article per section and see what we can do about the flowery tone. How does all of this sound. And all help welcome, of course.(olive (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC))

Personal life

I only skimmed over this article, but I've wondered if there is some reason why his significant other (for lack of other words) Sue Jones, who worked in the music industry, and at least two children who became commercially successful musicians. It appears to me that this biography is more about the The Beatles, and Transcendental Meditation than about some other topics which may have separate pages-- I didn't look, but they do deserve to have sufficient coverage here as well. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 04:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if you're thinking of Ravi Shankar. TimidGuy (talk) 09:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Organisations and businesses

Over one half of this title section [[9]] is made up by a single source, and some of its material does not seem terribly relevant. No page number is cited, and the discussion may be slightly off topic as well. I propose we summarize it as follows:

In his biography of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, The Story of the Maharishi (published 1976), William Jefferson suggests that the financial aspect of the TM organisation was one of the greatest controversies it faced. The controversy circled around the Maharishi's mission, the comments from leaders of the movement at that time, and fees and charges the TM organisation made. Jefferson says that the concerns with money came from journalists more than those who have learned to meditate.

This version eliminates quotes from the Maharishi which were not as relevant to the content, and also what seems to be an opinion sentence regarding the events from the author himself. Comments?--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Removal of text

I've removed [10] this text which was cited to a personal blog:

• "Maharishi had heard that according to "Beatles lore," when the band made their first appearance on American TV, on the Ed Sullivan show, there was said to have been no crime in the US for that one hour. 'When I heard this,' Maharishi said to Harrison during this visit, 'I knew the Beatles were angels on earth. It doesn't matter what John said or did, I could never be upset with angels.' On hearing that, George broke down and wept."

If reliable secondary sources can be found it could be added to the The Beatles in India article but I think it is gives undue weight to a minor event to have it here in this BLP.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

p o v

If you want to write pages of your own opinion upon any subject or person - write a book. But stop claiming ANY encyclopedic interests or intensions for your "work". This very article is a waste of bytes and time, it is no b-class quality it's z-class, at most!

Instead of relying on a ridiculously small number of sources (partially Maharishi's own writings, my dear, whom do you want to kiddy?) you could at least point out that it's by far not that easy to find some more neutral and objective depictions and works about this man.

I don't have to mention the complete and obvious lack of any critical section, do I? And it wasn't hard to overlook that one little phrase - referring to a critical documentary about TM - as you wished all possibly annoying thoughts away and kept praising Maharishi within the very same sentence. That's a professional way how to deal with multiple views and judgements on a person, congratulations.

Most entertainingly, you've ignored the fact that the former head of TM was the origin of most of the ideas how to generate money out of nothing, out of the wish to meditate and become a better human. The first thing you would have to do to begin a first course is: paying the bill. When you climb up the ladder of self-improvement, you'll continously pay the bill. And, highly surprisingly, your efforts and progress are promising and you can lose your money, I mean climb up further - there are just no boundaries... Of course, open criticism, free speech, own thoughts, a plurality of opinions, individuality and personal independence would be so.... redundant... Just spend your funds and henceforth improve the world, the interior world of Maharishi's briefcase, namely. The greedy, manipulative cult-charactre of TM that made the organisation comparable to scientology traces back to this very man, Maharishi. To pretend frugal ways of living - to the point of ascetism - while earning countless mountains of money and rejoicing at any promiscious opportunity could be worthy to be mentioned, I assume...

I wish I could have acknowledged anything non-onesided, any further knowledge, at least a very little rest of honesty in his living, any philosphically or spiritually noticable thoughts of his, any small details I could have not yet known - but no, in vain. It remains a commercial for Maharishi and TM. Criticism is impure, methinks, as well as thinking.

Erasing the whole of this article would be the first act of true encyclopedic work.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.66.18.26 (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090901083720/http://www.mvmpslko.com:80/chairman.html to http://www.mvmpslko.com/chairman.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://archive.is/aKXW to http://auaa.in/?page_id=31

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Michel Corbold disciple of Maharishi

Michael Freedman a Spiritual Teacher is a noted person in New Zealand and disciple of Maharishi. He is recognized in NZ for his contribution to alternative spirituality and also to TM. Where he continued Maharishi's work and was instrumental to teaching/providing TM (from 1976 to 1996) to over 70,000 people in NZ/Australia. The NZ correspondence TM course being recommended by the Australian Heart Disease Manual. One should not judge nor compare to pop stars like the Beatles etc.. of international fame. Rather should include persons whom were disciples of Maharishi whom continued the TM meditation and spiritual work. Corbold was a major figure in New Zealand alternative spirituality. He died in 1996. Unlike the Beatles who did things for publicly stunts, he worked quietly and it is difficult to find out information. That he was a disciple of Yogi, can be Australian newspaper links (previously provided but removed by censorship of wiki editor). Corbold has a section of Prof Ellwood research book Islands of the Dawn, alternative spirituality in NZ; and is also within Prof Donovan's Beliefs practices in New Zealand (Massey University study) and also Michael Howards' Modern Wicca and is mentioned in other publications such as New Zealand Listener etc. He founded the TM Research Foundation and TM Society in NZ (see Companies Office of NZ records), these with the cooperation of Professors from the University of Auckland School of Medicine' was well known among medical practitioners in this country for the TM course which helped over 10,000 person in this small country. Can the same be said for the Beatles ! All this information is available publicly. Persons included on this page, should not have to compare with pops tars like the Beatles or the Beach Boys but be measured by there contribution to TM. It is like saying someone famous in Fiji won't get a mention, because they are not super pop music stars. That is not what encylopedic content is about. What should be the measure is, what verifiable disciples of Yogi have made an international or national influence in terms of Yogi teachings and meditation methods. Notable characters are those that continued Maharishi's work nationally should be included in this page, so long as it can be verified. Very few persons can compare to the Beatles pop group and they are not even spiritual teachers. Other than Ravi Shankar who can you tell has any real spiritual legacy to Yogi and continued his work as a true master to disciple. Michael Corbold is one such person. I ask the authorities here at Wiki to include Michel Corbold in this page. Faithfully Lenny (jeandecabalis@aim.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.208.248 (talk) 02:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Society of the Guardians#Michael Freedman. Rothorpe (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/sources/photos/MMY_passport.jpg
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cesnur.org/conferences/riga2000/chryssides.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://allduniv.edu/hostels/gnjha/gnjha_alumni.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://auaa.in/?page_id=31
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.auaa.in/proudpast.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://auaa.in/?page_id=31
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/sources/photos/MMY_passport.jpg
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.mum.edu/pdf/msvs/v05/morris.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://books.google.com/books?id=OxD1SYaelLAC&dq=enrollment%20%22TM%20movement%22&q=tm%20movement
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.maharishivediccity-iowa.gov/amenities/vedaland.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.champnews.com/html/newsstory.asp?id=5943
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/3925.html
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5sbigBEQf?url=http://www.rrcap.unep.org/uneptg05/resource/anand.htm to http://www.rrcap.unep.org/uneptg05/resource/anand.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://books.google.com/books?id=EfU0YNqcR8IC&pg=PA184&dq=goodness%20gracious%20me%20maharishi&hl=en&sa=X&ei=so8ET4nRCJDmggfi64iOAg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=168179

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKL0611095720080206
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://gifts.globalgoodnews.com/education/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.smh.com.au/world/beatles-guru-maharishi-mahesh-yogi-dies-20080206-1qno.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sports.uniontrib.com/uniontrib/20080210/news_1c10yogi.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110529201445/http://www.vanityfair.com/online/wolcott/2010/09/how-pleasing-and-inspiring-it.html to http://www.vanityfair.com/online/wolcott/2010/09/how-pleasing-and-inspiring-it.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://globalcountryofworldpeace.org/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lafogata.org/02latino/6latinoamerica/indigenas.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.press-conference.globalgoodnews.com/archive/may/05.05.11.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.champnews.com/html/newsstory.asp?id=5943
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.randi.org/jr/2008-01/JaiGuruDev.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rrcap.unep.org/uneptg05/resource/anand.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.invincibleamerica.org/press/2006_07_25.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://maharishi-programmes.globalgoodnews.com/publications/books.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/aug/15/health.healthandwellbeing
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080317075710/http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7009948300 to http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7009948300
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://asiasociety.org/style-living/between-yogis-and-gurus-it-may-be-time-get-smart
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527235123/https://www.mum.edu/dissertations/kingj.html to http://www.mum.edu/dissertations/kingj.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.maharishiinstituteofmanagement.com/introduction.jsp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ekikrat.in/Maharishi-Vidya-Mandir

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Place of Birth

Please do not erase the term "British India" from the infobox. Like it or not, Britain once ruled India. Even Gandhi's page listed him as being born in British India. Erasing history here on Wikipedia won't address the injustices in the world. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 17:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The content must be sourced and I don't see a source for "British India". If its not sourced it should be removed. Perhaps try to find a source I may be missing it.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC))

The obit written by New York Times (cited in the article) shows he was born in Jabalpur. Other relevant Wikipedia articles have cited the area, at the time, as the Central Province of British India. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 18:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

You must source specifically "British India". Its not really worth fighting about is it? At any rate you are being challenged by another editor so the path to resolution is to source the specific information which I don't see so far.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC))

This 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica article states specifically that Jubalpur (back then called Jubbulpore) is a part of the Central Province, which, according to the source, is "a province of British India, which was formed in October 1903". Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 18:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Good. Add the source. (I don't see it right now.)

Added! Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 19:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• KiteinthewindSomething to consider. While your addition is sourced there is no definitive position one way or the other as to whether British India should be used in the article. However, if the term is not used in most of the sources you might consider that per WP:WEIGHT the term is not necessary. To be honest, if it were me I'd remove the term since whether it is used or not is a matter of agreement among editors with a slight leaning towards the weight of sources that don't use the term. Sometimes its better in cases like this where there is so much pain attached to the words and where there is no definitive position to just make it easy on everyone and remove the content.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC))

@Littleolive oil: I can't say I agree with that at all. No matter how totally ashamed of Britains colonial past I might feel (speaking as a Brit), the fact of the matter is that the country was, at that point, known as British India. The whole point of Wikipedia is to present the facts. If we're not doing that, and we allow personal feelings to prejudice our edits or omit information, then our encyclopedia becomes tarnished. That's why we have NPOV policies. Nzd (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Littleolive oil: And the "editors" you mentioned, Littleolive oil, consist of one registered user, and other IP accounts, which could be construed as canvassing on their part, and highly inappropriate. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 01:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. The point of Wikipedia is to present what is in the sources. Only one source so far calls this area British India. What this means is that sources point, per Wikipedia weight, to content that does not necessarily include the term British India. However, Wikpedia also depends on editor agreement, on consensus. This means that in the case where content is not necessarily definitive we have the option to choose and to go with editor agreement and choice. This content is not critical in this article. The content has created disharmony up to the point where the article has been locked. No, we don't change content to please the editors. We can consider going with editor agreement only because and after, all of the other points are in place.

We always omit information. It is the job of an editor to select the content that will be included or excluded in an article. NPOV supports content that will create a neutral article. As I said above we may be per weight dealing with content that should not be included. Editors determine this based on all of the factors I have mentioned.(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC))

And to be honest I don't think this content is critical or will change the tone of this article. For me its not worth all of the effort both on the part of the editors and an admin who had to lock the article. In a collaborative situation, a situation where we want to create an easy-to-work-in environment, unless the content is critical its always best in my opinion to let it go and just walk away.(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC))

@Littleolive oil: While I agree, the other editors who kept reverting the article has demonstrated an agenda (anti-colonialism), and are determined to turn a small, trivial point into one where seemingly, an entire nation's existence, as well as the dignity of billions of people hangs in the balance (I'm not exaggerating). Facts remain facts, even if they don't sound good. For example, I don't like Donald Trump as President, but he's still the President. We are Wikipedia, and we present facts, unadulterated. That's that. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 03:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

(Addendum) At the end of the day, only two things matter in this debate: Are there sources that say Yogi was born in Jabalpur, and are there sources that show Jabalpur was a part of an area called British India at the time of Yogi's birth? Both answers are "Yes", based on sources (one of which I provided), and that should be that. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 03:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Littleolive oil: The page was locked because of abuse of process rather than content ("use of multiple IP's and new accounts to edit war"). I don't think any of the regular editors would disagree that consensus is a vital part of Wikipedia. I absolutely understand your position (and admire your attempt at neutrality), but I'm afraid I don't see it that way. Your point seems to be that we should omit this because it might offend certain people, but I haven't heard any proposal as to what would be listed instead. If we just put India, than we'd be putting something we all know isn't true. We might have the one source at present that ties this specific person to British India, but we have a wealth of information about this part of history on Wikipedia. I don't think anyone would suggest we whitewash this too. I also disagree that the inclusion isn't important. We might omit other information for any number of reasons based on consensus (without examples I couldn't say whether I'd agree with such omissions or not), but I wouldn't have thought something like where someone was born should ever be omitted, particularly when this information is part of the narrative of the article. To do so would deny the reader that historical context. Nzd (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The article was locked, and a locked article is almost always because of edit warring; edit warring indicates disharmony among editors. We have a cocktail of policies and guidelines which determine content. Since we have only one source, of the many, that indicates the words "British India" we have to acknowledge that the term does not per WP:Weight carry, well, weight per the sources and does not automatically deserve to be added. After that since we seem unable to determine among editors what should be added we have to go to discussion and hopefully eventual agreement.There are two levels of action here. One has to do with content policy/ guideline, the second with behaviour guides in editing. None of this is white washing an article. In the end it doesn't matter to me what is added, but I do want to make it clear that WP:Weight is in play here and noting weight is simply dealing with the ratio of information of one source to another. I won't say more and will leave this to editors who care more than I do. Best.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC))