Talk:Maharishi Mahesh Yogi/Archive 1

get your facts right
Inserted fact citations in some of the many unbased facutal claims made.

I currently am not taking your edits seriously. Myself and Sfacets have raised issues with you on your talk page to which you haven't responded.

You also have yet to pick one account to use.

It is wiki ettiquite to sign you posts, and to put new posts at the bottom of the page- neither of which you did for this section.

Why would I take your edists or insertions of the "fact" claim seriously, given that you can't even play by the basics of wikipedia? Sethie 04:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Page Move
This page should probably be moved to Mahesh Yogi. Maharishi is a title and a term of respect, and shouldn't be in the article title any more than Doctor would. - Nat Krause 05:20, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As an outsider to this page, I disagree. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is a kind of "brand name" in terms of his position in history. If I were thinking of a serach for this man in particular, I would use Maharishi Mahesh Yogi regardless of it being a title and think, as it stands, it has the most natural name for an artical about him. Calicocat 09:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * By convention, Wikipedia is pretty tough on this sort of thing, though: for instance, Jesus instead of Jesus Christ; Thich Nhat Hanh instead of Thich Nhat Hanh. The Maharishi here doesn't really seem necessary to identify him, and it's definitely an honorific. - Nat Krause 06:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We should have articles where people expect to find them. In this case, I'd search for "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi" not "Mahesh Yogi", jguk 20:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


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

Popes and Cardinals have those positions, as added to their names, in their article titles. Saints do not. So... hmm. Samaritan 04:36, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 18:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Maharishi is not a title, it is an integral part of Maharishi's name (I am a TM teacher). Nobody would seek for him under "Mahesh yogi". A basic principle of a good Encyclopedia is to use designations that make it easy for the user to find the subject jsund 21:19, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am also a TM teacher. In my thirty years of association with Maharishi's movement, I have only seen him referred to in the following ways: Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, MMY, Maharishi, and (mostly by his followers) Maharshi. In English, the "Maharishi" part is never used as a title, but always as a name or part of a name. I oppose moving this page. David 14:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Maharishi
The link which is supposed to clear Maharishi Mahesh Yogi of the sexual abuse claims is dead, http://www.itebooks.net/Book/author-book-expectation-first-humor-sales/

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

POV
Dear all, it is lovely that you are such great TM fans. Best of luck to you all. However, unless you can establish a link or a source for "the 50 studies" that is not a TM homepage, I think you need to delete this sentence. "Maharishi has also developed programs, based on TM and the advanced TM-Sidhi program, with the purpose of promoting world peace. Over 50 research studies have confirmed that these programs are capable of reducing crime, violence, terrorism and war activities and promote peaceful and constructive tendencies, see http://www.permanentpeace.org/" Frankly, as a non-believer, I find the claims made on the website absolutely absurd. Terrorism declined when a peace event was going on! How exactly do we measure that! That being said, if you do want to keep this, I suggest you write "On a TM webpage, Maharishi's organization points to over 50 research studies that are purpoted to have confirmed that these programs are capable of reducing crime, violence, terrorism and war activities and promote peaceful and constructive tendencies, see http://www.permanentpeace.org/

I have reworked the sentence. This is because of my wonderful good nature. I would rather simply remove it.

Nitangae

What's the problem with using a TM homepage? Maharishi University of Management is an accredited university and only gets to keep its accreditation by playing straight. Of course the TM homepages are best sources for research on the effects of TM and group meditation. But many of the studies are published in reputable journals, often and quite understandably with editorial caveats saying 'the data and methodology are good, but we still don't understand how it happens'. New paradigms are like that. I took part in some of the TM Peace Projects as a group meditator and was myself quite astonished to see changes, so no suprise others are sceptical. You ask how one can measure terrorism going down. The answer is fewer people get killed. My own experience was meditating in Damascus near Beirut with a big group in 1978. Independent scorers were recording reports of casualties and incidents of violence. A third group correlated the numbers of 'peacekeeping' meditators with violence reports. The results were confirmed and are strengthened by the fact they are often predicted ahead of time, and have been replicated. Sadly, violence returns after these peacekeeping groups leave. Scientific journals accept the science is good. Like sunshine, TV and transistors it works, whether you believe, understand, or not. Put a big enough group of meditators in Iraq, and fewer American boys and girls will get killed, for 99.999% sure. This verifies a prediction in the Yoga Sutras "In the vicinity of Yoga (meditation, settled mind), negative tendencies settle down." It's that simple and costs less than a cruise missile.

Google on 'Maharishi Effect research' and you will find plenty of links to books on the topic, and research in respectable journals, as well as the TM movement's 7 volumes of collected papers of research, which include papers published in 'recognised' journals as well as TM house journals like 'Modern Science and Vedic Science'

David Saunders

From the 'recognised' journals can you cite some articles and how they support this statement, if you want to list them i am happy to summarise them for this or another page Bedel23 10:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

_____________________

"The value of TM is becoming increasingly recognized worldwide. For example, the National Institute of Health of USA has sponsored research on the effects of TM on stress with over 20 million USD (NIH only sponsors methods whose effects are confirmed by high quality research)."

Source? If no source is provided soon, I will simply remove this sentence.

Nitangae.

Here's a link: http://www.usmedicine.com/article.cfm?articleID=47&issueID=12

David Saunders

I think what is more important is the result of the experiment, rather than it was carried out. Simply researching an area does not support or fail to support a particular point of view. We should talk about the results of non biased, and repeatable experiments rather than citing that research is on going. I would also like to point out that this is a logicaly inconsistant statment, '(NIH only sponsors methods whose effects are confirmed by high quality research)' how can effects be calculated before the research is conducted. Bedel23 10:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

______________________

"Maharishi has also developed programs, based on TM and the advanced TM-Sidhi program, with the purpose of promoting world peace. In fact, one Maharishi organization points to over 50 research studies that are purpoted to have confirmed that these programs are capable of reducing crime, violence, terrorism and war activities and promote peaceful and constructive tendencies, see http://www.permanentpeace.org/. They claim that some of these studies have demonstrated global effects on war and terrorism. The studies are purported to indicate that the effect is immediate. Maharishi's main focus is presently (2005) to use these programs to create permanent world peace."

This is misleading because it doesn't really address the controversy surrounding these studies. I would merge the following paragraph (with minor edits to make it fit into this article) from What the Bleep Do We Know:

"As described in the film, the study involved using 5,000 people in June and July of 1993 to do Transcendental Meditation (TM) to reduce violent crime in Washington, DC (which has one of the highest per-capita homicide rates in the US). By counting the number of Homicides, Rapes, and Assaults (HRA), the study came to the conclusion TM reduced crime rates by 18%. Based on the numbers reported in their own study, the HRA crime rate was about 30% higher in 1993 than the average crime rate between 1988-1992. The HRA crime rate showed a decline around the middle of the two month period where TM was practiced and remained relatively low (by 1993 standards) for several months afterward, though the decline was small enough that the reduced HRA crime rate was still about 10-15% higher than average at that time of year. There was no reduction in the homicide rate during the period of the study. Whether this means that TM caused a drop in that year's unusually high HRA rate, or whether the HRA rate naturally dropped closer to its more typical frequency is the issue."

Without presenting the controversy about "TM studies" I contest the NPOV of the article. -- Theli 93 14:31 16 Aug 2005

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

Why the category new age?
To me it makes an impression of thinly disguised Hinduism, not New Age. Andries 23:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * By now, he's "OLD Age" in any case. >:) Wahkeenah 22:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

TM is based on Hinduism, but has diverged to the point of being a seperate organisation/movement. MMY has trademarked and copyrighted much of the knowledge TM is based on. I have replaced the cat, and added the 'new religious movement' category as well. Sfacets 03:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleted controversy section
The controversy section was deleted. Though I have acquired in Wikipedia a reputation of a critical attitude against gurus, I have to admit that there was in this case a good reason for this: the section was unsourced and unreferenced. Contributors who want to re-insert the section should do more effort to find good sources. A good starting point is the book by Stephen A. Kent From slogans to mantras that I have at home. I will try to help if I have time. Andries 22:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks- the TM page as well could use any cited souces. Sethie 23:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The controversy about TM and Mahirishi's breach of his vow of celibacy was also described in the newspaper NRC Handelsblad, but I do not remember the year, let alone the date, but it was (excessively) negative and critical. I would rather not use it as a source because it was in Dutch language. Andries 23:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The facts are not even clear. Some sources (just web sites) say that he attempted to rape a student! Do you believe that? You better find reputable sources to support any such claim, even for a simple claim of a proposal to a lady. However, the problem with the controversy section is not just verifiability (reputable sources) but also neutral point of view. Let us assume that MMY broke is vow, this does not need to be interpreted as a criticism. Not every one would condamn a monk that broke is vow. Some might not care at all. So, inserting this fact into a criticism section presents a viewpoint that goes beyond the fact itself. In accordance with NPOV, such a view must be held by a significant minority. Where are the prominent adherants to this claimed significant minority viewpoint? (see NPOV Undue weight section.) For example, try to find out what is George Harisson view on it. Even if you were to move this fact into a Trivia section, you will have to argue that it is not a criticism anymore. Oh Yes! Now suddenly it is not a criticism anymore. I will personally not believe that. Anyone can see that to say that a monk broke is vow does insinuate something beyond the fact itself. --Lumière 04:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: Rape attempt claims: I own a (German) Beatles biography, as a printed book, where these claims are made, too, and, if I remember correctly, they are presented as the main reason why the Beatles turned away from him. I always thought this was an established fact (I bought the book in 1995) and am quite surprised to find it being disputed here. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by User: (talk &bull; contribs).
 * The book I was referring to is the Rombeck/Neumann biography, which has been in print for decades and may with every justification be called a 'reputable source'. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by User: (talk &bull; contribs).
 * No, this will not pass verifiability because there are two many stories that contradict each other, which implies that the sources are not reputable (reliable) enough. Moreover, unless you provide prominent adherents, this will not pass neutral point of view: the view must be notable. --Lumière 22:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * All publisher-published books are notable. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 02:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not know that "notable publication" was a WP concept. I was referring to the concept of notable viewpoint, which says that if a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, there should be prominent adherents. Usually we say reputable publication, not notable publication. I never heard that published books are all reputable publications. Perhaps you should read the policy again. --Lumière 02:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That will not be necessary. The book will suffice as a reference to any fact that the book states. Feel free to insert such now. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 03:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You better discuss the policy better than that if you want a consensus. In case of a dispute no move is allowed before we have a consensus. You are not the final authority here! Even a consensus cannot violate policy (in accordance with WP:Consensus). --Lumière 03:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Please note that in Wikipedia a majority is formed, not by the nr. of adherent, but by scholars, scientists and others who have an informed opinion. Mahirishi may have many followers, but this does not mean that well sourced criticsm has no place. Andries 21:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, well sourced and also notable criticism has its place. However, none of these two criteria is respected here. Lumière 03:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Lumiere, your reasoning seems very strange to me. If what you claim was right, anyone could prevent Wikipedia from publishing facts he/she dislikes simply by getting someone to publish a contradicting text. Or even simpler: If no move is allowed without total consensus, anyone can block anything by never agreeing to anything. --130.83.244.x
 * I refer to the notion of consensus as defined in WP:Consensus. The point that you mention is discusssed there. Wikipedia works with consensus. This is one of the basic foundation of Wikipedia. Another point that adresses your concern is that, in accordance with WP:Consensus, a consensus cannot violate WP policy. The consensus is only used to interpret WP policy. Another aspect is that if a content is acceptable for inclusion, getting someone to publish a contradictory text will not change it. Simply both texts will be acceptable for inclusion. We deal with a different issue here. There is a dispute on the reputability of the sources (in addition to a dispute about the content). In accordance with WP policy, it is normal that we verify the reputability of sources, especially in the case of defamatory statements. The fact that these sources present contradictory stories should certainly be taken into account when we evaluate their reputability. I admit that it is not the only criteria, but it is highly relevant. Finally, don't forget that this view about Maharishi also violates WP:Neutral point of view if we don't have prominent adherents. --Lumière 16:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Obviously you are the one who decides when a consensus is reached or not, what publishers are reputable or not, who is a prominent adherent or not, or in short, you decide what is published. You even decide what statements are defamatory: there's nothing defamatory about the statement "Unveryfied claims have been circulating since the late sixties that he once tried to rape a student during a spiritual session, when she was in trance." It simply accounts for the fact that these claims have been circulating since then, and anyone who visits this Wikipedia article to verify his memory on this subject will be surprised to find nothing about it. I see now why everyone else has given up discussing here, so I will do the same now. Bye. --130.83.244.x
 * I have a problem with the word "unverified". Sexual abuse is by its nature most of the times very difficult to prove. Why not state "Claims have been circulating since the late sixties ....."? Andries 19:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, to be acceptable for inclusion, this view would have to be notable, which means that prominent adherents must be given, and verifiable, which means that it must be supported by reputable sources. It is not verifiable or notable. Lumière 06:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

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

I read the the complement to the NPOV policy for borderline cases, which is cited in the NPOV policy (even though it belongs to Wikimedia), and my understanding from the example is that in border line cases we should explicitly mention the source, which is different from attributing the fact to some person. You simply mention that the information was taken from this source. The source is the media (a journal, a website, etc.) In this way, it is less an attribution and there is less insinuation that someone is lying. --Lumière 07:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

IMO, they should have considered three cases: non disputed facts, disputed facts and opinions. What they call the borderline cases are the disputed facts. It does not matter, the idea is clear. --Lumière 07:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This whole thing is just a question of style. Really, providing the source at the end as a reference or explicitly at the beginning deliver the exact same information. I guess for an encyclopedia this so called neutral style is important. --Lumière 07:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed link

 * The Beatles' experiences with Maharishi

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

Trivia
I disagree with the way this is presented. I think it valid that it is included but factually incorrect giving the impression that all the Beatles nicknamed the Maharishi Sexy Sadie. I know of no record of them saying this was a nickname they gave him, it was a song they recorded. Also the link is not a paticularly good one in the context of the item - in a lengthy article the only mention of this song is "The breaking news on the guru front is that the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is back. Championed by magician Doug Henning, a seven-hour-a-day meditator, the swami the Beatles dubbed Sexy Sadie has announced plans" - there are probably better sources on the web about this song. It was recorded by the Beatles but written by John Lennon (attributed to Lennon 6 McCartney as all songs written by Paul or John were at that time whether done together or singly). The wording gives the impression that all the Beatles thought thsi way which is incorrect. John Lennon orginally wrote this song and it was called "Maharishi" (what have you done etc). George Harrison persuaded John to change the title to Sexy Sadie. There are numerous articles as source for this, but easiest for me to use is Paul McCartney's official biography Many Years from Now by Barry Miles (have to dig out my copy to find publisher and page reference). It is obvious that John was dismayed at the time. George less so - he remained in contact with Maharishi speaking to him on a telephone conference call in 1992 and talking positively about TM and Maharishi on TV and in the media ... as has Paul McCartney included a visit to Maharishi in Holland shortly after Linda died. Ringo was aslo qouted very positively a couple of years ago in an interview with a british magazine "Saga". I can find all the neccessary references for this. Wanted at first to get some concensus on changing this. - I suggest :- The Beatles recorded a song called Sexy Sadie originally called Mahariishi by John Lennon who was persuaded by George Harrison to change the title to Sexy Sadie. - Paul Davis


 * Paul, it is not because you believe these stories that they fit in Wikipedia. This is the main mistake that most editors do. Because they believe in something and in some cases think that it is important, they are convinced that it must be included. They might feel, just on the basis of their belief, that they are suppressing the facts if they don't include it. This is a mistake.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and there are criteria beyond what people believe to determine if something can be included. These rules are used to avoid unfair or innacurate stories. One of these rules is that a view must be notable before it can be included. Notable means that it is held by a significant (well identified) minority. The method the policy proposes to check if a view is notable is to see if there are prominent adherents to that view.  Another of these rules is that the view must be verifiable. You may think that as long as it appears in some website or even a book it is verifiable, but it is not as simple as that. The book must be publised by a reputable third party publisher. Websites are not accepted as reputable sources (except to source a content in an article about the owner of the website).  -Lumière 22:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

If you want to go and document what EACH Beatle thought about the song Sexy Sadie, go for it.... and put it under Sexy Sadie. Sethie 22:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well he is better make sure that this view is notable and verifiable in accordance with WP policy. --Lumière 22:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Today an article in De Volkskrant stated that he came to Vlodrop on an elephant. That there are strong rumors that he is blind that he does not see people. That he has appointed 22 rajas including a coronation. And much more. Andries 22:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * About him being blind, you worry me. Please show some respect and don't propagate rumors. As far as I know, he is not blind. --Lumiere 23:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, propagating rumors published by a reputable source (De Volkskrant 11 Feb. 2006) may help to improve the article. Andries 14:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lumière, thanks for your comments. You are very helpful in explaining the workings of Wikipedia and I am greatful for that. You say that "Websites are not accepted as reputable sources " - this was my point about the link to Sexy Sadie .. it is a website that only has a very short reference to Sexy Sadie which I qouted above. I used Paul McCartney's authorised biography which was published in the UK in 1997 by Secker & Warburg and contains Paul's direct qoute to support my suggestion for changing the wording. I do not fully understand why this is less of a valid source than the website already given as a link. Also could you clarify for me the position of magazine articles,trade journals and similar. Many thanks Paul
 * Maybe you could word it as "in Paul McCartney's book so-and-so on page so-and-so he makes the following statement..." That's not only a verifiable source, it's also a self-contained disclaimer, as it implies "This is McCartney's viewpoint... take it for what it's worth." That reminds me... I always heard that "The Fool on the Hill" was inspired by the Maharishi. However, that strikes me as little more than speculation. So you won't see it here. Oops, too late. :) Wahkeenah 12:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Paul, before I answer your questions, let me give you my view of the context where the policy operates. First, the 800 or so administrators of Wikipedia do not all understand the policy. So, don't take for granted every thing you are told by an administrator. Certainly, this warning also applies to what an ordinary editor (like me) tells you. Second, together with the policy, the driving force behind Wikipedia is consensus (see WP:Consensus): Wikipedia works with consensus, but a consensus should not be used to violate policy. However, because the policy requires interpretation, consensus plays a major role in Wikipedia. This is the case as far as the reputability of a source is concerned. The most important parts of the policy that deal with reputable sources are  What counts as a reputable publication and WP:V. There is also the guideline WP Reliable Source, which is less authoritative than the policy.

Now, back to your questions.
 * I do not fully understand why this is less of a valid source than the website already given as a link.
 * Actually, I was not saying that it is less good. I tolerated this website, but I should not have. A book is better, but it depends on the publisher. The reputability of a source is the samething as the reputability of its publisher. The publisher must be a large independent organization that is known to have a review process, with fact checking, etc. There is no doubt that the policy says (see  What counts as a reputable publication) that we must evaluate the reputability of the sources, and that consensus is the driving force here. Here is my warning with respect to books. Some publishers will accept about anyone as an editor of a book. You can go see these publishers, propose to be the editor of a book, collect a bunch of chapters from different people and make a book out of this. IMO, one can fairly argue in the light of the policy requirements that these are not reputable publishers. (We are not attacking the publisher here -- what the publisher does can be perfectly legitimate and respectable -- it is just that an encyclopedia has different standards.)


 * Also could you clarify for me the position of magazine articles,trade journals and similar. Many thanks Paul
 * It all depends on the publisher, but at the least we don't have the problem that I just mentioned above. Typically, they are considered reputable sources, but there are exceptions such as tabloids.

A point that is important in general, but that I forgot to mention because it is not so important in our case here, is that what constitutes a reputable source depends on what is being sourced. For example, you cannot use The Sun to source a new scientific theory or a criticism of an established scientific theory. --Lumière 15:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, once again loads of thanks ... don't know what The Sun could be used as a source for:-) :-) I think I will just hang around for a while and get more used to everything.. and the Fool on The Hill is difficult to call .. Paul is qouted in "Many Years from Now" saying that he wrote it with someone like the Maharishi in mind, but Alistair Taylor in his book "Yesterday " claims to have been with Paul walking his dog Martha and turning around and seeing a man standing on a hill and the song came from that. Can we give out Gold Stars for Wikipedia administrators? I#LL give you a bag full. Alll the best Paul Paul davis 18:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

POV
Mantras are NOT meaningless sounds, albeit that is the official TM stance. They are, in fact, the name of Hindu deities.


 * There is no such thing as a meaning per se. Meanings of words are defined by usage and have to be conveyed, that is taught. -- mizar &lt;font style=&quot;color:#ff9900; &quot; size=6&gt;&amp;#2384;&lt;/font&gt; &#91;&#91;User talk:Hanumandas&#124;Talk]] 00:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Transcendental Meditation explained by the TM-organization:

There is a rich, unbounded field of creativity, energy, and intelligence within each of us. To the degree we’re able to draw from this inner field of life, we grow in health, happiness, and success in our outer life

The Transcendental Meditation technique is a simple, natural procedure to gain deep rest— and contact that inner reservoir of creativity, energy and intelligence—to gain its support in all you do and to enrich your life day by day.

Everyone can learn to practice the Transcendental Meditation technique successfully. It’s easy and enjoyable—just 20 minutes twice a day sitting comfortably with the eyes closed. It requires no effort or concentration, no special skills or change of lifestyle. You don’t even have to believe that it works! Meditate regularly twice a day and you’ll get results. Restful Alertness

During the practice of the Transcendental Meditation technique, the mind and body settle down to experience a unique state of restful alertness. As the mind becomes more silent, the body becomes deeply relaxed. At the most settled state of awareness, the mind transcends all mental activity to experience the simplest form of awareness, Transcendental Consciousness.

Scientific research has shown that the experience of Transcendental Consciousness is correlated with greater creativity, improved learning, higher IQ, better grades, higher moral reasoning, increased brainwave coherence, and improved neurological functioning of the body.

The Transcendental Meditation technique is a practical, proven procedure for developing more energy, creativity, and intelligence—for awakening the unlimited potential of your mind and body and enjoying greater health, happiness, and success in life.

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

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

Regarding POV branding
I think this controversial branding of the article is an insidious attempt to scare readers away. For the record I wish to make it clear that previously the article was only a promotion piece for Paul Mason's book about Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.

Now the scope is broadened and includes more about the subject (aside sleazy allegations).

It this charade of branding and threatening to ban contributors continue I say Wikipedia has gotten itself a credibility problem.

Maybe it needs the rethink the way it handles controversial issues overall. User:PeterKlutz

I support keeping in the POV tag as long as the article has numerous excess links in it, as my comments clearly indicate.

You are welcome to think whatever you like about my or anyone's motives for wanting to keep the POV tag in. I like how Sfacets has reduced them, I propose reducing them more, and then removing the tag.Sethie 15:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The scope is broadened, and yet there are still frequent edit wars being waged over content in this article. The removal and re-insertion of the Pov template is an indication of this.

The only reason you would be threatened with being banned is (or should be) if you repeatedly vandalise articles. Sfacets 14:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

As for threatening to ban and block, 85.130 was on the edge of violating 3rr. As for the block, maybe that was over the top, however, looking at the user page, contribs, how long will this user last before learning how to play like the rest of us?

As soon as the article has less links in it, I would support removing the POV tag. Sethie 15:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Sethie, given the relative insignificance of our mutual last rounds of changes it appears to me that you now may want to consider removing the POV branding (as far as the links concern, they are clearly marked as official - which I am sure is enough of a red flag to any reader who might want to click on them.) User:PeterKlutz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.30.186.206 (talk • contribs)

Nice to actually converse with you.

To repeat what I said earlier, my concern is not with the content of the links, it is with the number of them. Currently the article is too promotional of TM for me to feel that it is neutral. Once there are less links, I am fine with tag going.

Also, would you please sign your edits with 4 ~ marks?

Sethie 20:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I like a lot of your recent edits. I am grateful to have someone who is willing to fill in the blanks around what TM is.

In the article, you claim that the Maharishi Effect research has been ignored. Three times I have asked for a citation for this, and three times, you have removed it. Would you be willing to not remove it until you can find a citation for that claim?

Sethie 20:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I make it easy for myself and remove the claim. User:PeterKlutz09:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.30.186.206 (talk • contribs)

Please leave the pov sign. user:85.30.186.206's continued removal of content and citation requests merits the placement of this tag in the article.

Sfacets 23:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Please be specific: what content removal? (I've already explained the question has been about content adding - which history shows). Morveover, if lack of citations is the problem, then the sources tag is what you should use.user:Peterklutz

As I mentionned on your talk page, have a look at your contribution page (both as user:Peterklutz and as user:Peterklutz and as user:85.30.186.206) to see which content removal - removal of words, citation requests...

The  fact tag asks for a citation relating to a specific sentence or statement. The sources tag is just a reminder that the article has unsourced material.

The tags are not there to "brand" the article, but to insure cooperation in establishing a NPOV and balanced article.

I am re-insering the tags - please do not remove them untill there has been concensus on their removal. Sfacets 03:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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

03:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.30.186.206 (talk • contribs)

Only official history now has links (aside the links sections at the bottom of the article). I don't see how these could be dropped without a vital source of information being lost. User:PeterKlutz

They could be placed in the external link section or reference section... Sfacets 10:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

moved critique of TM using hindu gods mantras to Transcendental Meditation
Perusing the discussion it would now seem possible to remove the controversy label (only 11 concern POV, the rest appears to be about style). User:PeterKlutz

scientific criticism
Two observations re the last added section under the heading Research (expanded for clarity):


 * the citation given is not to the "study," but a well-known TM-critical site.
 * The referenced "study" is not a study, but a 10-page review of "75 scientific selected articles in the field of meditation, based on a Medline and Psychlit search from 1989 until June 1999 and earlier relevant papers."Article Data

Even if a direct citation could be given for this review I would still find it more natural to put this para under the subheading Criticism, than research. User:PeterKlutz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.30.186.206 (talk • contribs)

I am not going to respond to anymore of your comments until you learn how to ACCURATELY SIGN YOUR POSTS! I have told you numerous times how to and your user page has instructions on them.

It would be one thing if you were not signing them, however each time you sign them as "PeterKlutz", you litterally are lying. Please, learn some of the basics! Everyday at Wikipedia I learn a new rule, a new technique, etc., and I understand there is a lot at the begining, but please, try and get some of the basics down. Sethie 13:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The site merely lists the studies and extracts/findings from these studies. There are quite a few studies listed there (I had originally only mentioned one, I have rectified this) but they are for the most part studies. The original citation was not to the website in question, but the information displayed on it.

Sfacets 13:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Did a search on scholar.google.com re: "Transcendental Meditation" Perez-De-Abeniz, Alberto. Four results were returned, two of them led to something called the Online Ministry of Christian Research Institute. Aside TM-critical material, there is on offer (for $22) also a package that allows its owner to debunk Dan Brown's the Da Vinci Code.

Feel free to explain why this section should stay under the subheading Research, and not be relocated to Criticism.

User:PeterKlutz
 * Please note that normally an article is organized either per subject or chronological, not per POV: it is generally considered bad style to lump all the criticisms in one section, though this is not forbidden. Andries 14:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

My point is that since the study is not a study per se but a review (made by what appears to be some fundamental Christian sect), maybe this general critique (as opposed to scientific critique) has a more natural place under the general critique heading. Also, under Transcendental Meditation I've suggested that someone write a separate article about TM critique. I think the subject deserves it - there is obviously a lot of views on this out there and if put in a separate article open for peer review chances are this criticism will actually condense into something that amounts to more than ambigious insinuations, sleazy allegations, and other acts of shadow theatre.

user:Peterklutz


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

Reinserted POV tag
Found the POV tag reinserted without explanation. Reviewing the article, the single final bone of contention appears to be the location of the last para under Research. Given it's current wording I don't feel this be enough for a POV tagging (and I am the one that finds it's location odd), and therefore remove the POV.

I leave the source tag in place since the criticism levelled against TM's Founder are still awaiting substantiation.

Needless to say, if solid sources for this cannot be presented - the 'wikipedian' thing would be to remove the allegations.

User:PeterKlutz

Please SFacets - if you insist to brand articles as POV, at least motivate why. If you read the talk you'll find that quite a bit of work has been accomplisehd in your absence. Remove the tag until such a moment a good motivation for it (and a chance to address any overlooked deficiencies) is given. user:Peterklutz

I re-inserted the POV tag in light of several edits made by yourself. Au contraire, keeping the tag in place will motivate people to edit the article in such a way that is becomes non-pov, by monitoring edits and adding their own information to the article.

Sfacets 03:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Link to external TM Critical section
Good initiative, Sethie. In my view, what remains now is to create a TM Critique article, consolidate the bulk of the TM critique there, and then link to it. After that I think the TM article is ripe for an overhaul. User:Peterklutz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.30.186.206 (talk • contribs)


 * I disagree, creating a special article that deals with criticism is generally considered a bad idea, because it is often, but not always considered a POV fork. Andries 18:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Reading the Wikipedia guidlines, the way to resolve this would be to continue to do what Sethie started at MMY: a bullet point sort of list with a link at the bottom for a fuller discussion.

Wikipedia: There are some things that may occur from time to time that may be mistaken for content forking, when that is not necessarily the case. Some of them are listed here. Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter.

Given the volume of critique in the TM article I think this is an archetypal case where depth-of-subject forking is called for.

User:Peterklutz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.30.186.206 (talk • contribs)

If you learn how to sign your comments, then I'll listen to their content! It's like you want in on the presidential debate, but aren't even a citizen of the US yet!

Why would I take anything you say seriously, when you don't, won't or can't even follow one of the fundamental practices of Wikipedia, signing your accurately, much less the fact that you have three accounts which you hop around in? Pick one and learn how to sign your comments, then I'll respond to you. [Link to guideline on signing posts] Sethie 18:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

What will happen when Maharishi dies?

Confusing Discussion of the 'Maharishi Effect'
Article text reads:

''The 'Maharishi Effect' establishes the principle that .. when one percent of a population is doing the Transcendental Meditation program this has a trend breaking effect .. for the whole population. In 1976 .. a radically improved effect was found, which indicated that now only the square root of one percent of a population is required to create the same effect.''

This is confusing, to say the least, as the square root of 1% should probably be interpreted as requiring 10% active participation in TM courses - a much higher threshold.

--Philopedia 13:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

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

I was a little disappointed to see this section removed so lightly. It may be a valid criticism that the entry failed to produce citations, but this begs the question: how much due diligence did you do before the removal? I just did a google search of "transcendental meditation" christian and came up a large number of references. For instance, http://www.christiandoctrine.net/doctrine/articles/article_00009_transcendental_meditation_web.htm serves well to illustrate the hostility of some conservative Christians to TM.

My entry also stated that representatives of Christian organisations regularly attend TM public information presentations in order to put forward their viewpoints. This statement was based on my own experience. It is true that I have not researched the prevalence of the practice, yet it seemed clear by the presenters chagrined reaction that the practice was not novel. If this portion of the entry qualifies as 'original research', then perhaps I should reconsider its place in the article, or search harder for a citation. I am willing to do that.

The last thing I want to do is to ignite an editing war. I am therefore not going to resuscitate the entry right now. Instead, I'll wait and hope that you respond with your views in this place. If I don't hear anything in a reasonable time though, I may bring back the text.

Thanks for hearing me out! --Philopedia 00:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey Philopedia-

Thanks for your input.... by all means, put in whatever you can back up with sources! This is an area I don't know much about- and you seem to, so by all means, add it. Since this is a slightly controversial topic, all that is required is good sources! peace, Sethie 01:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Just looked at the link you posted... Wowsa. I and others will very strongly support you including this topic. 85.30, aka 213.12, aka Peterklutz, etc. have been causing problems for a couple of weeks, and steps are being taken. Sethie 03:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

time to remove disputed tag?
Six or seven revisions without any major stuff being changed. Does that mean this tag is now redundant?

I support removing the citation tag. Sethie 22:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Then you are free to do so (random ip person)

Yes I agree, in fact have removed it - however it will go up again if there are more NPOV disputes... Sfacets 09:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

time to remove the unreferenced tag?
No. Sfacets

What references do you lack?

I support the removal of the refferences tag- I am not really seeing much lack of refferences now. Sethie 00:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Think SFeces just added one :-)

"..singer Mike Love.."

PeterKlutz

Now fixed SFacets citation tag. Maybe you now have his/her blessing as well for removing the unreferenced ding. PeterKlutz