Talk:Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

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

Maharishi as honorific

copied from User talk:Bishonen#Maharishi Mahesh Yogi article

It is an honorific in the way the Pope or Archbishop is in our culture - it is used in lieu of personal names. In Maharishi's case, the connection is even stronger - because this is the name he has been know under during his entire life in the public light.

Pretend you're listening to someone who insists on referring to the last Pope simply as Paul or Paullie, and you begin to have an idea of what the fundamentalists crippling the TM and MMY articles are about.

Similarly, how seriously is it possible to take an editor who insists on consistently referring to Madonna as Louise Ciccone?

Peterklutz 17:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I will assume you haven't looked at Pope John Paul II, because while this article does introduce him with the honorific, it thereafter uses "John Paul" most of the time. When describing his life before becoming pope, he is referred to as "Karol", or "Bishop Wojtyła". You seem to be arguing that the Maharishi is somehow more deserving of his honorific than the pope or anyone else. --quadpus 21:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Reading your post I assume you're looking for a fight - and the arena you wish to fight it on is someone's deservability of honorifics. Not interested. Peterklutz 21:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

A snippet of a text that explains a bit more of how Maharishi became Maharishi.. .. the titles "Maharishi Bala Brahmachari Mahesh Yogi Maharaj" by which he was addressed at the Spiritual Development Conference in Cochin (1955). When asked about the sources of Maharishi's status designations, the Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math replied, "From his sadhana(discipline for spiritual growth). Given by the society. He followed the teachings, sadhana, devoted completely to Guru Dev's teachings. He became equal in sorrow and pain and happiness. Thus the people realized him, that he has achieved the qualities of a Maharishi. It is an honor by the pitha(matha), and by the society." (Interview of June 11, 1983, at Joshimath)

Peterklutz 21:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Maharishi's own story is basically that some of his students started calling him "Maharishi" and he let them and the name/title has stuck.Sparaig 03:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, in reference to Pope John Paul II, the article refers to him by his full 'chosen' papal name including the "II". I believe he was NOT called "John Paul II" at birth but that it was a name he chose upon becoming pope. Sparaig 22:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I've heard Maharishi explain that a Rishi ('seer') is someone who knows, and a Maharishi/Maharshi is someone who knows, and also uses that knowledge for the benefit of the world.

More to the point here: I've noticed that meditators call him "Maharishi" and non-meditators "the Maharishi", so it looks like it's a name for meditators and a title for others, similar to the usage of words like 'mother' and 'doctor'.

Maybe we could add the 'the' in critical paras and leave it off in favourable ones? :) Geke 01:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Turn the "Transcendental Meditation Movement" section into a summary?

The "Transcendental Meditation Movement" section is in large part redundant to the Transcendental Meditation article. I propose that we shrink this down to a short summary and direct the user to Transcendental Meditation for more detail. Tanaats 22:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

In other situations, that would present itself, but as almost all we know about Maharishi is connected with this Movement, I think it is relevant here.

Another point is that the TM article is, in my opinion, not in a good state. It's a mix of three articles: about the TM technique, the TM Movement, and the TM Organization. If one could separate out the info about the TM Movement into a separate article, one could shorten it here. As it is now, I like the more concise and to-the-point part here better than the enormous TM article.Geke 23:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that they're very intertwined, just as you think that the subject of MMY is so intertwined with the subject of TM that they shouldn't be separated into different articles.

Regardless, don't forget that we'd need a fourth article on "MMY's entire corpus of teachings" if that subject were to end up being excluded from the main TM article. Tanaats 01:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey there Geke. Glad to see you dropping by here. Please stick around!

I am unsure how "the movement" is different from "the organization?"Sethie 21:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see some friendly words on this Talk page... wew! Maybe tell everyone that they should always meditate a bit before writing up anything?

Anyway. What I call the TM Organization is the structure that Maharishi has set up and controls; the TM Movement I take to include everyone who has learned the technique. (It's probably best to write with a big O and M.)

Of course, there's no sharp border between the two, e.g.: every TM teacher is free to teach or not, but if he does, he has to stick to the rules of his license. Geke 02:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Reference removed

I just removed the external reference after Maharishi's name http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/tm.html. If you look at that page, you see that it has such mistakes in the same quote that the correctness of the linked-to info is doubtful. The details: "October 11, 1911 (or 1918) in Utter Kashi, India" vs Wikipedia "January 12, 1917, Madhya Pradesh"; also "Varna" vs "Varma" (Maharishi's mother's maiden name) or his father's name "Srivastava". Alas, I don't have any references ready. Could someone check how it's in Meldon's book, so we would at least have some reliable reference? Geke 02:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Geke. I can't see where you've made that edit, but I'd suggest you hold off until we all discuss it first. Taking out a citation to a reliable source without prior discussion is considered rude.

Welcome to the article! Tanaats 03:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Or, rather, welcome back. Tanaats 04:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this particular source shouldn't be used. It's filled with errors -- factual, spelling, and grammatical. TimidGuy 12:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a big-time RS. It was started by Jeffrey K. Hadden and is now run by Douglas E. Cowan. Tanaats 15:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That entry was written as a class assignment by a student in a 200-level sociology course. We really do need to resolve what's considered RS. All of the guidelines say to look to the person's expertise and reputation for fact checking and accuracy. This fails on those counts. Again, I don't think any source can be considered carte blanche RS. Seems like we're always butting heads on this. Sorry about that. But it's good to be discussing it, and hopefully we'll eventually get a clear picture regarding acceptable sources in Wikipedia. It's all part of the process, I guess. Not always easy, though. TimidGuy 16:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not "any source". It's under the editorial control of a notable scholar. But yes, we should include it under the heading "RS" in the ongoing DR. Tanaats 17:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The question of an RS is interesting. Should THIS be considered an RS? Why or why not?Sparaig 19:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No. It doesn't compare at all. Actually, I would absolutely love to delete the "Religious Movements Home Page" source in quite a number of articles, as it is a major "cult apologist" site. But I can't:

...the Religious Movements Homepage Project has grown into an Internet resource for teaching and scholarship that is widely acknowledged as among the finest in the world.

...Working with an advisory board of internationally recognized scholars of new religious movements, Prof. Cowan will be overseeing the ongoing development of the Web site, and all correspondence regarding the Religious Movements Homepage Project should be directed to him.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tanaats (talk • contribs) 19:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

In the discussion on the RS Talk page, the general feeling is often that sources need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In the instance mentioned, the Religious Movements page doesn't meet the guidelines, for the reasons noted above. Plus, it would likely be considered a tertiary source, and limited in the contexts in which it could be cited.

Empirical dissertations in the area of science are often cited in the literature. Don't know if they're considered peer-reviewed, though in every case they do have an outside reviewer as well as the internal committee. Regarding Dr. Coplin's dissertation in sociology -- not sure about that. My feeling is that it would depend on his treatment of the topic that is being referenced and whether that part of the dissertation meets the criteria for a secondary source. TimidGuy 21:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There have been many discussions on about the religious movements UVa website on various talk pages. The quality differs strongly with each entry as it was written by students. It is not automatically a WP:RS for me. Andries 21:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

We should probably lump together disputes on all of the pages into the one DR. Tanaats 01:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine, but I hope you don't have unreasonable expectations -- that a judge is going to resolve all of our disputes. Mediation, as I understand it, is a process that facilitates our figuring out a way to collaborate: "mediation is a formal but voluntary process to assist individuals in developing a mutual agreement to resolve a dispute. Mediation does not provide binding resolution to disputes; mediators can not, do not, and will not issue rulings on disputes." TimidGuy 18:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was my understanding, but thanks for making sure. Tanaats 19:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Birthdate controversy

Dr Coplin's thesis asserts that MMY was born on Jan 12, 1912. Sparaig 18:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, an Allahabad University alumnae page says that MMY was named M.C. Srivastava. Sparaig 18:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate edits by "Maharishi International Publications Department"

A TM movement propaganda piece was substituted for this article. I reverted the edit and placed a blatantvandal template on the user's talk page. This user continues to edit the article deleting existing text and substituting ridiculous movement-POV material. Mike Doughney 21:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism from this user continues with hysterical lines like thie subject of this entry being "considered to be the greatest teacher in the world today." Mike Doughney 21:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

User has been blocked for inappropriate username. I would call it strong POV edits that violate several policies and guidelines, not vandalism. Andries 22:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Doubtful that this person IS from such an organization. Sounds more like something someone wanting to discredit the TMO would do: vandalize while waving a flag claiming to be an official rep. Sparaig 22:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see this ANI thread. In any case, new users who obviously have no idea what Wikipedia is or does shouldn't be called vandals, but be gently explained to. I've changed the heading to this section, I hope you don't mind, Mike. I semiprotected the article to be going on with, but since the user has already (and properly) been indefblocked for inappropriate username, I'll go unprotect now. Mike, you might want to try seeing the funny side. I rather enjoyed the "greatest teacher in the world" bit myself. :-) Bishonen | talk 22:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

I watch this page to help out others when things get really entangled here. And when I saw that edit, I was like "that's not good". :) Anyway. Yes. We shouldn't bite the hands of newbies. But. There's also a concerted push against adverts on Wikipedia and that username screamed "advert". So I'm not sure that Mike's actions were incorrect at all. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 23:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did call the changes "ridiculous" and "hysterical" - while the complete replacement of an article, out of the blue, with strongly POV material, sure looks like vandalism to me, regardless of source. No problem with the heading change though. I find it interesting and even more humorous that the editor went back afterward and removed details only significant to longtime movement observers, like the wikilink to Deepak Chopra. Mike Doughney 23:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I take it back. He's just a deranged True Believer. NOONE not in the TMO would care one whit about Deepak Chopra. -Sparaig 16:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Unbalanced

The Unbaanced template inites the user to refer to the discussion page for details, however I am unable to find the justification for the template's existence. Before I remove it - is there any reason it is there? If there is a reason, could an editor please either point me towards the relevent discussion, or give justification on why it should remain? Sfacets 15:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article and the links do have a pro-Marharishi slant, but not severe enough that I think we need to keep the Unbalanced Template. Edward321 00:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Beatles Material

I have reinserted the deleted material. If you believe it is erronous, please cite sources here or in the article which contradict it, as opposed to just erasing it. Thanks Sethie 19:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

From the edit summary: "I have deleted the last paragraph, as The Beattles Anthology, Oct. 2000, lays this issue to rest as untrue. Ring, Paul + Donovan still meditate." The person didn't just erase it. TimidGuy 20:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Timidguy, since you have now entered the disucssion, I will ask our mediator to take a look at this disucssion as well. Sethie 07:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Regarding the new editor, keep in mind WP:AGF. The person may not have known about the Talk page and may not be aware of the various relevant guidelines. I was just noting that the person had in fact given an explanation in the Edit summary. TimidGuy 12:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly I have lost the AGF attitude at different times in my wiki history! However I am not feeling a loss of it now. Please, if you see a specific way in which you believe I am not AGF'ing, please specifically point it out to me or speak with our mediator about it. I believe my behavior is under scrutiny right now, and I would like open and direct feedback on it.

Thank you for saying "I was just noting that the person had in fact given an explanation in the Edit summary." In re-reading that, it really does look like I was discounting the source he had in the edit field. I think down below I have a much clearer experession of what I was trying to say. Sethie 16:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The controversy in paragraph is contradicted in The Beatle's Anthology, published October 2000, personal accounts by the Beatles, aired in part in 1995, on ABC and in London. One of their many quotes when interviewed in 1995 for the anthology: "Maharishi has only ever done good to us."

Refer also to Paul's warm words conveyed by Larry King to Maharishi in Larry King Live interview, linked to from end of page. A small point but it does indicate that Paul was quite warm towards Maharishi. He and his children visited Maharishi in the Netherlands after his wife died, and George some time before he died.

I wanted to make this one effort to clean up the page. Thanks. Vijayante 21:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Vijayante

Contradiction of sources does not warrant removal. In order to maintain NPOV, why not include both sources. In case you didn't notice, the sources that you wish to delete contradict the sources you wish to use. :) Correct me if I am wrong, however, it sounds like you have decided your sources are "right" and the current sources used are "wrong?"

We have listed here three source which says that the Beatles were dissilusion with the Maharishi, and that the dissilusionment was engineered. I am not clear on the position you are taking, are you saying that the dissilusionment did not happen?

Please feel free to include the additional material.

However, one source "contradicting another" does not justify removing other cited material. Specifically Farrow's allegation that Maharishi attempted to seduce him. How does the Bealtes positive feelings now, change that?

I think we can all agree that if we stick with the facts of the sources, the Beatles were dissulusioned and now they aren't. Sethie 07:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Could add Beatles Anthology to references at end of page, and not go into detail on lives of Beatles in the paragraphs, as it all gets to sound too much like a celebrity magazine. Their Anthology speaks for itself. Mia does not make allegations in her biography. Vijayante Vijayante 15:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the sourced text you removed agrees with you! :) Mia doesn't make such allegations in her autobiography "she reffers to the incident much more innocently in her autobiography" AND she does make the allegations eleswhere to Wynn. We also have numerous sources saying the dissillusionment occured, that Sexy Sadie was written as an upset response to Maharishi.

I think what you have said here could easily be added to give a very accurate well rounded picture. The upset happened, they wrote a song about Maharishi, Mia says this, and years later, the Beatles said this.

Also please note, for ease, no need to start a new section for each reply. Just add colons ":". It is kind of an unspoken traddition to add one extra colon to each further reply. Sethie 16:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome, Vijayante, to Wikipeidia -- and to Wikipedia culture. Please note that often this whole experience is a little disorienting for new users. When Sethie says "NPOV," that's shorthand for "neutral point of view," which is one of the key policies of Wikipedia. See WP:NPOV. You may also want to look at WP:V, which explains that the fundamental principle is verifiability, not truth.

Also, note that Wikipediai has very firm rules regarding what's allowed in articles about people. I've often wondered whether this article conforms, but have never had the time to look into it. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has often emphasized these rules in regard to living persons. You can find them at WP:BLP. If I were you I'd get the book by Ned Wynn and see what he actually says. I've found that critics often deal in half truths. Also, you might search the web to find the news reports from a year or so ago in which Deepak Chopra relates a recent conversation with Mia Farrow that indicated that the allegations are false. TimidGuy 16:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, Vijayante, contradicting sources are not a good reason to remove sourced information. In Wikipedia the contradicting sources are cited together. Andries 20:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The section about the Beatles is most definitively unbalanced. There is a lot of material about The Bealets and in particular about Harrison in which their interactions are described. Rather than editwar about removing or keeping that material from Kent, it would be better to add more material from other sources, that as I said, are plentiful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all. The statement from Kent is libelous. I have removed it in accordance with Wikipedia policy and added a statement on The Beatle's Antology. To me it seems that though there is more that can be said about the Beatles, as Jossi says, I am not quite sure what the purpose is of putting it on this page, which the biography of someone else. Vijayante Vijayante 23:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Vijayante, my understanding from WP:BLP is that well-sourced critical material relevant to the person's notability can stay. I think that Kent's statement was such critical material. If you think otherwise then please explain. Andries 23:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I could not agree more, especially since it is coming from a sociologist. The Maharishi's involvment with the Beatles generated a lot of press.Sethie 23:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I would have preferred that the material came from an investigative journalist. The specialism of a sociologist is not writing biographies, though I continue to hold the opinion that the material is well-sourced. Andries 23:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I went by the rule that libelous statements should be removed immediatley. Vijayante 195.35.172.10 00:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I will restored it, because the material was well-sourced and as such should not be removed and certainly not immediately. Andries 00:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

From WP:ATT: "Exceptional claims should be supported by the best sources, and preferably multiple reliable sources, especially regarding historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people." Note "multiple reliable sources." TimidGuy 15:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not voiced as a fact and it is not an exceptional claim. Andries 15:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Timidguy, if we believe this is an exceptional claim, please note the word "prefferably" it is not required, it is a goal to shoot for. Also, before Vijyante removed it, there was another RS which backed these claims! :)

I am going to ask our meditator to come here, this is really the same arguement that we are having on the TM page. Sethie 16:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have any interest in this debate. I'm just trying to point out relevant policies and information to a new editor. I haven't made a single argument. I'm not at all familiar with any of this -- the sources, the claims, the accusations -- and I have no opinion on what it should say or what should be included. I never even was that much of a fan of the Beatles. : ) You and Stevertigo are welcome to include this if you want, but I'm not getting involved beyond what I've done to support a new editor. TimidGuy 16:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no wish for debate either, but simply to inform that what Kent says took place in Rishikesh is untrue. He was not there and does not know. Vijayante Vijayante 21:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Vijayante, WP:V says that verifiability, not accuracy is the criteria for inclusion. Verifiability means we can point to a source which makes the claim.

Interestingly enough by wikipedia operating policy, whether the events occured or not is actually not relevant. It is not our jobs to determine truth, merely to point to reliable sources.

Ironically, you removed a source by a person who actually had a conversation with someone who was there! Sethie 21:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have also had conversations with several people who were on the same course attended by the Beatles, and truly, this did not take place. One friend of mine came with her husband, though she was advised to remain at home, as she was pregnant. She came anyway, and got eggs from the town of Rishikesh, as she was afraid there would not be enough protein in the strict vegetarian diet. She gave up the habit after she saw the deep distress it brought to the Indians in Rishikesh, and thereafter maintained a vegetarian diet with the others, upon speaking with a doctor who reassured her there was sufficient protein in the dahl alone. The atmosphere was pure there. It was a place of great sanctity, and the Beatles recalled it as such in their Anthology. Vijayante 22:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Like yourself, I have lots of personal knowledge and experience.

However, by wikipedia guidelines, particularly WP:RS, I do not try to include my first-hand knowledge into articles, nor do I attempt to make editorial decisions based on them. By doing so, I would be violating wikipedia policies, which by editing here and participating here, I attempt (and believe me, sometimes fail!!!!) to operate by.

Just to be clear, your own personal conversations do not qualify as a WP:RS. Sethie 23:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I would never include my own personal conversations into the article itself. But I wanted to point out only on this discussion page the extent to which the statement from Kent's book is not reliable. Vijayante 23:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

My personal views, experiences and conversations cannot and do not count for anything here at wikipedia. I am not sure how yours do. Sethie 20:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, nowhere in WP:RS does it say that the experience of an editor is criteria for a source being reputable or not. To the contrary. WP:ATT clearly says: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true.

Please let me know if you have a different understanding of these policies.Sethie 21:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of external link

I examined today the miscellaneous external link called Falling Down the TM Rabbit Hole Criticism of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and TM by a former TM teacher, and the subheading under the first picture on the site makes it openly clear this is libelous material. Have read further in the book, and I feel I should remove it as there is no doubt this is libelous. Thank you all for backing me up thus far. I hope no one disagrees. Vijayante 23:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The link seems valid, and is in fact the only critical link on the page. It adds info that wouldn't be possible to include on the page per Wikipedia's stance on biographies of living people, however as a link it adds valid information to the article. Sfacets 23:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's stance on biographies of living people extends to quality of links also (?), does it not? Vijayante 00:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Quality? What about the quality of the links claiming MMY is a "living saint"? The external links are strongly polarized: some very positive to MMY, one very negative, nothing in between. The "Official TM sites" are, it goes without saying, very positive. There are 7 of them (which incidentally seems rather a lot to me—most organizations have one official site.) I took a look at he "Miscellaneous external links", of which there are 8, and as far as I can count they consist of one actually reasonably balanced presentation—the Larry King interview— 6 extremely positive links, and 1 extremely negative link, in fact the one that keeps being removed, Falling Down the TM Rabbit Hole. Yes, it's very negative! Far from "libellous", however. It is by no means more strongly negative than the the other 6 are strongly positive. Those 6 include a "Brief bio of MMY", which was pasted pretty much wholesale into this article recently—sigh—and which begins modestly: "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is widely regarded as the foremost scientist in the field of consciousness, and considered to be the greatest teacher in the world today." I don't think I need to bother with quoting from the trenchantly named "Maharishi: A Living Saint"... and these are "miscellaneous", they're not the "Official sites," which are (if possible) even more hagiographic in their reference to MMY. OK, it would be great if we had a few more neutral, balanced links, but it really comes with the territory that there aren't many of those out there. Barring that, I think it makes some sort of sense to have more of the positive links. But to have 13 positive links and 1 negative link, and to edit war to remove the single negative link... please. People. A little reasonableness here? I have restored the supposedly "libellous" link. Either it should stay there, or the links that claim Maharishi is a living saint should also go. Those need some balancing. Don't remove it again, Vijayante. Please.

Oh, incidentally, this has probably been discussed, but I got to ask: what's with all the links to Transcendental Meditation sites (as opposed to links about MMY)? TM has its own article. What are the links doing here as well? Bishonen | talk 01:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

I understand it is true that topics of the arts and sciences, environment, politics, etc., need all views expressed; however, a living biography is different. It needs to be approached very sensitively. You have acknowledged Falling Down the TM Rabbit Hole is extremely negative. It is in fact libellous. Another book listed, "The Maharishi, the Man who Gave Transcendental Meditation to the World", is not in the category of being positive, and has a number of factual errors. These books were written by individuals who had limited contact with Maharishi personally. Whereas the book, "Maharishi: A Living Saint", was written by the mother of the family which opened their home to Maharishi when he came to Los Angeles, and he was their daily guest for a number of months.

The [[1]]site is mentioned as it shows a rare video of Maharishi and biographical notes on him also. As Maharishi is the founder of Transcendental Meditation, and the links define what his teaching is. It does not seem wrong to have them there. The biography itself speaks on TM to a limited degree. Please see the site of Ramana Maharishi, which gives some definition of teachings on the same page, though it is a biography, and that of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Srila Prabhupada, which also contains a biography and teachings, and links to the ISKCON page as well. Vijayante 09:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's the guideline for external links, in case it's useful: WP:EL. In case it's relevant, note that the biography by Paul Mason is self published. TimidGuy 16:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you TimidGuy. I have read these guidelines and will do so again. Vijayante 19:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You keep wanting to delete the one negative link because you claim it is libelous based on your own favorable beliefs about the subject. However, this is about a public figure making extraordinarly claims. The criticism relates to the claims. Obviously, the TM organization knows about the link and hasn't been able to demonstrate the level of libel you claim in court, and critics knowledgeable about TM are entitled to have an opinion, even if negative, too. What is needed here is a small critical section for NPOV. In that case, external links like that one and [2] are needed to offer balance to what reads like a TM press release rather than an encyclopedia. --Dseer 05:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Golly Bishonen- you are so freaking down to earth! " But to have 13 positive links and 1 negative link, and to edit war to remove the single negative link... please. People. A little reasonableness here? I have restored the supposedly "libellous" link. Either it should stay there, or the links that claim Maharishi is a living saint should also go. "

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE hang out here more often. Your groundedness and neutrality is what this and the TM article need more then anything either I or the pro-TM people could contribute. Sethie 20:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Haha, you think I'm down to earth, you should meet User:Bishzilla! In fact, I'm sending her next time. Then you'll all be sorry. Bishonen | talk 02:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

I would support reducing the number of external links and retaining those that conform to WP:EL, which in fact advises against long lists of external links. TimidGuy 16:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to consider this also. which ones would you support keeping? below is the full list as it stands now:

www.tm.org

www.globalcountry.org

Institute for Science, Technology and Public Policy

Maharishi Open University - weekly satellite press conferences (also webcasted)

Maharishi University of Management

Maharishi's Achievements, Forty Years Around the World

Stress Free Schools

Miscellaneous external links

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

Early photos of Maharishi

Brief bio of Maharishi Maheshi Yogi

'The Maharishi: The Biography of the Man who gave Transcendental Meditation to the World'

Maharishi: A Living Saint

Page on Maharishi at popular TM portal

Larry King interview with Maharishi on 5/12/02

Falling Down the TM Rabbit Hole Criticism of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and TM by a former TM teacher

[10] Truth about TM

Vijayante 22:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe these?

www.tm.org

Maharishi Open University - weekly satellite press conferences (also webcasted)

(contains many recent press conferences with Maharishi speaking)

Maharishi's Achievements, Forty Years Around the World

(Gives a good overview of his activities the last 40-50 years)

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

Larry King interview with Maharishi on 5/12/02

I'd leave out the self-published biography by Paul Mason.TimidGuy 12:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel these are a good balance. Vijayante 23:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If there are no objections I would like to cut the list as TimitGuy suggests. It seems to satisfy everyone? Vijayante 01:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Err, no, it doesn't - that removes every independent critical link. I am reasonably certain that Bishonen, MichaelBusch, myself, Sethie, and a number of other editors would disagree. --Philosophus ^T 05:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure, as they have not commented?

Assuming that since someone has not commented they must not object to the proposal is entirely inappropriate. In a somewhat more extreme example, I could likewise say that, if you do not object within the next 10 minutes, I will assume that you agree with me that the Kent source should be included. Would this be at all fair or appropriate? --Philosophus ^T 00:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The remarks in Kent's book are incorrect and libelous that they are quoted. I am editing them out. Vijayante 00:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you please justify your removal with appropriate Wikipedia policy? The actual correctness ("truth") of information is not relevant to whether it should be included; the requirement is that the material be attributable to a reliable source. Also note that BLP only restricts poorly-sourced critical information. Finally, I'm not sure why you keep calling this "libelous". Do you mean that Kent committed libel? If so, then please provide a reliable source for this claim, such as a successful suit against Kent. Alternatively, do you mean that Wikipedia is committing libel by including the source? If so, then please be aware of the no legal threats policy. --Philosophus ^T 00:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The following statement is what motivates me. I feel it needs to be adhered to. Have pointed out previously why this statement cannot be considered well-sourced, as I know people who were present on the course and they said this did not take place. It is not accurate information: This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard. Vijayante 00:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That statement isn't policy. WP:BLP is the policy you are referring to. However, that only applies to unsourced or poorly sourced material, of which the Kent material is neither. --Philosophus ^T 00:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It is far away from properly sourced. This did not happen. Vijayante 00:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Those two statements do not necessarily go together. Sfacets 00:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The statement in Kent's book is controversial material that is potentially libelous. It is also incorrect and untrue. Vijayante 00:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC))

The "incorrect and untrue" part is entirely irrelevant to Wikipedia policy. Since the source is there, and it satisfies WP:RS and WP:A, WP:BLP does not apply, regardless of whether you consider the statement by Kent to be libelous. The statement here attributes the claim to Kent, and does not present it as fact. --Philosophus ^T 00:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Philosophus, do you want to report him, or should I? It is obvious the user is behaving irrationaly and is going to continue reverting no matter what. Sfacets 00:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting him! A sincere, irrational zealot is a zealot, none the less. Hopefully being blocked will enable him to chill out and realize he was wrong. --Dseer 04:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, calling this person a zealot may be a personal attack. See WP:NPA.TimidGuy 16:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Timid Guy, it isn't. I recognize you are a TM supporter and sympathetic to his claims, but the use of the term "zealot" refers to his actions as a editor, a "zealot" is defined as one who is "excessively zealous". Even after repeated explanations and finally being blocked for violation of policy and being specifically informed his interpretation of BLP is wrong and why, he expresses no contrition or desire to collaborate, but continues to claim irrationally that other editors are violating policy and that he on the other hand is standing up for policy. That is "excessive zealousy" in action, and there is ample evidence of it. It needs to be dealt with, and it will be. --Dseer 18:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles' miscellanea

Check The Beatles' miscellanea to see if there is anything in it you can use. A lot of 'miscellanea' needs to be trimmed (as linked articles are improved) so please feel free to use anything before certain sections get zapped into the ether... ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 16:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

As you can see, it has now gone. I hope you got some references before it was sent off into the ether.andreasegde 12:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Biographies of living people...

At what point does MMY's alleged attempt to have sex with Mia Farrow reach notability? Is it before or after she publicly backs off from the claim in her own biography?

Presumption in favor of privacy

Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy. [edit]Public figures In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out. Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is it notable, verifiable and important to the article? If not, leave it out. Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source. Material from primary sources should be used with care. For example, public records that include personal details such as home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations and home or business addresses should not generally be used. Where a fact has first been presented by a verifiable secondary source, it is acceptable to turn to open records as primary sources to augment the secondary source. Material that is related to their notability, such as court filings of someone notable in part for being involved in legal disputes, are allowable, as are public records such as graduation dates, dates of marriage licenses and the like, where they are publicly available and where that information has first been reported by a verifiable secondary source. See also Wikipedia:Attribution. [edit]Non-public figures Shortcut: WP:NPF Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are nevertheless entitled to the respect for privacy afforded non-public figures. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability. Material from primary sources should generally not be used unless it has first been mentioned by a verifiable secondary source (see above). In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. [edit]Privacy of birthdays Wikipedia includes exact birthdates for some famous people, but including this information for most living people should be handled with caution. While many well-known living persons' exact birthdays are widely known and available to the public, the same is not always true for marginally notable people or non-public figures. With identity theft on the rise, it has become increasingly common for people to consider their exact date of birth to be private information. When in doubt about the notability of the person in question, or if the subject of a biography complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth rather than the exact date. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sparaig (talk • contribs) 03:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

I'm not sure what the purpose of copying a section of BLP here is. Multiple editors, including multiple administrators, have examined it and found it to not violate BLP. Vijayante was blocked for repeatedly removing it. MMY is a very good example of a very public figure (by choice, as well), and we are using secondary sources. If you want to add something from Farrow's autobiography that is also well-sourced, then feel free to do so. --Philosophus ^T 03:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Before all the back and forth of deletions and reversions, she WAS quoted. It may have been taken out before your time though.-Sparaig 09:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Have studied the 5 pillars and statement from Kent's book falls into the category of defamatory statements which according to my understanding should be removed, and so will do so 3 times a day according to the rules. Vijayante 09:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Your understanding is flawed. The deal is that sourced statements are allowed, if accompanied by a reliable source, which Kent's book is. DO NOT revert three times a day, you may still be blocked for disruption and/or vandalism. Sfacets 09:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel you are trying to intimidate me, and I shall take my right to revert three times a day. Vijayante 11:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not a right, it is a limitation. Continued vandalism is grounds for being banned. Sfacets 11:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets, I don't believe it's considered vandalism, as your comment above and your edit summary suggest. From the policy: "Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not 'vandalism' and should not be dealt with as such." TimidGuy 12:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Continuous violations are considered nonconstructive/obstructive - vandalism. The user has expressed his intention to continue his destructive edits. He/she has made no effort to further justify these edits. Sfacets 12:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sir, please consider if it is not you yourself who is engaged in nonconstructive/obstructive vandalism. I shall follow the high ethics of Wikipedia regarding living biographies, and the reason is logical, though I realize you do not see it, and that is, that it is a defamatory statement and it was denied itself by the Beatles. Vijayante 13:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok then, since you are so keen on following Wiki policy, please back your edits by quoting from the policy. Sfacets 13:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

These are 2 quotes from Wikipedia policy: Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual controls any specific article. And: The rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.

I statement from Kent's book is based on a rumour, and I think from the original posting some time ago, other editors are aware of that. Vijayante 14:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to mention if you are willing to allow the statement from Kent to be deleted, then I feel it is better to remove the quote from the Beatles Anthology, stating that Maharishi only every did good to us, because it sounds like an advertisement, though to ok to mention that they discussed their memories of this time, but just not to have the quote. had only added the quote to give balance to the Kent statement, but with the Kent statement removed it would be odd to put in the quote. Vijayante 14:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well now I"m curious. I've ordered Kent's book to see exactly what he says and what his sources are. If it is indeed based on rumor, that gives one pause, especially given this statement from WP:ATT: "Exceptional claims should be supported by the best sources, and preferably multiple reliable sources, especially regarding historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people." TimidGuy 16:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, those heavily invested in TM need to be very mindful of COI and article ownership when dealing with arbitrating critical information, compared with the more normal less POV editors. Editors in this position repeating assertions based on isolated quotes from WP policies out of total context who have been warned by other editors and who state they will continue to abuse 3RR can be dealt with administratively. Secondly, documentation for exceptional claims cuts both ways, and includes exceptional claims about MMY and TM. Thirdly, there is another link, [3], which readers can see for themselves, that provides a good account with pictures from someone who was actually there. The fact remains that none of the Beatles stayed with TM very long, and they were publically critical of MMY, and even if one or more did say much later that they only got good from MMY, you can respect the positive role teachers played at a point in your life without agreeing with or endorsing them. Fourthly, mention of the Beatles should not be deleted because it was a historical milestone both in interest in TM and in meditation in general for a generation. What is needed, as in the rest of the article, is a balance. This must not be a promotional article. --Dseer 17:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles Anthology bears witness to how they felt, in their own words. Also, those who have known Maharishi for 40 years and edit on this page, know the singular life Maharishi Mahesh Yogi has lead and his high standard of moral integrity, which had inspired Swami Lakshman joo (1907 - 1991), the last Acharya of the Kashmir Shaiva Siddhanta tradition, to state: "If you ask me, Maharishi’s teaching starts where mine ends and it goes from there to Infinity." Then he added, "Maharishi is the greatest saint to walk the Earth in ten thousand years." Anandamayi Ma encouraged Western devotees who came to her to learn from Maharishi instead. Devraha Baba, the Yogi who had lived for at least three hundred years, praised Maharishi often for restoring the Vedic Tradition. And Swami Muktananda came to visit and embraced Maharishi in Switzerland and praised him without end. As well Tat Wala Baba, the aged but youthful saint who lived in a cave above the ashram in Rishikesh loved Maharishi deeply. I only refer to these personages as they knew his character far more more profoundly than any ever could, untainted by Maya, untainted by POV, untainted by rumours. Vijayante 20:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Libel

The statements made about the Maharishi with respect to serving chicken, and sexual advances seem to fall under the the WP:LIBEL policy, and should be removed. It seems unnecessarily defaming to include that statement followed by a seeming contraction by the same irrelevant sources. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 03:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I had asked yesterday Saiva suj (above) who does not practice TM, to visit the page and give his opinion on the subject of discussion. Thank you. Hope you do not think too deeply against me that am altering the Beatles entry again today. Sincere best wishes to all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vijayante (talk • contribs) 10:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

Vijayante and the removal of content

Vijayante, you still have failed to explain why you find the source to be unacceptable - and saying that they are libelous does not count. The source is a reliable one - unless you can come up with a valid reason to remove the content, it stays, and if you continue to remove the content you will be reported. Sfacets 10:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

see comments of TimidGuy above. he has ordered book. the statement is based on rumour. Vijayante 10:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not waht he says; he says "if it is based on rumour". Still waiting for an answer. Sfacets 11:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

yes, this is what i meant actually. But it goes without saying their manager had invented such rumours for which george appologized later and also on the beatles anthology they responded to the interviewer who asked them what they thought of the rumours surrounding their time in Rishikesh and the subject of the biography imparticularly, and they were quite clear in setting the interviewer straight on the matter. you would need to view DVD 4 of it. Best wishes. Vijayante 11:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't go without saying, and you still have failed to answer my question - do you have an issue with the source? If not, then please provide logical grounds for your removal of the content. Sfacets 11:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Logical grounds for removal of the content is that it is based on rumour. i realize you are not aware of this, but nevertheless this is the situation. we have to remember that Kent never met Maharishi, nor did he meet the Beatles. I am not speaking at random or without knowledge, but based on 40 years of experience of having met Maharishi countless times, and I assure you the statement from Kent's book is totally incorrect. Vijayante 11:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That is your own point of view. What is written in the article is that a person of notability, Stephen A. Kent has made certain claims. This differs to, for example, stating for fact that the events did occur. There is no reason to remove/censor the content. Sfacets 12:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've also ordered the book based on the Beatles Anthology, so will be able to relate exactly what they said. I do think that WP:BLP raises the bar a bit in terms of what can be presented. TimidGuy 14:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Namaskar. The point is, whether or not the source is reliable or not, it is irrelevant to the article. If you have scholastic evidence of misbehavior of the Maharishi, please do include and cite it in the article. The alleged statements of a popular band need not have any place on this article. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 18:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I just received the anthology and have only looked at it briefly. Here are a couple paragraphs that may be relevant:

George: "Someone started the nasty rumour about Maharishi, a rumour that swept the media for years. There were many stories about how Maharishi was not on the level or whatever, but that was just jealousy about Maharishi. We'd need analysts to get into it. I don't know what goes through these people's minds, but this whole piece of bullshit was invented. It's probably even in the history books that Maharishi 'tried to attack Mia Farrow' — but it's bullshit, total bullshit. Just go and ask Mia Farrow. . . . .

"The story was put around about our leaving and, of course, the newspapers jumped on that. As it says in The Rules, 'The press got hold of the wrong end of the stick and started beating about the bush with it.' Now, historically, there's the story that something went on that shouldn't have done -- but nothing did."

Paul: "John wrote 'Sexy Sadie' to get it off his chest. That was a veiled comment on it all, but personally I don't think Maharishi ever did make a pass. He didn't seem like the kind of guy who would. I've since wondered, "How would a maharishi go about making a pass?' It's not so easy. I don't think any of that happened. Rishikesh was a good experience. I enjoyed it." TimidGuy 19:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Vijayante twice again reverted sourced content, based on what the Beatles claimed. Plese STOP removing sourced content. Sfacets 23:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Vijayante, I am also warning you here. You were banned once for your pattern of edits here. I do not want you to say you were entrapped, so, let me tell you that here is what the Admin said: "A clear pattern of reversions against consensus, lack of collaboration, and general tendentious editing is considered disruptive editing and can be blocked for disruption. If you see such a clear and consistent pattern, please let me know (with full diffs), and I will block again. One does not have to violate 3RR to be disruptive. You may also wish to notify the editor a priori about this, as our goal is not to entrap people but to guide them in the right direction." Having done so, the next disruptive edit you make will result in my formally reporting you and requesting that you be blocked, for the sake of Wikipedia. --Dseer 04:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There are 2 editors who I am in agreement with regarding this page: ॐ नमःशिवाय Śaiva Sujīt सुजीत ॐ who does not practice TM and who is a respected editor on Wikipedia, who sees clearly the problem on the page, and TimidGuy. This makes a consensus of 3. Vijayante 05:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I doubt the other two editors condone your disruptive edits and removal of sourced information without providing (your own) arguments. Sfacets 05:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Have they condoned your disruptive edits? None of that allows you to remove sourced information. I suggest you look up the meaning of the word consensus, you do not have one. I intend to follow through if you make one more disruptive edit. --72.199.186.70 05:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

How is sunny California? Sfacets 05:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Mia Farrow's book also says that "furthermore, at my level of consciousness, if Jesus Christ Himself had embraced me, I would have misinterpreted it. Still, I flung the essentials into my faded cloth shoulder bag..." --Mia Farrow, What Fades Away, page 118 Selective quoting (paraphrasing actually) is hardly maintaining an NPOV. -Sparaig 00:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Fresh Start?

I do not think much progress will be made until the issue of what is acceptable, sourced criticism is resolved, since Vijayante continues to think he is doing what Jimbo desires and tries to find editors who will agree with him. These claims, however, have not been accepted by multiple Admins. Particularly, I ask Vijayante to not try and apply the standards of India or use editors from India to arbitrate what is acceptable criticism of a public spiritual figure on the English Wikipedia, just because the laws are stricter. While it may for example be acceptable in India to threaten critics of religious figures with long prison time if they "insult or attempt to insult the religion or religious beliefs of any class of citizens with an intention of outraging its religious feelings", it is not so here, all that is required is that assertions be adequately sourced, not that they be true! Instead of editing wars which will only result in more serious consequences, I ask Vijayante to seek dispute resolution to clarify this issue, and to abide by Wikipedia policy as determined through dispute resolution, not what he thinks Wikipedia policy is or should be. In the interim, since Vijaynate has been progressively disciplined for reverting sourced material despite claims that he was only removing libelous material under BLP, which means his claims were not adopted as fact, there should be no futher disruptive editing on his part. --Dseer 23:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Am in agreement a fresh start is needed, but in the direction of taking up the highest ideals of public journalism. please inform when ready and will be happy to revisit the page. You already know where I stand on this so won't belabour the point. Also, if Maharishi's own countrymen wish to visit this page, feel they should be made welcome. It lends a fresh and sane perspective I feel. After seeing the condition of the page though, it is doubtful any will want to linger. Cordially Vijayante 06:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that anyone was unwelcome. What I said was that one's culture and religious beliefs would affect how one viewed criticism of religious figures, but that such standards represent a POV and should not be imposed. In India for example, criticism of religious figures and their behavior has traditionally been viewed differently and more cautiously, and if one tested the guru and found them wanting, it was said one should just depart and not publically criticize them. It was from that tradition that the first guru who came to the West, in 1893, Swami Vivekananda, simply said that there are many incompetent gurus and that a true guru should understand the spirit of the scriptures, have a pure character and be free from sin, and should be selfless without desire for money and fame, which in itself could be viewed as a valid and implicit criticism of MMY. Also, given the violent conflicts between sects there, and between skeptics and believers, it seemed useful to avoid stirring up religious feelings. But here we now have free speech traditions, much more tolerance for criticism of public figures, and truth is considered an absolute defense against libel. Sourced criticism does not have to be true, all that has to be true is that we are reporting the sourced criticism accurately and have allowed for rebuttals. Your beliefs about MMY are not the standard for what is acceptable criticism. It would really help if you would stop assuming your beliefs about acceptable criticism are the actual standard and which excuse your repetitive deletions (the blocks should have proved otherwise by now), and use the dispute resolution process to gain a better understanding of what is policy. The article is still almost entirely favorable toward MMY, and any criticism so far has been combined with rebuttals, which is more than fair based on the standards here. Therefore, dispute resolution should be used to resolve issues you have with criticism. --Dseer 15:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Dseer, for trying to put in a balanced account. Given that we're making a fresh start, I'd like to begin by making sure this important section is properly sourced. Here are two sections of WP:CITE:

"Say where you got it

"It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find some information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of your article rests on the credibility of the web page, as well as the book, and your article must make that clear.

"When adding material to the biography of a living person

"Biographies of living persons should be sourced with particular care, for legal and ethical reasons. All negative material about living persons must be sourced to a reliable source. Do not wait for another editor to request a source. If you find unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about a living person — whether in an article or on a talk page — remove it immediately! Do not leave it in the article and ask for a source. Do not move it to the talk page. This applies whether the material is in a biography or any other article.

For example, the article references Saltzman's "The Beatles in India," but no such book is listed on Amazon. It may be self-published. I'm not too impressed with his web site. He doesn't say where he got his information -- he just repeats the rumors. The article references Kent, but I get the impression that no one who has inserted this into the article has seen this book. Same goes for the Mia Farrow autobiography. We need to get proper sources, find out exactly what's known and what the claims are. (By the way, the material in the Beatles anthology also rebuts Saltzman's account of why they left.) Once we have everything pinned down, then maybe an RfC. Almost seems like the material should be taken out until various issues are resolved. I haven't yet received the Kent book. TimidGuy 19:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, as soon as the article is unprotected, I'll add a proper citation for the Beatles Anthology, including page numbers. TimidGuy 20:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not likely given your relationship with TM you'd be impressed, but regarding the Saltzman's book, try here: [[4]]. As the critical information is found on the website as extracts from the book, I'm ok with using the website as the reference for what the book says since it provides extracts. As for where he got the information, what evidence is there he wasn't there, and that the endorsements and pictures [[5]] are faked. I see no evidence the book doesn't give a flavor of the period. As for the anthology, what it shows is that the Beatles did not all have the same impressions or memories. It's clear from many sources that at the time John believed MMY was a hypocrite and guity of sexual advances. In the Anthology quotes you have provided, Paul and George state they did not believe the sexual allegations, not that John did not believe them or they were not made. What we do know is that allegations were made, we do not know if they were true or not, and that none of the Beatles ever came back to following MMY. So we have everything from one sourced extreme, that they were kicked out for drug use, to the other sourced extreme, that MMY was a hypocrite and interested in money and fame. NPOV suggests we should illuminate all of these views in a balanced way, since they have been widely reported, and not just ignore them, since we are not taking a definitive position on the truth of any of them. --Dseer 22:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You had mentioned a little further above today that, quote: "Swami Vivekananda simply said that there are many incompetent gurus and that a true guru should understand the spirit of the scriptures, have a pure character and be free from sin, and should be selfless without desire for money and fame, which in itself could be viewed as a valid and implicit criticism of MMY." end of quote. Just wanted to mention that the Ramakrishna mission has always been supportive of Maharishi and his efforts, and Ramakrishna's disciple, Shree Ma, says in podcast 238 where she speaks on Gurus, on page http://www.podcast.net/show/65002 that if it were not for Maharishi that she herself could not be on earth at this time, and that he is creating heaven on earth with every action he takes and every word he speaks.

Also, would not George Harrison, who was with John Lennon when they left Rishikesh, be in a uniquely better position to speak on his and John's behalf than Paul Saltzman and Kent. I suggest we lay the past rumours to rest and move on. Do we really want to be debating like this for the rest of our lives. Hopefully not. Vijayante 23:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

All I am saying is the same thing Crum135 said: "Please note that BLP specifically allows the inclusion of a reliable source. I noticed that you say in the Talk page that you have personal information that the source is 'wrong', and you may be right, but that should not affect our consideration of its qualification as being attributable. If you have another reliable source that refutes that source, then you are welcome to add it, but we can't use personal knowledge to exclude a source. Thanks." In short, address the attributable "rumors" and do not try and sweep the historical controversy under the rug, just provide evidence to rebut sourced attributable charges. The matter obviously isn't settled, when you have the new age guru Deepak Chopra claiming that the Beatles were kicked out for drugs, while others pointing out that John's "Sexie Sadie" referred to MMY. George, after all, was the most sympathetic to MMY and went on to join the Hare Krishna movement, while John later said you don't need any gurus, and criticisms often mellow with age, so it is perfectly fine to report how they felt then and much later. Furthermore, all I have said is that there is evidence that Mia Farrell interpreted MMY's hug and attention as being sexual, not that that is proven or that she still sees it the same way. Where we need dispute resolution is that you think that a small section devoted to criticism you believe to be false is unacceptable, when that is perfectly acceptable given the vast portion of the article that is uncritical of MMY. That is how you lay attributable allegations you call "rumors" to rest, by acknowledging and addressing them, not by ignoring them. That is all that is being asked of you and the other TM supporters here.

Regarding Sree Maa, I can't access that link right now, but anyone can claim to be the follower or admirer of some dead guru, in fact, many modern gurus do. And there are many competing claims of who is greatest. That doesn't alter what Vivekananda said. And if Ramakrishna or himself had wanted to teach mantric yoga as the best path, they would have done so, but they did not. One could argue that MMY is interested in money and fame, and how could you prove otherwise? Regardless of what various gurus might say for various reasons, while not relevant to this dispute, the principles of mantric yoga are not that esoteric anymore, and there is no scientific proof that charging thousands of dollars produces any better mantra than you can get for free from some other, highly respected gurus like Ammachi, for example. Thus even the arguments used to show the mantra is beneficial compared with results for non-meditators do not really compare between the respective mantras. --Dseer 02:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Dseer and also Vijayante, I don't think we need to be comparing the prestige and renown of gurus. Please let me state outright, that I am not a devotee of MMY nor have I ever been involved with "TM". I noticed two things wrong with the article: the link to the website that "exposes" TM and the quotation from that book "Beatles in Rishikesh". Based on the website "beatlesinrishikesh.com" which seems to be the only place to purchase that book, it seems very much like an unreliable source, and that aside, whatever perception the Beatles may or may not have had of MMY does not seem relevant to his article. Perhaps this "controversy" belongs on the Beatles article, as it involves their own lives much more than MMY, or if it seems significant enough to you, maybe it deserves an article of its own to present the facts, in a balanced fashion. The section as it is (and was) looks like some pseudo-scholastic bickering. In order to provide solid information about MMY, and with particular relation to sexual scandals, solid scholastic sources must be provided, not speculative rumor-based statements from irrelevant sources. ॐ नमःशिवाय _{Śaiva Sujīt} सुजीत ॐ 03:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You are misreading the "comparison", which was an aside anyway, which was not of prestige and renown, but of differences of approach regarding money to teach practices. The problem with your claim Saiva suj is that despite your opinion, there is no wikipedian requirement that "scholastic" sources must be provided, and similar critical links are customary in these kinds of articles, external if the material, as in this case, does not warrant mention in the article itself. The MMY material is hardly scholastic either, the claims of religous sects do not have presumed weight over critical assertions and scientific thought. Since I provided the Amazon link to the book, your claims about it being only available there are not accurate. And, you totally discount the historic role the Beatles involvement had with respect to TM in the West, and why it was notable, charitably I assume because you are simply unaware of it. Again, what is solidly sourced is that there were newsworthy allegations made, and rebuttals to those allegations, not the truth of those allegations. Attributable sources, not finding truth, is the standard here. That a former TM teacher who knew the practice well and is therefore an expert on the practice found the practice deluding and dangerous is relevant as a criticism. I am somewhat surprised that you dismiss the point of the Admin about how to resolve this situation so easily--simply rebut the critical information. If your view were correct, then there would have been no penalty for the reverts. --Dseer 04:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Which book, Dseer, are you citing? There are two different titles: "The Beatles in Rishikesh" and "The Beatles in India." The article cites the latter, the Amazon link is to the former.

Initially I'd like to do two things: 1) look at the sources and make sure they're adequate and accurately represented; and 2) adjust the tone of the passage. Then ultimately, once we're clear on sources, try an RfC. TimidGuy 11:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

am in agreement with Saiva sujit and TimidGuy. Vijayante 13:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I am also in general agreement with TimigGuys stated approach, in the interest of a fresh start, I think RfC would give a broader perspective. Again, I think only minimal mention of sourced criticism and controversy is all that is required to illuminate the issues, not a lot. ------Dseer 00:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Saltzman quote; rewrite

According to WP:ATT. web sites and self-published books aren't acceptable sources. We haven't established whether Saltman's India book is the same as his Rishikesh book. I'd like to not use that quote from Saltzman. For one thing, he doesn't give any source for his claim of why the Beatles left the teacher training course. For another, it's not the best Wikipedia style. Generally one uses paraphrase as a way of giving a more neutral tone. (I find that opponents of Maharishi and TM tend try to seek out the most damning quotes they can find, and then put them in the articles.)

I'd be willing to say something like, "It has been widely reported that the Beatles left the course because of rumors that Maharishi had made sexual advances." We could give citations to Saltman's and Kent's books. I haven't yet received the books; apparently they just repeat the rumors. And then I'd follow it by saying that George and Paul discredit the rumors, and note that John always believed them. I would then briefly give the version of their departure that's in the Beatles anthology.

The Mia Farrow autobiography, which Sparaig helpfully noted can be accessed on Amazon, is ambiguous about what happened. She never refers to it as a sexual advance. I believe this sentence should be revised. TimidGuy 11:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

agree Saltzman reference should come out for the reasons TimidGuy mentions. think Mia Farrow rumour should not be gone into for the reasons that Sparaig mentioned on his last visit. agree with Saiva sujit that is highly unusual to mention about any of the rumours at all, especially as they were categorically denounced by George Harrison as malicious rumours in The Beatles Anthology Vijayante 13:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I see value in what you say and your more reasonable approach, TimidGuy. I do think it is established that Saltzmann's book was published, I believe what is on the website is a collector's edition [6]. To be fair, Salzmann doesn't say that there were sexual advances or that Mia sees it that way now, only that Mia Farrow was uncomfortable with and interpreted the attention that way at that time, while mentioning the emotional issues she had then as well. I think as you say is it established that: "It has been widely reported that the Beatles left the course because of rumors that Maharishi had made sexual advances". It is correct to say that George and Paul discredit the rumors, and that John always believed them, and that Ringo simply left for other reasons, and it is fine if followed by the version of their departure that's in the Beatles anthology. Also, nothing should imply that any of the Beatles resumed involvement with MMY or TM. --Dseer 04:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, even at the height of their disillusionment, they specifically said that TM was a good thing. Also, as is pointed out below, at least one Beatles sent greetings to MMY via Larry King and at least one (possibly the same) had his children learn TM. I'm sure someone can dredge up the references. -Sparaig 05:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and all of the Beatles were considering running under the Natural Law Party banner at one point, according to one of them. -Sparaig 05:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Opinions may change over time. We can report that and later beliefs, as well. [7]. I presume you are referring to reports that Paul still uses the mantra he was given and now considers MMY as a good influence in the world. If you can document that, fine, but that doesn't mean he's still involved. Nor change the fact that John died without a favorable opinion of MMY, Ringo simply left and didn't go back, George joined the Hare Krishna movement thereafter, and Paul hasn't been active in TM either. --Dseer 05:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation

If yah need help using the correct citation code, check Wikipedia:Citation_templates. I noticed a lot of references were just typed in without proper coding, so I am going back now and cleaning it up (:O) -Nima Baghaei (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Beatles section

Some facts have come to light from Paul McCartney's approved biography which dispell the rumours presented in the Beatles section, and the quotes from Paul are supported by the fact that Paul and his daughter spent four hours visiting with Maharishi after his wife died. This visit is referred to by Paul in an article about Paul that appeared in the Boston Globe at that time. There is also an interview with George Harrison in a magazine where he says that the entire episode rumoured about was based on a friend of the Beatles who came to India to visit them. He became envious of Maharishi's influence over them and started to spread untrue rumors trying to influence them. I am therefore removing the very negative insinuations in the Beatles section until such a time as TimidGuy make his report. Vijayante 23:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Until such a time the information stays, unless there is clear consensus that it doesn't. Sfacets 02:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Vijayante, what you say may well be true, in which case we need to add citations from reliable sources attesting to that. However removing well-cited information is not the solution. Note that as per wikipedia's policies on neutral point of view and Originial research we cannot weigh the evidence in order to decide whether the allegations are true or not; rather we need to present whatever secondary sources say about the issue and let the readers come to their own conclusions. Also, since wikipedia is not taking a position on the allegations, but is only citing the view of secondary sources, there is not even a possibility of any libel. To give an analogy, saying O.J. Simpson is a murderer may be libelous, but saying that "X said O.J. Simpson is a murderer" (assuming X did say that) cannot be. So I am reverting your deletion of the section for now. Of course you are free to discuss alternatives here. Abecedare 03:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Vijayante, you are again cautioned about disruptive editing. --Dseer 04:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)