Talk:Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

previous discussion - archive 1 (ended 2006-06-25)
previous discussion - archive 2 (ended 2006-12-31)
previous discussion - archive 3 (ended 2007-04-30)

new Time magazine reference

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

• i went ahead and put it into the article's referenced section, if someone wants to use it please do so! (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 16:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA

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

{{subst:#if:|

---

{{{overcom}}}|}}

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

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

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

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

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

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

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

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

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

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

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

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

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

Thanks, Argos. Note that the edit war was resolved amicably and that we achieved consensus among the various parties for the present version of the Beatles section. TimidGuy 11:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Amicably ended or not, there was a recent edit war on this article. Consensus on the "Beatles section" does not even come close to presenting a balanced view of this figure. There is a not-insignificant amount of criticism and critical commentary about Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and a committed corps of editors remove all of this consistently calling it libel. As a neutral observer, I will keep my eye on this talk page and point out how dissent is stifled and the article maintains its POV. Until this changes, I don't see how the article cannot advance to GA status. Argos'Dad 16:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Gotta ask, which critical stuff did you think was worthy of inclusion, and why? There are entire blogs and websites dedicated to criticizing Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and his organizations. Which ones are Wikipedia-worthy?-Sparaig 18:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not interested in debating the various points of view on this individual. I am merely interested in ensuring that an article that I review for GA status meets the criteria. One of the criteria is NPOV. The absence of any of the (as you point out) many critical perspectives renders this article POV, and not GA status in my view. Argos'Dad 21:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

These TM related articles only appear NPOV to convinced TMers, who tend to unconsciously apply double standards to criticism and drive away critics. I'm sorta busy right now, but my assertions on how COI and information suppression applies have now been validated by a number of senior editors with the power to impose sanctions if needed, so lets see where it goes from here first assuming good faith based on TimidGuy's latest framework. Now that Timid Guy has the earlier Mason book (I have both, the second provides a little more updated information), I am hopeful that at least he will agree with the neutral COI editors that Paul Mason is a valid source for biographical information and on MMY's tradition. MMY may have been a physicist a half a century ago, but for example his assertions about a unified field are not accepted by mainstream science, and not one of the studies touted by TMers on his techniques has proven that the free or lower cost techniques by ex-TMers who learned the TM methodology are not equally effective, or that there are no cases where TM has not contributed to psychological harm, or that humans can actually fly as he claims by learning yogic flying. There is no need to turn the article into an anti-MMY rant, but the lack of meaningful criticism where it clearly exists is evident to any neutral observer. --Dseer 19:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Dseer, note that your COI Noticeboard case was closed as a content dispute. You didn't show any sanctionable mainspace edits. You didn't show any violations of guidelnes. You simply made a lot of unsupported accustions. Your constant harping on COI is a personal attack and a case of harrassment. Either open an ArbCom case, or stop trying to intimidate other editors. And note again what EdJohnston said, please.

"The general WP practice is to leave each article in the hands of those working and responding on the particular talk page, unless there is gross abuse, which didn't seem to be in evidence. If you had asked for a very specific remedy, it might have been considered, but it seemed like there was no short answer to any question from any of the participants. Note that a serious page like WP:ANI expects short postings, with diffs, and very concentrated evidence, none of which was presented on the COI noticeboard. A complaint like 'Go investigate those guys, they are being unfair' is hard to get much traction on. A ban on editing by college employees, if it were applied to every college in the world, seems too severe."

The reliability of Mason will depend on what he claims and what his sources are. I have two other biographies of Maharishi in hand, as well as a PhD dissertation. If we disagree on something, we can do an RfC.

Argos also resorts to unsupported accusations. He refers to a "committed corps of editors remove all of this consistently calling it libel." What on earth is that based on? There was one edit war in the 8 months I've been watching this article and one editor who repeatedly removed something calling it libel. On the other hand, by my count a dozen different editors and admins reinserted the material that this single editor removed.

Again, I'm not opposed to criticism, if it conforms to the guidelines, including the NPOV guideline of undue weight, if it's made by an acknowledged expert, and if it's notable. TimidGuy 20:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm rather sick of the distortions of truth here, which have caused me to abandon efforts to make these articles respectable. Look at the edit comments for the COI you claim was "closed as a content dispute" - the closing admin closed it because the discussion there had become a content dispute, and suggested that you be blocked from editing these articles. --Philosophus ^T 22:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear. I was referrring to the parenthetic notation in the archives that apparently indicates the closure of each case.[1] I'm not denying that by definition I have a conflict of interest. I've long acknowledged that. But I think the reason I wasn't sanctioned is that no one has given evidence that my editing has been problematic and has violated the policies and guidelines. On the contrary, my work has been praised, even by opponents. TimidGuy 15:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This is correct, thanks. Regardless of how they try to distort the truth, TimidGuy and Sparig's assertions were rejected as dishonest and worthy of sanction, and there is assurance from those there at COI with the power to do so that if they don't voluntarily get it and continue to exhibit COI editing, they will be progressively sanctioned and blocked. The only mistake I made was not knowing the process enough to get a simple determination thinking that I had to justify the obvious point which irritated some of them, but now I get it. I did succeed in getting attention to the issue and precedent established for dealing with editors like this who offer lame excuses if they go too far, notice they just cut them off now at COI. The determination was, and I quote: It's quite simple. This is a single purpose account who chooses to construe policy in ways he or she deems convenient. Single purpose accounts often attempt this on some topic or other, but that doesn't actually alter policy. We do our best to explain how this site really works. If they understand and adapt, all is well. When they respond with strident denials and other inappropriate behavior then editors warn them and at some point a sysop like myself imposes a userblock. Once the first one happens other blocks can follow rather quickly because the editor gets away with less and less. If they come around, all is well. If they don't we show them the door. Inform this editor (and others as appropriate) that this is how I handle matters. If they refuse to oblige, show me appropriate evidence and I will. It takes me five seconds to implement a block so it's really no imposition at all - not for me anyway. What is going on here is now well known and obvious as the article reviewer noted. I simply have higher priorities, but have laid all the groundwork and the shoe can drop at any time if they continue to suppress information when any editor complains with some evidence to those that are sysops they have ignored the warnings. At this time, since they refuse to listen and there is ample evidence they drive everyone away, and choose to think I'm harassing them, I'm not going to aid them further in pointing out what they are doing, and I am in favor of us giving them the slack and all the rope they want to produce even more evidence than they already have, then anyone of us can act at will and pull the rug out from under the propaganda machine based on what I've quoted above when it gets too much, since the problem is obvious. --Dseer 06:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd llike to know what DSEER thinks WOULD be acceptable criticism? in the MMY article? Criticisms about TM belong in the TM article,I would think. At most, a mention that not everyone accepts his theories, including "blah, blah, blah..." according to "blah blah" would be as far as the MMY article itself should go, IMHO. __Sparaig 22:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The article rather is an advertisement for the TM-Organization, a religious sect. See: http://www.agpf.de/TM-Dutt-1988.htm (It is in german though, sorry for that. Perhaps google language tools can help those who are interested.)

The article is a biography of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the founder of Transcendental Meditation, which is not a religious sect, but the teachings of Maharishi are from the Vedic Tradition, and even the United Nations has called the Veda the common heritage of mankind. Veda is not a religion, but it gives nourishment to all religions, as the root or sap of a tree gives nourishment to all the many branches and leaves, etc.Vijayante 21:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please cite your sources for the UN statement. As for the rest, your argument is like a Christian saying that Christianity isn't a religion because God actually exists. --Philosophus ^T 22:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This type of thinking is common among sect members across the religious spectrum, who believe their own propaganda. There is no evidence the UN ever exclusively recognized the Vedas as stated. --Dseer 06:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

2003 UNO proclamation as far as I recall. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.178.127.50 (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

UNESCO proclamation: Masterpiece of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity : "The Tradition of Vedic Chanting" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sparaig (talk • contribs) -Sparaig 02:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

neutrality tag?

• why has this tag been added again? (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 22:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'd have to agree with the tag. I don't think the article has a consistently neutral tone. Much of the discussion here has been about proposed content, but there are some problems, in my opinion, with the current content. Vijayante, I think we need to be careful to avoid effusive language. And it may not be appropriate to have the long quote. I believe we could tone the article down a bit. I'm also hoping to eventually add more information about what Maharishi has done in the past 30 years. The 9/11 material could be reduced. The section that Sethie added about how Maharishi and followers view his role seems weak and too reliant on quotes, in my opinion. The overall organization is a bit odd, with two main headings: "Biography" and "The Beatles." The Transcendental Meditation sections could be combined and made more concise. Anyway, just some thoughts. TimidGuy 15:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I was referring to the NPOV tag, not the advert tag, which I don't think is appropriate. TimidGuy 15:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)