Talk:Maharishi Mahesh Yogi/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Photo

another photo option if needed [1]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. That nice photo is from 1978. Since we're using the photo you took in Fairfield in 1979, the late-1970s era is already covered and a second photo seems unnecessary.   Will Beback  talk  17:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead, esp. first sentence and para

I have questions about the lead, especially the first sentence and para.

While I appreciate the pacing of the prose (nice punchy sentences), I question the content. It appears weighted in a direction that is not in keeping with what I have read about the subject.

Comment on 1st sentence: Wiki guidelines (“writing better articles”) state that the first sentence should 1) clearly state the subject, and 2) indicate why the subject is notable. Although the first sentence in this article does fine on the first point, it falls short on the 2nd. Why should we want to read about the developer of TM and the founder of the TM movement? —-Surely because millions of people from all over the world learned the technique, making him world famous. Because he was the first to bring meditation to the masses in the West. But instead of stating main points like these, the first sentence of the article goes off on a tangent. In asserting the view, held in some specialized circles, that the TM organization is a New Religious Movement, the sentence veers off in a direction that does not represent mainstream reporting or comment on this organization. The various media reports and books that I have seen--and I have followed the organization off and on for some years--say that people who do TM (at least the vast majority of them) do not consider their practice religious, or the TM organization religious. That is one of the main reasons why the technique is practiced by such a variety of people, as well explained later in the article.

Also, the last sentence of the first para, stating that the Maharishi became known as the “giggling guru,” seems not only irrelevant in establishing why the subject is notable, but also does not entice you to read on, another point of style emphasized in the guidelines. It is just a minor piece of trivia that could easily be placed in a less critical position in the article. --Early morning person (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)99.240.234.199 (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)Early morning person (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty much the same point made by Keithbob above (see #Rethinking the lead). I guess great minds think alike.[2] Maybe we should just merge these threads.   Will Beback  talk  22:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

"Great minds"--Humor is always appreciated!

At first glance, my input looks much the same as "Rethinking the lead." But if you look closer, I actually make two main points. One is similar, but different in an important sense. The second is not addressed at all.

The point that the lead in this article does not reflect the main tenor of quality media coverage and other informed comment is different in that I came to this conclusion not by doing a database search, but rather by paying attention over a number of years to the media and to other quality sources. I began this process many years ago when I worked as a reporter for a university newspaper. The TM people were holding regular lectures on campus; I attended one of these and wrote an article. I've kept an eye out for coverage of the organization since.

Second point: I am personally interested in writing and editing, and I can't help but notice that the article, while well-written in some areas, sometimes also veers away from good writing practice. I'd like to support improvement in this area. Early morning person (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Composition by committee is always going to be worse than writing by a single talented individual (though maybe better than the writings of an untalented contributor). Fortunately or unfortunately, Wikipedia has many editors, and the quality is both harmed and improved as a result. Whatever text is polished today may be written or deleted tomorrow, but if you want to make copy edits that don't change to content then I doubt anyone would object.

As for your comparison of this article to unnamed newspaper articles, it's hard to respond to a vague assertion. A newspaper article is written differently than an encyclopedia article, so the two aren't directly comparable. Ideally, we should base the article on the best available sources. At the top of that list are scholarly publications, but there appear to be few scholarly biographies of MMY. The elusive Coplin dissertation may be the only one that qualifies. There is a full-length bio by Paul Mason, but I can't find it in a local library, maybe other will have more luck. Then there are mainstream newspapers and magazines, which are widely available. Considerably further down the list would be self-published sources, which we're already over-using. If there are some particular news stories that you think we should look at then please provide the citations.   Will Beback  talk  01:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

EMP brings up a few points, but let's take them one at a time. The third sentence in the lead says: "He became known as the "giggling guru" for his high-pitched laughter during television interviews". According to EMP this sentence "seems not only irrelevant in establishing why the subject is notable, but also does not entice you to read on, another point of style emphasized in the guidelines. It is just a minor piece of trivia." Is it trivia or is it a significant part of his notability? Any specific comments on this point?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, the lead should summarize the article. Is the giggling bit expanded significantly in the text of the article? --BwB (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to add it. It's notable enough to be mentioned in even short obituaries and biographical sketches. However I don't know how much it's possible to expand upon a nickname. I suppose we could start a section on the various names, titles, and epithets of the subject, but is that really necessary?   Will Beback  talk  22:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You are correct in saying that the 'giggling' is noted in a variety of sources and could certainly be mentioned in the article. But I question its place in the lead. It is a trivial point in the article and does not need to be repeated in the lead.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Names, nicknames, titles, honorifics, and the like are usually covered in the lead, so far as I can tell. The lead isn't overly long. Some editors have made hundreds of edits to this article without ever adding this frequently repeated item anywhere, so perhaps they aren't the best judges. An editor suggested making this article more like the coverage in the mainstream press. I'm looking at three obits of under 100 words each that include it.   Will Beback  talk  20:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe also that Wiki policy on the lead requires it to be a summary of the article. There is no mention of "giggling" in the text of the article. So for now, perhaps it would be best to park the text from the lead in this talk page. Any objections to this? --BwB (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

BWB. I see that you are asking for agreement before moving, an acceptable move, but my preference would be to leave the text in place until we have agreement to either move it or remove it. Per the ArbCom, this is sourced content however placed, and should stay where it is pending consensus.(olive (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC))

I've added it to the body of the article and shortened the version in the lead.   Will Beback  talk  20:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggested Edits to “Early Life” and “Tour in India (1955-1957)”

I place these two suggested edits together because they are related.

Early Life: The statement, ‘Canadian author and journalist Paul Grescoe reported in 1968 that according to "a British magazine", Mahesh was "so disappointed at not being named [Saraswati's] successor" he filed a lawsuit, which was unsuccessful.’ I suggest that this sentence be removed, for the following reasons: 1. Dubious reliability. Mr. Grescoe does not state the source of this statement, only that he saw it in an unmamed UK magazine. And it is uncorroborated by any other source. I have looked at several media and book accounts of the events following the death of Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, and no mention is made of such a suit by MMY. However, there have been numerous reports of the persistent attempts of others to gain the title of Shankaracharya. (see, for example, The Jyotirmaṭha Śaṅkarācārya Lineage in the 20th Century, Vidyāśaṅkar Sundareśan: http://indology.info/papers/sundaresan. It is very likely, therefore, that Mr. Grescoe simply got his wires crossed, that he correctly remembered a succession dispute, but got the context wrong.

2. It is extremely unlikely that MMY would have launched such a lawsuit, for two reasons: a) According to the biography of Swami Brahmananda Saraswati (“The Whole Thing the Real Thing,” by Prem C. Pasricha), Brahmanda Saraswati had made his choice of a successor, Swami Shantanda Saraswati, quite clear in his will. The will had been formally registered with government authorities five months before his death. MMY, according to this same bio and other published sources, was known to be devoted to his guru’s wishes. So it would be completely out of character for him to oppose the will by launching such a suit.

3. Equally relevant is the point (made in the Wiki article on MMY, in the sentence just prior to the sentence now being discussed) that MMY was not of the requisite Brahmin caste and therefore could not have been considered to succeed Saraswati as Shankaracharya. MMY was of the kshatriya caste, and so it is completely improbable for this reason also that MMY would have sued to become Shankaracharya—it would have been quite improper and would not have been tolerated. Unfortunately, India has in this century has been rife with disputes over succession in the Shankaracharya tradition (e.g., see Squad of God: http://www.indianexpress.com/storyOld.php?storyId=27061). Successors to these prestigious posts must satisfy multiple classical requirements, and caste, like it or not, is one of the most basic ones.

Tour in India (1955-1957) Re: the sentence, “Guru Dev's successor, Swami Swaroopanand, states that, as a member of the trader class and merely Guru Dev's bookkeeper, the Maharishi had no right to teach meditation or to give mantras, and that "Gurus don't sell their knowledge, they share it.”

I suggest this also be deleted, because, a) it is factually incorrect on key points, and, b) it comes from an obviously biased source. 1. Factual errors: a) MMY, according to several published sources, is a not a member of the trader (vaisya) class but rather was a kshatriya (see, for example, http://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/maharishi-mahesh-yogi-22.php). Some writers further clarify that MMY was a member of the kayastha or scribe class (see ref 16 in MMY article), which is a subset of the kshatriya (and some say possibly also Brahmin) class (see Wiki article on Kayastha); b) It is well known that MMY was far more than “merely Guru Dev’s bookkeeper,” see for example, Dragemark (in The Way to Maharishi’s Himalayas, Stockholm, 1972, p. 261), quotes a fellow disciple of Brahmananda Saraswati, a Dr. Varma, who states that MMY worked very closely with Guru Dev (Brahmananda Saraswati), and was so trusted that he would write the guru’s letters without any direction as to what to say. Also, the same source says that MMY was often sent out by the guru to give lectures on the Vedas in various communities. c) The assertion that MMY had no right to teach meditation or to give mantras, is off-base, because MMY has been identified as a kayastha, and several of this caste have been among the most famous and widely revered teachers of meditation in Indian,and world, history, e.g., Paramahansa Yogananda, Sri Aurobindo, and Swami Vivekananda. On top of that, again according to Dragemark, MMY was specifically deputed by his guru to devise a meditation technique and then teach it to the world.

2. Bias (see WP:RS): it is well known that Swami Swaroopanand opposed the decision by the then Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math, Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, that Swami Shantananda Saraswati succeed him as Shankaracharya (again, see The Jyotirmaṭha Śaṅkarācārya Lineage in the 20th Century, above). In fact, Swaroopanand, as stated in the Wiki article on Brahmananda Saraswati, became a rival Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math to Shantananda. Since MMY had close ties to Shantananda (see for example “The Maharishi,” by Paul Mason, p. 57), MMY would naturally fall prey to Swaroopanand’s displeasure.

Summary: both of these sentences fail to come up to Wiki standards. Anyone object to their deletion?Early morning person (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You are arguing for accuracy in the article and I agree with that. And your points are compelling. I'd be fine with removing the content based on your points. We've had a few discussions lately where accuracy has been discussed so hopefully as editors we've come to this more mature way of editing.(olive (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC))

I would think you'll need agreement to remove sourced content, so lets see what other editors have to say. Things are more restrictive for everyone here after the TM ArbCom. You might want to take a look at it. [3](olive (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC))

First of all, Greshoe does not attribute that statement to a British Magazine. I corrected this a month and a half ago, but Will undid it accidentally as part of another edit. I've re-fixed that misrepresentation of the source yet again. Second, there is no serious question that the source is a reliable one. The discussions to which Olive referred dealt with the fundamental question of whether a source has any reputation for editorial review and fact-checking; that is inapplicable here as the publisher is a well-regarded publication. Third, on the Swaroopanand quote, the assertion that he is "biased" is unsourced to third parties, but even if accepted at face value, is cured by the clear attribution of the quote, and can be further cured by the addition of reliably-source information on the alleged bias. Even biased people are entitle to opinions, and if sufficiently prominent and sourced, are properly reported in an article with appropriate attribution. These are poorly-reasoned arguments for the removal of reliably-sourced information. Fladrif (talk) 23:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• http://indology.info/papers/sundaresan
• http://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/maharishi-mahesh-yogi-22.php
• http://www.indianexpress.com/storyOld.php?storyId=27061
• The way to Maharishi's Himalayas by Elsa Dragemark Publisher: Stockholm : Elsa Dragemark, 1972.

Of these, the only one that looks like it might be a reliable source is indianexpress.com, but I have my doubts about that one too. I'd be concerned about using unreliable sources to impeach a reliable source. If reliable sources can be found that give different or even opposing views I'd be happy to see us include those.   Will Beback  talk  00:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that the sources are not reliable per Wikipedia. However they provide sufficient doubt as to the claims we're making in the article that rather than see this as a question of removing reliably sourced content, I would have seen this, in terms of accuracy, as a question about including the content in the first place. That however is an academic position rather than an encyclopedic one. As an academic feature the content is poor and would be questioned. My background caught me there. ... and Will is right, (I hate it when he's right.. :O) The sources are at best questionable per Wikipedia where publications need oversight and fact checking to be considered reliable as happens for example with a reputable publishing house. I think what EMP has here is a first step in questioning the content, that is, that there appears to be questions concerning the information. The next step is to find this same information in a reliable source. At that point we could include the new content and/or exclude the old. (olive (talk) 01:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC))

I'm all for questioning the content and the sources from which it's derived. As I've said before on this page, we should try to find the best sources and the article should be based primarily on those.   Will Beback  talk  04:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a problem with the Dragemark bio? It is referenced earlier in the article: "Biographies by Paul Mason, William Jefferson, and Elsa Dragemark (quoting his uncle Raj Varma) say that he was born January 12, 1917 in Jabalpur, Central Provinces."Early morning person (talk) 02:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The Dragemark bio is apparently self-published.   Will Beback  talk  02:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. But shouldn't it then be removed as a ref. in the place I mention?Early morning person (talk) 03:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Early morning person (talk) 03:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It was added by TimidGuy in 2007.[4] I'm not sure why other assertions at the time were removed. Unless there is some extenuating circumstance of which we're unaware it should be removed.   Will Beback  talk  04:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

World tours

A large amount of material on the subject's world tours was added today, sourced mostly from Thirty Years Around the World. I don't think that's a good source for adding long, self-serving material. Unless we an find other sources I'm going to consolidate it down and remove the laudatory material.   Will Beback  talk  04:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

BookSurge

• Dorine Tolley (2009). The Power Within: Leon MacLaren, A Memoir of His Life and Work. BookSurge Publishing. ISBN 1-4392-1030-6

BookSurge is a self-publication arm of Amazon.com. Those books do not count as reliable sources, per WP:V.   Will Beback  talk  04:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• • The text about Leon M was added a long time ago by an editor visiting from Leon's BLP. While I agree that a self published book is not a reliable source per WP:V it is a valid source in its own right, depending on its usage, as outlined in WP:SELFPUB. You have yourself, used primary sources as citations for text you have added to articles on numerous occasions, so I know that you are well aware of the valid usage in the context of WP:PRIMARY.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You added Patti Boyd (Harrison) - was that from the same source?

There is a difference between a primary source and a self-published source. A self-published book by Dorine Tolley may be used as a reference for Tolley's activities, within limits. It should not be used for other people. The attendance of Leon MacLaren at the Maharishi's lecture is well-known, and I'm sure it's in another source.   Will Beback  talk  19:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Improving the lead para

Yes, the popular coverage has on occasion included this point about the subject’s Indian-style laughter. The point I’m making is that, according to the norms of good writing practice, as reflected in more than one Wiki guideline, the first paragraph should focus on establishing the significance or notability of the subject, and this first para does not do that.

According to W:Notability, for example, notability is normally established by listing awards or honors, or by summarizing "the subject’s widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her field."

But this first para instead weaves in several points that are tangential to the main recognized contribution of the subject to his field, which is that he popularized meditation in the West by introducing a new understanding of it.

As such, it is simply bad writing.--not up to the standard of an online newspaper or e-zine, much less an encyclopedia. This is the main point I am making.

Here’s an example of a well-written lead in this featured Wiki article:

Emmeline Goulden Pankhurst (14 July 1858 – 14 June 1928) was an English political activist and leader of the British suffragette movement, which helped women win the right to vote. In 1999, Time named Pankhurst as one of the 100 Most Important People of the 20th Century, stating: "she shaped an idea of women for our time; she shook society into a new pattern from which there could be no going back".[1]

Or this one:

Maximilian Carl Emil "Max" Weber (German pronunciation: [ˈmaks ˈveːbɐ]; 21 April 1864 – 14 June 1920) was a German sociologist and political economist, who profoundly influenced social theory, social research, and the discipline of sociology itself.[1] Weber's major works dealt with the rationalization and "disenchantment" he associated with the rise of capitalism and modernity.[2] Weber was, along with his associate Georg Simmel, a central figure in the establishment of methodological antipositivism; presenting sociology as a non-empirical field which must study social action through resolutely subjective means.[3] He is typically cited, with Émile Durkheim and Karl Marx, as one of the three principal architects of modern social science,[4] and has variously been described as the most important classic thinker in the social sciences.[5][6]

Both of these lead the reader on by stating the significance of the subject quickly. They appeal to the busy reader who wants to know, “Why should I invest my time in reading this long thing?”

That question is very poorly answered in the first para of this article, hence I suggest chopping the less important details (e.g., his style of laughter, the fact that some specialists in religion have classified his organization as an NRM) and introducing the most important ones. Anyone feeling up to the challenge?Early morning person (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Early morning person (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input again on the intro. It isn't necessary to start a new thread for every posting.

Note that the first line of the Pankhurst bio defines the nature of the movement she founded -"the British suffragette movement, which helped women win the right to vote."

We're not reporting that MMY was known as the "Giggling Guru" because it's important to report his style of laughter. We're reporting that because it is a commonly used epithet, as determined by numerous sources. The subject has complex naming issues. If we followed the examples you've given then we'd be writing about "Mahesh Prasad Varma". Further, we should rely on the best available sources, and those are usually scholars. Scholars routinely refer to the TM movement as a new religious movement. Founding the TM movement to spread TM is the subject's main claim to notability. Among those who discuss it, "new religious movement" seems to be a common description. I'm not saying that the lead can't be improved, but the principles you've described are, I believe, based on an incorrect reading of the sources and of Wikipedia policy.   Will Beback  talk  22:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Will, I disagree that "Founding the TM movement to spread TM is the subject's main claim to notability." Maharishi Mahesh Yogi claim to fame is founding the TM technique. Without the technique there is nothing else. --BwB (talk) 09:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, his chief claim to fame may be that he was the Beatles' guru. As for the the relative positions of TM and TMM, the TM technique cannot be taught by anyone except teachers authorized by the TMM. Without the TMM there would be no more TM. OTOH, the TMM has other activities and enterprises so, despite that name, it is not limited to TM. But we don't need to parse the difference precisely. They go together.   Will Beback  talk  09:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

MMY started TM in 1957, then he started IMS and SIMS in the sixties but they were formed exclusively to teach TM. The TM-Sidhi program began in the mid 1970's but was also based on TM, hence the name. For example he didn't start his Ayurveda program until the mid 1980's. So his entire career and the TMM is based on TM. As BWB has said it wouldn't exist without it. Also, MMY made several world tours, taught TM thousands of people in scores of countries and was reported by the media. So the statement "Founding the TM movement to spread TM is the subject's main claim to notability" appears to be false. Is there a reliable source for this statement?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You're forgetting the SRM, founded in 1959. AyurVeda isn't base on TM, and neither is MSV. Anyway, this is just a theoretical discussion since no one is proposing any specific text.   Will Beback  talk  18:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Coplin apparently dates the founding of SRM to 1955:

• Maharishi regards his teacher as supreme, worshipping him as the embodiment of the Absolute, of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. He sees his "Gurudeva" as the essential link in this generation to the Holy Tradition of gurus that includes Shankara and Lord Krishna, who transmitted the wisdom of the Bhagavad Gita. He understands his own purpose to be the "revival" of the knowledge of an integrated life based upon Vedic principles and Vedantist reality. Towards this end he began the Spiritual Regeneration Movement in 1955, initially directed towards an exclusively Indian clientele but soon expanded into an international social movement with world peace and a worldwide social order within its scope.

We don't really need to decide which came first - both are important.   Will Beback  talk  19:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yet another date: December 31, 1957. In the often copied "Achievements" it says that MMY founded the SRM and then began teaching TM, not the other way around.   Will Beback  talk  19:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Teaching TM, and teaching for the first time is not the same thing. One is a progression... this, then this...the other establishes beginning.(olive (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC))

I don't understand your point. In any case, TM and the TM movement apparently began at more or less the same time.   Will Beback  talk  19:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

But you are taking the liberty of equating the founding of SRM with the TMM. Do you have a source that says they are the same or that defines TMM? or that gives a date when TMM began? Otherwise So the statement "Founding the TM movement to spread TM is the subject's main claim to notability" would appear to be incorrect and in need of change.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that the SRM was not a part of the TM movement? If so, what was its role or relationship to TM?   Will Beback  talk  20:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The text of the article must reflect accurately the sources used, or the text of the article must be supported by reliable sources. --BwB (talk) 11:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed.   Will Beback  talk  11:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Sentence move to talk page

I am moving this sentence to the talk page. It has no citation and was out of context in the history/timeline section. Also it contains a duplicate link to the TM-Sidhi article and the topic of Yogic Flying and "mass meditations" to reduce crime, are already mentioned in other sections.

• Claims made about the powers of TM included the reduction of crime by the practice of "Yogic flying".-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It's true, but I don't see the relevance either.   Will Beback  talk  10:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Change of reference name

I noticed that the references to "Thirty Years Around the World: Dawn of the Age of Enlightenment" published by Maharishi Vedic University Press, have been changed to "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (1986)". Can we have the rational for this change please? --BwB (talk) 10:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The first citation is

• Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (1986). Thirty Years Around the World: Dawn of the Age of Enlightenment. Maharishi Vedic University Press. p. 199.

Subsequent cites just list the author and year. I'd have used just the author's last name, but that wouldn't work in this situation.   Will Beback  talk  11:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Is Maharishi Mahesh Yogi the author of this book? --BwB (talk) 11:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Amazon,[5], Google,[6] and Worldcat all list him as the author.[7] So does the MUM library catalog. Do you have a source that lists a different author?   Will Beback  talk  11:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Who am I to argue with such venerable institutions? --BwB (talk) 11:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Publications

• While working on his translation and commentary of the Bhagavad Gita, the Maharishi began audio taping the text of the book Science of Being and Art of Living, which was later transcribed and published in 15 languages in 1963.

The chronology of the "Publications" sections appears to be off somehow. The BG translation was published in 1967. Four years before its publication, but while he was working on it, MMY apparently published SBAL in 15 languages simultaneously. Does that make sense? First off, ref #1 says SBAL was a 1964 book, and it doesn't say that the translations happened in 1963.

Most of the chronological info should get straightened out and moved to the main body of the article. The best use of this section would be to highlight or summarize his main publications and their impact, while leaving the events of composition and publication to the biographical flow.   Will Beback  talk  11:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm OK with this suggestion. --BwB (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Clarification for Early Life section

Re: “According to the Maharishi, his Guru Dev gave him the mission of finding a meditation technique that would be embraced by the masses.[3] (Shankar, Jay (February 6, 2008). "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi". Bloomberg.)

As it now reads, MMY himself is the source for this statement. But that is not what it says in the ref., which only says,

“According to one legend recounted in Time magazine, Guru Dev gave the Maharishi the mission of finding a technique that would enable the masses to meditate.”

Any objection to a correction? Early morning person (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

One wonders about the origins of this legend. Here's what Time says:

• This much is known: he was born in India's Central province some time around 1918 (he refuses to give his age) into the Kshatriya or warrior caste. In 1940 he took a degree in physics at Allahabad University. He decided, however, to seek enlightenment in a less scientific and more orthodox Indian way: he spent 13 years, from 1940 to 1953, with Guru Dev, a swami who left home at the age of nine to seek enlightenment. Guru Dev revived a lost meditation technique that originated in the Vedas, the oldest Hindu writings. According to one legend, Guru Dev charged the Maharishi with a mission: to find a technique that would enable the masses to meditate. The Maharishi hid away in the Himalayas for two years. When he emerged, he started the TM movement. In 1956 he took the name Maharishi, meaning Great Seer in Sanskrit.
• "Behavior: THE TM CRAZE: 40 Minutes to Bliss" Oct. 13, 1975 [8]

It'd be better to use Time as the source, rather than the second hand reporting from Bloomberg. But otherwise I agree, at least until we find the source of the legend.   Will Beback  talk  20:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

MMY's early title

In the Early Life section, I simplified MMY's early title, "Maharishi Bala Brahmachari Mahesh Yogi of Uttarkashi" because it does not gibe with the ref, and also because a biographer, Mason, says his early title was simply, "Bala Brahmachari Mahesh."Early morning person (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The change is OK with me.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Good. --BwB (talk) 09:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed "Transcendental Meditation" from 1st sentence

I removed a second and redundant mention of "Transcendental Meditation" from the 1st sentence. The sentence now states that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi founded the TM technique and was the guru of the TMM, which tells the whole story. The reader needs nothing further and can click the link to both TMM and TM technique for more information. --BwB (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

TM is more than just a technique and a movement. There's also a theoretical side. The three articles are not redundant, but cover different aspects of the subject's efforts. I'll reword it so that it seems less redundant.   Will Beback  talk  21:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It's fine the way it is and the elements of the "theoretical side" are well covered in both the article that are linked in the 1st sentence. --BwB (talk) 08:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have change the first sentence again. Rather than referring the reader to the TM article, where the 1st sentence reads "Transcendental Meditation (TM) is both a specific form of mantra meditation, the Transcendental Meditation technique,[1] and a spiritual movement, the Transcendental Meditation movement.[2][3]", we simply tell the reader directly that Maharishi developed the TM technique and was the leader of TMM. No need to deflect the reader. Again the theory is covered on both the TM technique and the TMM articles, which are linked in the 1st sentence of this article. --BwB (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems downright bizarre to repeatedly remove the link to Transcendental Meditation from the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi article, not to mention every other article, as you're doing. We have plenty of sources connecting MMY to TM, so these deletions appear to be contrary to the sources. I don't want to edit war over this, but I think you're making a mistake.   Will Beback  talk  16:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't want an edit war either. I simply feel it easier for the reader to be told that the Maharishi founded TM technique and TMM directly without having to also go to the TM article which says the same thing and links to the TM technique and TMM articles. It seems a circular route. However, I am not attached to this, just feel it is easier for reader. If others feel differently, fine. --BwB (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not circular. If you want to be direct and minimal, then we should link only to the TM article and let readers follow links from there. But I don't see a need to reason to delete this material.   Will Beback  talk  18:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have expressed by thoughts and reason for the edits. You and Doc seem to disagree. I will not argue the point further. --BwB (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Another look at the Swaroopanand statement

I raise again my question regarding the statement by Swami Swaroopanand, this time, backing my points with higher quality sources. The sentence, now located in “Years in Vlodrop (1991-2008)” still reads much the same as when I commented on it last week:

“In 2010, Guru Dev's successor, Swami Swaroopanand, told a German filmmaker that, as a member of the trader class and merely Guru Dev's bookkeeper, the Maharishi had no right to teach meditation or to give mantras, and that "Gurus don't sell their knowledge, they share it."[119]

I would first like to say that I do sympathize with whoever included this—it is an interesting comment. However, for two main reasons, I still suggest that it either be dropped (preferred option), or at least balanced by adding highly relevant clarifying information, without which the reader will continue to be misinformed.

First reason: it is factually incorrect on two main points, and I have an additional reliable source substantiating that. Namely, it is simply incorrect to say that MMY was of the "trader class" or that he was "merely Guru Dev's bookkeeper."

There is another major problem, but I mention the factual issue first, to appeal to what I know is the higher purpose of all Wiki editors (as articulated in the ArbCom decision)—to create a high quality encyclopedia, which obviously would not include false information unless it is immediately and clearly balanced by accurate information.

Second reason: Swaroopanand's statement gives undue weight to a view that is 1) held by only a very tiny minority, and is 2) uncorroborated. I refer to W:RS-- “If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia.” Also, of course, WP:RS also states that corroboration is another criteria of reliablity.

(I'll drop the issue of bias. We all know that Swaroopanand is a rival Shankaracharya of the North, who opposed Shantananda, with whom MMY was aligned. I drop it because I don't have the time to pull together the sources, and I already state more than enough reasons to take action on this sentence.)

For example, the Swami says that Maharishi was a member of the “trader class.” This statement comes from a tiny minority because, except for this lone exception, all of the many articles on MMY that I have seen over the years, whether they originate in the Indian media, or come from Western sources, all agree that MMY’s class is kshatriya (warrior) class, not “trader” or vaisya class (see refs 13, 14, 19 in this article). Specifically, he was a kayastha, a subset of the kshatriya class.

And, as stated earlier, the other factual error, and also tiny minority view: It is well known that MMY was far more than “merely Guru Dev’s bookkeeper.” See for example, Mason in “The Maharishi,” (Element Books, 1994, p. 22), who says that MMY worked very closely with Guru Dev (Brahmananda Saraswati), and was so trusted that he would write the guru’s correspondence without any direction as to what to say. Mason’s research also indicates that MMY was also sent out by the guru to give lectures on the Vedas in distant communities. See also the obit written by Jupiter Kalambakal of AHN who says that MMY was the Shankaracharya's "right hand" (http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7009948300).

And Swaroopanand's contention that MMY had no right to teach meditation is probably also a factual error, because in this, he is in direct disagreement with his own guru (and MMY's), Swami Brahmananda, “Guru Dev,” who, according to Mason and others was strongly encouraged Maharishi to travel and teach meditation (Mason, p. 23).

If there is a strong objection to removing the sentence, I would request that it be at least followed by a simple statement of fact something like this (I will of course tidy it up, inserting the refs in proper format):

“However, reliable sources point out that Maharishi was, a) not a member of the trader (vaisya) class (or caste), but rather a kayastha, a subcategory of the warrior (kshatriya) class (ref’s 13, 14, 19). In addition, Mason points out in his biography of the Maharishi (Mason, p. 22) that he was not “merely Guru Dev’s bookkeeper” but rather a close assistant who was sufficiently trusted that he took care of the bulk of his guru's correspondence without direction, and was also sent out to give public speeches on Vedic (scriptural) themes. Swaroopanands's view that Maharishi was not qualified to teach meditation was not shared by his Guru (and Maharishi's), Brahmananda Saraswati, who, according to Mason, specifically encouraged Maharishi to travel and teach meditation (Mason, p. 23).” Early morning person (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Early morning person (talk)99.241.140.220 (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Some of these problems would be lessened if we put the material in the "Early life" section that deals with Guru Dev. While it's usually best to keep things chronological, since this concerns MMY's career with Guru Dev, and the launch of the TM teaching, it would fit well there. Then it would be juxtaposed with other views on the same issue.   Will Beback  talk  20:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

EMP is essentially arguing that Swaroopanand is wrong in his opinions about MMY, and that it is a minority view. First, there is no question being raised that the source is wrong in reporting what Swaroopanand's views are, or that the article does not appropriately reflect the source. Second, as Saraswati's successor, his views are most certainly (i) notable and (ii) authoritative, even if one concludes, based on one's own original research, that those views are wrong. Third, the opinion that he holds - that MMY had no right or qualification to teach meditation, and that it was unethical to sell commercial mantras, is and was a widely-held opinion among devout Hindus, as is reported in numerous sources cited in the article. The proposed insert appears to be an argument and advocacy rather than encyclopedic writing. Fladrif (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I am arguing for balance. See WP:NPOV: "Editors must write articles from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." Swami Swaroopanand does two things in his statement: 1) he asserts points of fact, specifically, that MMY is from one of the lower classes, and did only clerical work for his distinguished guru. (He subsequently uses these supposed facts to justify a following opinion.) However, other, equally reliable, sources contradict the points he raises. I state these sources above. Second, the Swami expresses his opinions that MMY has no right to teach meditation, or to charge money for same. However, others, including no less than his own guru (and MMY's), as reported by reliable sources, differ. This view also, to use Fladrif's words, is (i) notable and (ii) authoritative. It is quite clear that these supposed facts, and the related opinions stated by the Swami, must be balanced by the differing statements of fact and opinion as reported by other reliable sources. Again, WP:NPOV: "when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.140.220 (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Early morning person (talk) 01:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

On the matter of caste, Coplin's dissertation is probably the most authoritative source we have. He says:

• Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's caste background is a matter of some uncertainty because it is the tradition of yogis, ascetics, and renunciants to relinquish their family ties. His education and family status are known by many long-time movement members, however. Shrivastava is the family name of his cousins and nephews, and that name can be traced to the Hindu Kayasthas.

Note that the New York Times also says MMY was from a "trader caste". I have no objection to a short paragraph to cover the dispute over caste that includes all of the significant views. Also, I moved the Swaroopanand comment to the "early life" section, per my previous suggestion.   Will Beback  talk  02:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much for Coplin comment. But I checked NYT site and was unable to find statement that MMY was from "trader caste." Early morning person (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. Here's the line:

• Mahesh Prasad Varma was born near the central Indian town of Jabalpur, into a scribe caste family.
  • Koppel, Lily (February 6, 2008). "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, a Guide On the Beatles' Spiritual Path, Dies". New York Times: p. C.10.

Main point being there are various views. Osho/Rajneesh also gives an opinion on MMY's caste and heritage, but I don't think his book would qualify as reliable.   Will Beback  talk  20:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Since caste is determined by birth, I've moved that material to the "birth" section.   Will Beback  talk  22:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It's my understanding that Swami Shantanand Saraswati was the successor to Guru Dev (Brahmandanad Saraswati) and was Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math from the time of Guru Dev's death in 1953 until 1980. and that he was succeeded Dandi Swami Vishnudevand until 1990 and then the title was passed on to Dandi Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati.[9] This calls into question the claim that Swaroopananda was Guru Dev's successor.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

ESL has added that Swaroopananda is one of the claimants, which is also what Mason says on the page you link.   Will Beback  talk  02:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

To claim is one thing, but was he actually the Shankaracharya? If there was dispute, might we not expect disparaging comments about Maharishi Mahesh Yogi? --BwB (talk) 09:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how we could make that determination.   Will Beback  talk  22:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

"might" is not a determination. --BwB (talk) 08:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Making a 'claim' to the title and being the 'successor' are two different things. Since we now have a source that verifies that two other men have served as 'successors' for the past 50 years, the reader deserves to know that Swaroopananda is a claimed successor but has not officially served in the position.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The material now says: One of the claimants[34] to become Saraswati's successor, Swami Swaroopanand,... Is there a problem with that or is this now settled?   Will Beback  talk  23:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

World tours: going twice

Last month I wrote that the longish section on "World tours" was sourced almost entirely from the subject's self-published memoirs. The section includes material on the actions of 3rd parties. As I said then, if the memoirs are the only source this section should be reduced significantly. Since then, it looks like one sources has been found which devotes about 43 words to the tours,[10] and it was added several places.[11] Is this the best available independent source? I don't have ready access to Mason's bio, but I'd imagine that he devotes more space to it than the One India obit. Unless we can find more indepedent citations for this section, it should still be reduced to a couple of paragraphs. Let's give it another week or two to see what editors can find.   Will Beback  talk  01:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you please specify here on the talk page which sentences you would like to remove from the article? Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't thought that far ahead. But significant assertions that are only sourced to the memoirs are the main concern. There's a lot of detail about individual cities, newspapers, etc. Do you have access to the Mason bio?   Will Beback  talk  02:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Which "significant assertions that are only sourced to the memoirs" do you feel are in need of removal?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, is a 42-word mention in One India the only independent source we can find for his travels? If so, then that's a problem. If no one can find any better sources in the next week or so then we can start going line by line.   Will Beback  talk  05:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

"an error of judgment"

• Later Lennon said that writing the "scathing" song was "an error in judgment".BBC News FEb 6 2008

I don't see that in the the cited source. The correct source is [12]. Here's what it says:

• John Lennon admitted to "an error of judgement", writing the scathing "Sexy Sadie" about him.

The "error of judgement" does not refer to the song. It refers to the relationship with the Maharishi.   Will Beback  talk  21:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Not sure what your saying but let's settle the issue by using the direct quote from the BBC article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think what Will is saying is that the "error in judgement" was to follow the Maharishi, not to have written the song Sexy Sade. Kbobb may feel the "error" was to write the song. --BwB (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a reason for quoting the BBC article verbatim. We have multiple sources for Lennon's dissatisfaction.   Will Beback  talk  21:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I've trimmed the BBC quotation and added a second Lennon quote on the same topic.   Will Beback  talk  22:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The sentence in the BBC article

• John Lennon admitted to "an error of judgement", writing the scathing "Sexy Sadie" about him.

has only one possible interpretation:

• John Lennon admitted that he felt following the Maharishi was "an error of judgement", and in response to that error of judgement, proceeded to write the scathing "Sexy Sadie" about him.

That much is clear from the sentence structure. It is further underlined by the context in which the sentence appears. It is one of a list of "setbacks" to the Maharishi:

Ringo Starr went home after 10 days "for egg and chips", and the others soon followed. John Lennon admitted to "an error of judgement", writing the scathing "Sexy Sadie" about him. George Harrison defected to the Hare Krishna movement, though he continued supporting the Maharishi's Natural Law party in Britain which stood in general elections between 1992 and 2001. Despite these setbacks, by 1972, the glamorous guru had attracted 100,000 members to his Academy

PL290 (talk) 09:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree.   Will Beback  talk  09:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Tacked on after the statement that Lennon wrote "Sexy Sadie" about the Maharishi, the following quote is ambiguous:

• Lennon said he had made an "an error of judgment" and "a public mistake".

That seems to hint at the idea that Lennon's words apply to writing the song—which in the original context (reproduced above) is clearly seen not to be the case. I removed the sentence, giving the edit summary, "rm quote whose meaning is ambiguous outside its original context". I am troubled to see that the quote has not only been reintroduced without addressing that concern, but is now even arranged so as to explicitly state the wrong meaning:

• Later, Lennon said the song was an "an error of judgment" and "a public mistake".

In my opinion, this quote (however presented) adds nothing to the point being made about Lennon's dissatisfaction, and, outside its original context, produces a misleading effect. I believe it should therefore be removed from this article. What do other editors think about this? PL290 (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree 100%. KBob's edit is a gross mispresentation of the source, which is inexcusable in light of the above discussion. It is absolutely clear from these and other sources that Lennon said that the Beatles' association with the Maharishi was an error in judgement and a personal mistake that they made in a very public way. He most definitely did not apolgize or back off for having written Sexy Sadie. Frankly, I think that KBob's re-addition of this misprepresentation is a clear and direct violation of ArbCom. Fladrif (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Take it easy Flad. It is good to have debate about sources. That's one reason we have the talk pages. --BwB (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Fladrif... its pretty obvious that both editors in the original dispute, thought they were interpreting the quote correctly. I wonder of the arbs have time for policing simple content interpretations, and how they'll look on that. (olive (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC))

If Kbob keeps restoring obviously incorrect material, especially since he's not even bothering to discuss it, then that's a problem. Hopefully it won't happen again.   Will Beback  talk  22:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

If folks think the ArbCom doesn't care about content, please reread Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement#Accuracy of sourcing. Violation of that, or other principles, is a violation of the ArbCom's decision. Anyone can make a mistake once, but re-adding it over and over is POV pushing.   Will Beback  talk  23:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Did I say the arbs don't care about content? I said the arbs may not have time for policing simple content interpretations. I also said it seemed to me that both editors in the discussion seemed to seriously feel they had interpreted the source correctly. This is a simple dispute as can happen anywhere, anytime. Any chance of moving along with out blowing the thing up.(olive (talk) 01:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC))

I thought we'd "moved along", and then Kbob added back an even more incorrect version. Where do you see Kbob defending his interpretation? He just seems to be restoring it without explaining his view.   Will Beback  talk  02:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I was on a mini Wiki break and wasn't able to follow up on this discussion until now. I have no problem with the outcome ie placing the sourced text and quotes in proper context. My main concern was the complete removal of the sourced content by PL290. From what I see the edit history of the sentence went like this:

• 8/27 KB added the full quote per his talk page entry in this thread[13]
• 8/27 WBB revised KB's edit and changed the context of the “error in judgment” quote and added the supporting quote “a public mistake” to the sentence.[14]
• 8/29 PL290 deleted the entire sentence and the citation. [15]
• 8/29 KB replaced the sentence and citation deleted by PL290[16]
• 8/29 Fladrif revised the sentence to give additional context per this discussion thread[17]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That's an incomplete record. You failed to mention your edit summary on 8/29: replace sourced text that was removed without discussion or consensus [18] That's incorrect. In fact, it was deleted after discussion and what looks like a consensus. No one here agreed with your faulty interpretation of the source. Yet you restored it anyway and said there had been no discussion.   Will Beback  talk  06:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Appearance

• In the book, Paul McCartney; Many Years From Now, Barry Miles says that for the media, the Maharishi was well cast with "liquid eyes, twinkling but inscrutable with the wisdom from the East".
  • Miles, Barry (1998). Paul McCartney: Many Years from Now. Macmillan. p. 401. ISBN 9780805052497.

This is in the Beatles section, but it doesn't concern them directly. We could have a brief section on MMY's appearance where this would fit nicely. But in its current section it doesn't really add anything useful.   Will Beback  talk  06:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is out of place in the Beatles section.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Me too. --BwB (talk) 09:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

OK then I will move it to the Pop Culture section just below.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but it doesn't really belong there either. We have many other sources for the subject's appearance, so I've moved it to a section of its own. I'll add more material.   Will Beback  talk  03:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Now I'm wondering why we need a "Appearane" section. If we have several photos in the article, readers can directly see Maharishi's appearance and we do not need the text. --BwB (talk) 09:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

No one objected to the proposal the initial posting. It's hard to judge, from the photos, that the subject was 5' tall, or what his habitual appearance, or how he sat, etc. I'd have been happy withe deleting the "liquid eyes" quote, but if we're going to include it we should include more encyclopedic descriptions.   Will Beback  talk  10:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The sentence - "They wrote that he had a high-pitched voice that sounded almost like a teenager." does not describe "appearance". Maybe better placed elsewhere? --BwB (talk) 09:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Broadly speaking it's all part of the public appearance. Maybe we can find a better heading title, but I think that objection is a bit lawyerly. It isn't necessary for every single sentence to fit within a strict definition of the heading term. But if folks value precision over brevity we can rename the section "Appearance and speech". There are, in fact, multiple sources for the subject's manner of speaking. We might also move the "Giggling Guru" sobriquet to this section.   Will Beback  talk  09:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know there was a consensus or even a proposal to delete the sentence. If that was clear in this thread, than I would have deleted it rather than moving it.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at the Appearance and Speech section and it reads like a childrens' book, stating things that are obvious from the photos already in the article. It seems like a trivia section.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. A section on appearance seems more appropriate in a Hollywood report. In an encyclopedia the picture seems enough. If content is significant enough, and has been reported enough like the "giggling guru" may have been, then perhaps that should be left, but the rest is trivial. (olive (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC))

Information on the subject's height, on his hair and beard, his clothing, his voice and laughter, have been reported in many sources. While the hair and beard may be apparent from photos, not all of our readers can see photos so there's no harm in including sourced descriptions. The rather extravagant description of him as having "liquid eye" and the "inscrutable wisdom from the East" has been in the article since November 2009, when Kbob added it. I don't recall seeing any complaint since then about that piece of so-called "trivia".

The biographies of other people with unusual appearances devote space to describing them. For example, Stephen A. Douglas#Personal Life and Family. We could rename the section "Personal Life and Family", and move the material on his nephews and celibacy there.   Will Beback  talk  21:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This man has an unusual appearance? I guess that depends on where you're from. A line or two, like giggling guru one may be fine, but an entire section doesn't seem necessary in my mind. That's what we're discussing a section, not a line or two. And what point are you making about the "extravagant description"? If you didn't like it perhaps you should have discussed it with Kbob. What has that go to do with me.(olive (talk) 01:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC))

There are two lines devoted to Stephen Douglas not a section, that said, I don't mind the section added, although per the subject and what he supposedly stood for, and the sources that are devoted to his life's work whether seen as positive or negative, I would consider the section trivial content. I'll go along, though, with whatever others are happy with.(olive (talk) 02:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC))

I did raise the issue of the "liquid eyes" quote. See the beginning of this thread. I wasn't addressing anything to you in particular - this is an open discussion.

• Maharishi's trademark flowing beard and long, graying hair appeared on the cover of the leading news magazines of the day.
• Forty years ago tomorrow, on August 24, 1967, I was sent in my Biba flower-power mini-culottes and Indian beads to the Hilton Hotel, to hear someone called the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. "A little man," said my story, "with long hair, grey beard and beatific smile." He sat in white robes, cross-legged on a deerskin, fondling a red rose.
• And in the press, in the 1960s and '70s, he was often dismissed as a hippie mystic, the Giggling Guru, recognizable in the familiar image of him laughing, sitting cross-legged in a lotus position on a deerskin, wearing a white silk dhoti with a garland of flowers around his neck beneath an oily, scraggly beard.
• A bald head replaced his long hair, although his profuse beard remained.
• It was in 1967 that the Beatles boarded the "Mystical Express" at Paddington station and headed off to Bangor, north Wales, for a meeting with a diminutive, giggling Indian guru with a shaggy white beard. The spectacle of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi dispensing flowers to the "Fab Four" became one of the defining images of the 1960s.
• Then, just as I was expecting him to make his entrance, a giant screen flickered to life and I was greeted not by a real live guru but by a sort of hologram with a cotton-wool beard and a shiny, teak- brown pate.
• Dressed in white, the elderly man on the screen has lost all but a fringe of the long hair that once flowed over his shoulders. His full beard and moustache are still bushy, but have turned silvery.
• Wearing white flowers, a loose-fitting white robe and a long white beard, the maharishi looked quite healthy for his age, which is . . . well, a bit hard to pin down.
• His beard is now as long and white as that of Santa Claus, but below his bald pate his forehead remains unwrinkled. "He's really short, eh?" said [meditator Joanne] Hollander. "His body looks like the body of an 8-year-old boy."
• Mahesh, now an octogenarian with a flowing white beard, leads a reclusive life in the Netherlands, where he communicates with his network of supporters, institutions and companies around the world by cell-phone and e-mail.
• At the monastery, where about 280 followers silently meditate while children play noisily outside, portraits of the Maharishi with his trademark long, graying hair and beard stare benignly from walls in rooms all around the complex.
• That's easy to do, as the master's portrait is on the wall above Prof Mehta's head: he's a little balder than when he captivated the Beatles in 1967, the beard is a little fuller and more snowy, the eyes considerably more dreamy, but otherwise he appears little changed.
• I glance at the picture of the founder of TM, His Holiness, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, that adorns one of the handout sheets. It claims, among other "scientifically validated benefits," that TM reverses biological aging. This is certainly not evident from the photo, in which Maharishi sports a long, white beard and looks quite old and grizzled, as befitting a yogi. (Although, as my friend Ann points out, the man might be as old as Methuselah, in which case his appearance is comparatively youthful).
• This is the same Indian maharishi of flowing robes and beard who burst on the world's consciousness in the 1960s, when the Beatles sat at his feet.

That's just a quick search. I'm not sure how many times something needs to be repeated before it becomes notable, but the subject's appearance has often been commented on, and more than one calls it his trademark. Is there an object to any particular part of this, or is to the having it as a section? I'm not sure I understand the objections.   Will Beback  talk  03:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Will you should do what you want to do. I never said anything about notability, but about significance. I gave an opinion but did not object to adding the content. While you list appears to be substantial if compared to the other aspects of the man's work which would be pages long, the list is insignificant. However you seem so adamant about the section you should just have it the way you want.(olive (talk) 15:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC))

I'm not adamant about anything. I've suggested another possible name and scope for the section. There are many ways of writing an article. As for significance, it's hard to judge. WP:NPOV says we should determine weight depending on the prominence in secondary sources. As I've said before, by that standard most of the "World Tours" section should go, since the sole source is the subject's own memoir.   Will Beback  talk  19:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The objections are that the examples you have given above are repetitive descriptions of the same white robed, bearded man holding a flower which are already illustrated by the photos in the article Secondly these less than a full sentence, descriptions are very likely not notable in the context of the articles in which they were written and certainly not notable in an encyclopedic biography of a man who impacted cultures around the world and established more than a thousand centers, schools, universities and organizations. I don't think anyone objects to a one sentence description, here and there, mixed in with other appropriate text. The objection is to the weight that appearance is currently being given now, specifically by your creation of a special section on physical appearance. It may be useful to note that none of the 25 Gurus listed in the Guru article have a section in their biography devoted to appearance or the grey-ing process of their beard or gradual hair loss over 50 years.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, you were earlier suggesting that this article better reflect the coverage of the subject found in obituaries. Many of these excerpts are taken from obituaries. If these views are not significant and notable then I don't know why they'd appear in other biographies. Regarding the comparison to other gurus, I don't think any other biographies have a section about connections with the Beatles either. We don't have a standard template for guru biographies. Instead, we follow what the sources say.

I'll suggest again that we rename the section to something like "Personal life and family", and move other personal material there. That'd address the concern about devoting a section to appearance.   Will Beback  talk  20:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The issue is notability and improper weight and if you want to continue to sidestep the issue and pretend that it can be resolved by disguising the material with a section title change or that you don't understand or have not heard the repeated objections of three other editors in this thread, than as Olive has said, just go ahead and do what you want.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

So we have excerpted here 14 sources talking about the subject's appearance. Compare that to how many sources we have that talk about the world tours. Should we use the same standards for both topics, or should we use different standards? I'm not just "doing what I want" - I'm trying to get an article that properly reflects what reliable, secondary sources say about the subject. I assume that's what we all want.   Will Beback  talk  20:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Put another way, do you feel the material in question is not verifiable or worded neutrally?   Will Beback  talk  21:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been away from Wiki for a few days. It seems like Will would like to have the section that contains detail of the Maharishi's physical description. Others do not. Will, you can add the material if you like, as you seem to think it important for this article. --BwB (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

See below - this thread moved on. A section needn't be devoted to it alone. I suggested a section on personal life and family instead, but Keithbob wrote that a "Public Image"/"pop culture" section might be better. I'm flexible so I followed his idea. Let's continue this discussion below.   Will Beback  talk  07:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal life and family

The Maharishi was a little over five feet tall. He wore his hair and beard long and uncombed. He was often seen wearing a white silk dhoti and carrying flowers or wearing marigold garlands.[13] The Maharishi sitting cross-legged on a deerskin became a familiar sight.[13] When the Maharishi was in his 70s Life magazine writers described him as looking much younger than his age.[132]

The Maharishi had a high-pitched voice.[132] Newspapers, detractors, and even followers referred to him as the "Giggling Guru", in part due to his habit of laughing during television interviews.

The Maharishi never married and had no children. He was survived by a number of nephews and nieces.[123] One nephew, Girish Varma, is chairman of the Maharishi Vidya Mandir Schools Group, chancellor of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic University and chancellor of Maharishi University of Management and Technology in India.[124][125] Other nephews include Anand Shrivastava, chairman of the Maharishi Group,[126][127] and Ajay Prakash Shrivastava, president of Maharishi Vidya Mandir Schools.[128][129]

How about something like this? The description part is much shorter and avoids all quotations. It needs some copy editing for flow. The rest of the text is moved from other sections, but it isn't especially chronological. What other personal life material would be appropriate here? That he was a vegetarian?   Will Beback  talk  06:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't seem particularly informative or significant as I've said. My preference would be to include this content if we're insistent on using it, in appropriate places throughout the article. I mean really, who cares if he "combed " his hair, and is that sourced. If the fact that he wore flowers or carried flowers was connected to some significant aspect of his teaching or philosophy the perhaps it would be informative, but as is, seems trivial. I 'd be willing to compromise and add a couple of sentences like this:

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi never married nor had children. Diminutive at a little over five feet tall, and looking younger than his age, he dressed in traditional Indian dhoti, often wore and or carried flowers, and wore his hair and beard long. He became known as the giggling guru because of a habit of laughing during interviews. (olive (talk) 03:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC))

I don't know how to answer the question of "who really cares" about the information in this article. Who really cares when and where he was born? Who really cares which Canadian cities he's visited? Who really cares how many students showed up at a training session in 1973? I'd guess that the best way to determine how many people care is to consult the reliable sources, and see how many of them care. Can anyone suggest a better way of determing what to include?   Will Beback  talk  03:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Good news. I didn't ask who cares about the information in this article. I said, who cares if he combed his hair. If you think this is significant and mentioned in mainstream sources then by all means include it as long as its reliably sourced. No problem. What do you think of the sentences above as a solution?(olive (talk) 03:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC))

It seems like we should apply a consistent standard. Is that unreasonable? If we have multiple independent sources for something, it would seem to show general interest, while if we only have self-published sources for something, that would seem to show limited interest. Does that make sense?   Will Beback  talk  04:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I've suggested a couple of sentences that has most of the information you suggested in your version just a more succinct and compact version. You did say your version needed to be edited for flow. If there's anything else that is reliably sourced to multiple sources that should be added to that version to make it acceptable to you, why not go ahead and add it? If we need to have a discussion in general about sources then perhaps we can open a new thread for that.(olive (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC))

Are you satisfied with the version I suggested? I'll wait to see if you either don't like it or want to add something more, then if not perhaps we can find a place to add it. Your choice.(olive (talk) 22:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC))

Thanks for making those suggestions, which include some improvements in grammar. However that draft also omitted a number of notable details and introduced some unsupported assertions. For example, from what I've read, dhotis are normally made of cotton, not silk, so calling it "traditional" isn't quite accurate. The deerskin has been mentioned in many sources and is also notable because his personal attendants were called "skinboys" because of their responsibility for it. And so on. Let's keep accumulating sources and see which aspects receive the greatest weight. Since it may take a while I'll start a section in Talk:Maharishi Mahesh Yogi/Sources for excerpts on the topic.   Will Beback  talk  22:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The dohti is the garment name, and it is a traditional garment. The garment could be of different fabrics, silk, cotton...Silk is more formal, cotton cooler. But the garment itself is traditional not the fabric. I have no concerns with adding silk. The deer skin part was tricky to add, didn't seem to connect to anything else, but again no concerns. I still do not see the need to make a whole section on this. These are words and descriptions that describe rather than are significant in themselves. Do the sources say Maharishi's personal attire is significant as aspects of his life and teaching. I haven't seen that, but perhaps I've missed those sources. If we take information that in itself has not been used in the the sources as significant and create significance by creating an entire section and adding a lot of content we violate "undue" but also a form of OR? Its a question. I don't necessarily have the answers, but I think creating a section is on the wrong track here.(olive (talk) 23:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC))

Is there any objection to changing the heading to "Personal life and family", a heading used in other biographies, to address the concern about the section name?   Will Beback  talk  23:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Text on Family Life is already in the article under the Early Life section which is an appropriate place and I don't see any need to change it's location. Also, I would question how the sentences below are appropriate information to be placed in a section called 'Personal Life'.

• The Maharishi was a little over five feet tall. He wore his hair and beard long and uncombed. He was often seen wearing a white silk dhoti and carrying flowers or wearing marigold garlands.[13] The *Maharishi sitting cross-legged on a deerskin became a familiar sight.[13] When the Maharishi was in his 70s Life magazine writers described him as looking much younger than his age.[132]
• The Maharishi had a high-pitched voice.[132] Newspapers, detractors, and even followers referred to him as the "Giggling Guru", in part due to his habit of laughing during television interviews.

I don't recall ever seeing outside commentary on a person's appearance being placed in the Personal Life section. If there is some valid text on his appearance why not place it in the section on Pop Culture or change the Pop Culture section (which is only 4 sentences long) to Public Image like this article on Lady Gaga?[19]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to read this thread? See Stephen A. Douglas#Personal Life and Family, for example.   Will Beback  talk  03:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, the 'family' material in the proposed draft is simply the material that's now in the "death" section, which is the section two paragraphs up. It's only a small move, and "family" is a better section for the nephews than "death", don't you think? The subject's family at the end of his life was different than at its beginning. It'd be out of place to describe the surviving nephews at the very beginning of the article, which is otherwise concerned with the events of many decades ago.

Many gurus have the quality of darshan, in which their physical presence has a uplifting effect on its own. If I'm not mistaken, that's also a factor with this subject.

While this subject may be of unusual importance, it isn't unknown for the biographies of even lesser figures to have sections on physical characteristics.   Will Beback  talk  11:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I've added another thirteen sources at Talk:Maharishi Mahesh Yogi/Sources. Aspects of the subject's appearance and personal habits do seem to be noteworthy based on the 29 sources listed so far. Based on this search, it looks like there's at least another dozen or two.[20]   Will Beback  talk  06:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to having a "Public image" image section. I'll go ahead and make that change since Kbob has suggested it. I'm sure we can find lots more material.   Will Beback  talk  06:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll restate my position. A couple of lines is as much as is needed as per the Stephen A. Douglas#Personal Life and Family, you've asked Kbob and me to check. How does that reference support a section whatever the heading? So I can't support either you or Kbob on this for the record. Will your sources are citing short descriptive passages and are highly repetitive.(olive (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC))

We devote a couple of lines to his appearance, and dress, and a couple of lines to his manner of speech. It's a work in progress. We're here to summarize reliable sources and to write a short, comprehensive biography of the subject. I'm not sure why we didn't include basic info like this before, but we do have numerous sources for it which are consistent and which show the notability of the material.   Will Beback  talk  04:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, several sources say that some aspects of his appearance were his "trademark". This book says that it were part of the impression he gave of being an "eminently spiritual figure".[21] It looks a like a good source and makes a point that is not repetitive.   Will Beback  talk  06:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I have Paul Mason's book...I'll see what he and other sources have to say.(olive (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC))

As the main secondary biography of MMY, we should be using Mason much more extensively. Can you also check on the #World tours: going twice thread, below? I presume mason has more material on the tours. Thanks.   Will Beback  talk  04:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

A small suggestion wording in “Public Image”

I think the word “ridiculed” is used one too many times here. It occurs in both the 2nd and 3rd paras, both from the same ref in Private Eye. To avoid this duplication, how about the following slightly revised wording? . . .

Maharishi attracted skepticism because of his business acumen and his love of luxury, such as his habit of touring in a Rolls-Royce.[65] However, the Maharishi is also credited with helping to "inspire the anti-materialism of the late 60s".[8]

Private Eye ridiculed the guru as "Veririchi Lottsa Money Yogi Bear".[18] The Maharishi was also parodied by comedians Bill Dana and Joey Forman in the 1968 comedy album "The Mashuganishi Yogi",[131] and by comedian Mike Myers in the movie The Love Guru[132] and in the character "Guru Maharishi Yogi" featured in the BBC sketch Goodness Gracious Me.Early morning person (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion, though the "wealthy celebrities" shouldn't be deleted either. He was also questioned about his habit of staying in the best hotels, but that's probably more details than necessary. It looks like The Times is the source for the Rolls-Royces, not Private Eye, FWIW.   Will Beback  talk  22:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for making the change.Early morning person (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Addition Brahman

This [22] should be removed in my opinion, WP:OR among other concerns, but editor agreement one way or the other is best.(olive (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC))

The anon who added it has been trying to clear out the Brahman article, but a regular editor disagrees.[23] I don't see any reason to include a long excerpt from a primary source.   Will Beback  talk  17:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

IP User 95.132 etc has been very, very busy editing today, on a number of articles, and nearly every such edit has been reverted. This is material that was moved here from the Brahman article, but which has been restored there. I'll leave it to the editors active at that article to argue over the merits of its inclusion there. There is no reason to have it in this article. Olive's initial instinct to revert this was the right one. Fladrif (talk) 17:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HareKrishnaPortal.   Will Beback  talk  18:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Please also take a look at Wikipedia:Revert#Exceptions, which states: "Edits that do not contribute to edit warring are generally considered to be exceptions to the three-revert rule. These include reverts of obvious vandalism, reverts of banned users (of which this anon is one), and removal of potentially libelous text." :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 03:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Interaction with The Beatles

Why are we adding more quotations to "Interaction with The Beatles" section?[24] The added material is not neutral - it all appears positive towards the subject. There is plenty of other material available in reliable sources, so simply adding laudatory quotations skews the section. Since the existing section was already a bit biased, I think this added material makes that problem worse. Could user:Early morning person please explain how these additions improve the neutrality of that section? If not, I'm inclined to either revert the additions or find an equal quantity of non-positive material to add as a counter-weight.   Will Beback  talk  21:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow that's an amazing statement. The content is positive to the subject, so its not neutral. Lets look at this in a more neutral way. Is this content reliably sourced? Per the arbitration, if it is removing it is a concern for the editor who removes it without agreement. So care is needed here. If its not reliably sourced that's another issue. The content added seem to give the whole view of each Beatle on the Rishikesh experience, and that whole view is the neutral view and is good encyclopedic writing. Giving only part of each musician's view and cherry picking either one side of the views or the other creates non NPOV. I've always maintained the Beatles section should be shorter, and we could shorten it but removing content because its either positive or negative to the subject is not the way to do it.

Perhaps EMP could reduce the entire section while maintaining NPOV, if length is a concern for others as it is for me.That would need editor agreement of course.(olive (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC))

I could add 10,000 words of sourced material here. Would that help this biography? I don't think so. I'm asking EMP to explain his or her edits.   Will Beback  talk  23:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

We could all add 10,000 words of content. Of course you can ask anybody anything you want. As can any of us. Suggesting that content that is positive to a subject is not neutral is a highly biased position to take. But lets see what EMP has to say. And I'll add again. I don't mind if the section as a whole is reduced in length as long as NPOV is maintained. (olive (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC))

"Suggesting that content that is positive to a subject is not neutral is a highly biased position to take. " Huh? I disagree that adding 10,000 words of negative (or positive) material would be an example neutral editing. NPOV says that material should be added according to its prominence in independent sources. If 100 sources portray the Beatles interaction in one way, and ten show it differently, then we should follow those ratios, at least roughly. Again, I'm requesting EMP to explain his or her edits.   Will Beback  talk  23:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Neither you nor I said "positive or negative" 10,000 words of content, so that's not part of this discussion. You did say,"The added material is not neutral - it all appears positive towards the subject." I try to see content in terms of giving a whole picture. How did Ringo Starr really feel. What is the complete picture. Did he leave because the food was spicy and that's all or do the sources have more to say on what he said about it. Leaving out fragments of information, or only using fragments can only lead to inaccuracy and NPOV. Neutrality isn't about this is positive so I get to add negative. Neutrality is creating information that is accurate per weight in the sources. And this is a discussion page and this is apparently a contentious addition according to you, so please expect input from all editors. My position such as it is. (olive (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC))

Everyone's welcome to comment, but editors should be prepared to defend their work which is what I'm asking EMP to do. If you want to defend him or her then that's your right, but it doesn't necessarily give us EMP's rationale. As for the added content, this isn't the article to give detailed explanations for every aspect of the Beatles stay in Rishikesh. For example, some sources say the food wasn't spicy at all, yet that's too much information for this biography of MMY. Also, it looks like the additions were all from a single book. It's natural to want to add relevant material from a book one's just read. But when there are fifty books on a topic we need to show some restraint. Miles isn't the only or even the best account of the "Interaction with The Beatles". I've asked EMP to comment here. Again, I think that either the newly added material should be removed or a similar amount of material from other accounts should be added to restore the balance. Despite its prominence, the entire interaction lasted only about 8 months so making the section longer isn't ideal. But it's better than having an unbalanced section.   Will Beback  talk  00:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm clearly not defending EMP or anybody else. I'm discussing an addition and made a suggestion or two on how to deal with this situation. If that's not acceptable no problem. I don't agree with you and think your premise is incorrect and inappropriate per Wikipedia; that there is imbalance apparently because positive to the subject content was added. (olive (talk) 00:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC))

Before we ask EMP to rewrite the section it'd be helpful if he or she would first explain the changes that've already been made. It sounds like you won't object if someone cherry-picks another 170 words of quotations that give a different view of the matter.   Will Beback  talk  00:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Will, I find it strange that your main objection to the material is that it's positive. If it were negative it would have been acceptable? The section is properly sourced and the sources are authoritative. Again I can't help but think that if the content had been negative you would have had no objection to it. I would love to be wrong and I look forward to the day that you write that something is negative and thus should not be in this article, but until then, perhaps the fact that this is properly sourced (and not all that long, compared to the article as whole), should be enough to allow those words, as horribly positive as they are, to remain.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 01:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

My main objection is that the material is unnecessary. My secondary objection is that it is all positive towards the subject and that the existing material is already skewed in that direction. Your comments appear to fail to assume good faith on my part. I request that you refactor your personal remarks. It sounds like you would also not object if an editor were to add another 170 or 10,000 words on this topic, so long as they are properly sourced.   Will Beback  talk  01:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I have made my position clear on the content added. I've always suggested the section is too long, and in addition the complete position of each Beatle should be neutrally, accurately stated per the sources. As a compromise I suggested to you and EMP that the entire section could be condensed. I have no more to say and anything you add to that will be mischaracterizing what I'm saying. I'm not going to edit the content and I'm not going to remove it since it is reliably sourced. I'm sure you and EMP can work this out in an amicable way so that the section is neutral in a way that you both feel is correct.(olive (talk) 02:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC))

I can only work it out with EMP if EMP discusses the edit. As I wrote before, if there's no explanation for why this material improves the article, I'll remove it. As for Ringo Starr, I don't see any special need to devote a paragraph to each member of the band. Starr came late and left early, and has never been considered a particularly important actor in this event.   Will Beback  talk  03:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you give the editor time to respond... he may live in another part of the world, have a job... Paragraph? Who said that? You're going to remove reliably sourced content with out agreement?(olive (talk) 03:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC))

I never said I wouldn't give time for EMP to respond.   Will Beback  talk  04:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Does every editor who adds something on Wikipedia have to prove that additions improved things? Is this a standard? And how does one prove this? --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

If edits don't improve articles then they shouldn't be added. Is that disputed?   Will Beback  talk  04:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think most editors add content thinking they are improving an article. Initially, the individual editor judges the addition, or other editors together make that judgement, later other editors, then readers. The policies and guidelines help editors determine what to add and how useful it might be to good encyclopedic writing, and a subsequent good article.(olive (talk) 04:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC))

We should assume the editor was acting in good faith. EMP added sourced content in an effort to improve the article. Is there any reason to think otherwise? Demanding that an editor explain his edit, implies bad faith. Wikipedia is a collaborative process. We are here discussing that section of the article and the section may be amended, or not, based on consensus, with or without the participation of the original editor.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Asking an editor to explain how he or she thinks that an addition or deletion improves the article is hardly an implication of bad faith. It is an invitation to engage in the collaborative process. When an editor repeatedly makes extensive substantive edits and then pointedly refuses to discuss them, that editor is failing to be collegial or collaborative, not the person who makes the request for dicussion. As for the substance, I concur that this section is overly-long and that the addition of extensive quotes is extraneous and distracting. The structure of this section is argumentative rather than encyclopedic, and the recent additions make it more so. It is not an improvement. Fladrif (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding. I added this sourced content for the purpose of improving the article. Quite a lot there on Harrison and Lennon leaving and their reasoning, but almost nothing on why the two other Beatles left. However, I have shortened Starr’s comments, and will also look further for additional comment from Starr and McCartney to ensure that the comments added fairly represent coverage of their actions in this episode. I personally don't think this section needs shortening as it seems an notable and interesting event in the development of MMY’s organization.Early morning person (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Early morning person (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Refusing to discuss? Is that a stretch? He comments the day after the content was posted? On investigating, I see EMP has always discussed his edits especially if asked, and he hasn't made very many. Lets keep it real. OK.(olive (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC))

Hopefully EMP's response has resolved everyone's doubts about his good faith and will resolve the issue. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Nobody questioned EMP's good faith. Now that we have the editor joining us we can get down to discussing the actual edits. There are literally countless views of this issue. We can mine through sources and pick items that we think are interesting. If we did that this section could easily become 10,000 words long, and still be incomplete. As for the Starr quotation, Starr has been quoted frequently on the matter. So far as I can tell, his most commonly repeated quotation is the comparison to the Butlins holiday camps. If we want to heave a quote from Starr, that should be the one. Another issue is the use of quotations. We should really try to minimize their use. That's been said many times here. Adding long quotations would be fine if this were Wikiquote, but since this is Wikipedia we should try to summarize wherever possible. We don't need 42 words from McCartney to say that he enjoyed the experience, or 54 words from Barry Miles. Miles is just one of many biographers who've written about this event.

Here's what I suggest: let's try to find a consensus on roughly how long this section should be. Then we can work within that to provide balanced coverage. Given that all obituaries of MMY listed his involvement with the Beatles to be at least on a par with his development of TM, it should probably be fairly long. As of EMP's last edit,[25] the section is about 700 words out of a total article length of about 6800 words, or 10%. Does that seem about right? Even 20% might be defensible. OTOH, since there is an entire article devoted to this topic, we could also go with one medium-length summary paragraph, per WP:SUMMARY. Should we have an RfC to bring in outside views on this decision?   Will Beback  talk  22:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

So the paragraph length is fine as it is, but there are still too many quotes? The quotes could be shortened, I think, if the others agree. I am glad to see that this is turning out amicably.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

As a general standard I'd suggest that a biography and other scholarly sources carry more weight than an obituary, even a series of obituaries. Paul Mason for example devotes 22 pages of 288 to the Beatles and on some of those pages the Beatles are just barely mentioned. I'd be fine with the section as it is or shortened but wouldn't support anything longer.(olive (talk) 02:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC))

Before we all agree to a 7.5% guideline I'd like to hear from Keithbob, who's been a big supporter of using obituaries as a guideline for this article. FYI, 7.6% of 6800 words is 519. Before EMP's edit, the section was already 548 words. Reverting those additions would get us back in line with Olive's suggestion for the length.   Will Beback  talk  03:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

To compare a biography published in 1994 with this article, we'd need to exclude the part of this article concerning MMY's later life and funeral. That part appears to be about 655 words, so we're really looking at 7.6% of 6150 words, or about 470 words.   Will Beback  talk  04:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that deletion... not sure how that happened.(olive (talk) 04:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC))

I suggested condensing the section rather than removing any specific content. Condensing is different than selecting key information if that is the case and removing it. I can easily condense the section in terms of syntax while maintaining content that is important to different editors and while maintaining weight and neutrality. Since EMP has already deleted some of the content he added and has compromised, I wouldn't suggest pushing that content any more. However I can go with the group on this.

As well, while obituaries might be fine for certain aspects of the article especially if they are the best sources we have, if we have a better source as I suggest we do with the Paul Mason book, we can go with that. Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water or suggest something I didn't say. I consider the Mason book a better source for determining the ratio of Beatle content to a complete biography, since it is in itself a biography, and we are dealing with a relatively complete biography here. Obituaries are incomplete as biographies. Whether Kbob has used obits or not in the article is really a red herring. We 're talking about a very specific kind of information , and my opinion is that a full length biography is superior to obits for that information.(olive (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC))

• I can easily condense the section in terms of syntax while maintaining content that is important to different editors and while maintaining weight and neutrality.

I have a problem with that statement. First, it assumes that we should "maintain content that is important to different editors". According to which Wikipedia policy is that a factor in editing? Second, which editors added this material that we need to maintain? Third, the statement implies that the section is currently neutral, which I've already disputed. So condensing the existing material, including yesterday's edits, according to the principles in this statement would not be acceptable. On the other hand, using Mason's book as the basis for a complete re-write would make sense, and if Olive is willing to do that then I'd support it.   Will Beback  talk  04:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

If we have a limited number of words to devote to the section to keep it in proper proportion to the rest of the article then we need to decide how much space to devote to each aspect. Two short sentences can summarize the contact of Ringo Starr and MMY. "Starr and his wife left after ten days due to: dietary issues, fear of flying insects, a baby at home, preexisting commitments, or a lack of interest." & "Starr participated in the 'Change' concert and gave good wishes to the Maharishi after his death." Actually, we could even drop that first sentence. Let's keep the focus on MMY, even in this section. Rather than focusing on what the Beatles said about him, we should focus on how he interacted with the Beatles. There is plenty of scholarship on this topic.   Will Beback  talk  07:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the statement is qualified by, "while maintaining weight and neutrality...and the comment refers to a behavioural pillar of Wikipedia, collaboration. I respect the right of other editors to have a differing opinion on content, and that I am not the final authority on any article while as I said applying the appropriate editorial safe guards. I am referring to a respect I have for all editors who have edited.

I understood you to say that adding content that was positive to the subject was not acceptable. I don't see that as a neutral position, but if an editor sees the entire section as non neutral I suggest taking it line by line and rewriting it. If better sources are needed they can be changed at that time.(olive (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC))

Given the fact that there are quite a few sections in this article that would not be considered neutral, I do not think that olive was necessarily implying neutrality (though we'd have to ask olive), I took it to be a referral as to a way of getting consensus among the editors, which generally will imply maintaining content that is relevant to different parties.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk)

I don't think it's productive to spend much time going over what Olive meant. I disagree with the idea of "maintaining content that is relevant to different parties". The only "party" who matters here is MMY. Getting back to the issue at hand, is Olive willing to write new material based on the Mason biography? If not, I'll get a copy of it and do it myself.   Will Beback  talk  19:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't participate much today, but I did want to point out one simple thing. Perhaps this is due to my having a different edition of Mason's book than Olive, but in mine, printed in 94, there are two chapters and 36 pages (p's 104 - 140) devoted to MMY's interactions with the Beatles. A couple of those pages are light on either Maharishi or the Beatles (e.g. some material spent talking about the Beatles & P. Yogananda), but that is balanced by further discussion of MMY and Beatles in a subsequent chapter. So 36 seems solid. Into 288, that gives us 12.5% of the book. In terms of the length of this article (6800 or 6150 words depending on how you calculate) that gives us a proportional length of either 850 or 770 words for the Beatles section--if we agree with Mason's proportion.Early morning person (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave it to EMP and Olive to resolve how much space Mason devotes to the overall issue. How many words does he devote to Ringo Starr?   Will Beback  talk  22:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there agreement to throw out the entire section with sources, then to rewrite it based on one source. What's the reason for this? I did make two suggestions one to condense and the second to rewrite if needed line by line if that seems to be necessary, dealing with problematic sources at that time if there are any. In looking at the sources I see articles that are about Maharishi and his death but these aren't obituaries as was mentioned earlier,and some biographies. Sounds like EMP has more to say when there's time. We aren't in a rush are we? Lets see what EMP brings to the Beatles table.(olive (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC))

Every editor is welcome to comment, including EMP, but I don't gather that he or she has any particular expertise in this issue. I'm not sure what point Olive is making about obituaries, but I originally raised the issue of obits because Keithbob was suggesting we should base the article on them. Talk:Maharishi Mahesh Yogi/Archive 5#Rethinking the Lead. In general, mainstream newspaper articles are good sources, but scholarly publications are better. I assume the Mason book is as good, if not better, a source than any obit.   Will Beback  talk  01:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

NO I certainly don;t want the section to be torn out or radically changed. if there is a strong desire that it could be somewhat shortened that is fine but I have never heard that an entire source that was properly sourced is entirely redone without a good reason or consensus. As an editor once said "let's not get rid of something just because we don't like what it says"--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that's exactly what happened last November.[26]   Will Beback  talk  04:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Ladies, can we cut out the flying handbags please?! --BwB (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I have revised my additions to the Beatles section. On reflection, I see that the added quotations took up more space than they were worth, proportionately. Sorry for the delay on this, but I have a lot of other things going on.Early morning person (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I also found a quotation that could be left out "for brevity".   Will Beback  talk  22:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Good idea to drop that quotation, it being a family-read encyclopedia. BTW, my revisions yesterday had nothing to do with the appearance of that quotation.Early morning person (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Fewer quotations are better, as I said before. But regarding language and content, Wikipedia is not censored.   Will Beback  talk  07:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Surely one cannot receive a degree in another's name

"name appears in the Allahabad University list of distinguished alumni, where he is listed as M.C. Srivastava" this really ought to be removed or modified as it is completely wrong somewhere. Either Maharshi has not received the degree or the University has completely screwed up. Either way it is unlikely that his name could ever be anything but Mahesh Prasad Varma as that is what the TM official press says.--NotDoingDone (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a good point. Do we have a reliable source that connects the names MMY, Mahesh Prasad Varma and MC Srivastava? If not, then this university reference should be removed.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

We discussed this a few months ago. Talk:Maharishi_Mahesh_Yogi/Archive_5#Srivastava   Will Beback  talk  20:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Early Life

This section should only contain text about events that occurred in the subject's early life. Commentary about MMY's relationship to the various Shankaracharyas that have occupied that office since the death of MMY's teacher, guru dev, as well as visits from the Shakaracharya and comments made in 2010 on MMY's entire career by a claimant to the office of Shankaracharya etc. don't belong in the early life section. Maybe they could be moved to the Teachings section or some other appropriate place.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I see the point. Perhaps take the following chunk of text from Early Life and place it at the end of the "Tour in India (1955-1957)? Or possibly at the end of "World tours (1958-1968)"?

One of the claimants[35] to become Saraswati's successor, Swami Swaroopanand, told a German filmmaker in 2010 that, as a member of the trader class and Saraswati's bookkeeper, the Maharishi had no right to teach meditation or to give mantras, and that "Gurus don't sell their knowledge, they share it."[19] Other sources say that Maharishi worked closely with the Shankaracharya and was considered a "great disciple" and his "right (hand) man".[36][16] According to biographer Paul Mason, Swami Shantanand Saraswati (who Brahmananda Saraswati had named as his successor) "publicly commended the practice of the Maharishi’s meditation," referring to it as a ‘master key to the knowledge of Vedanta.’[37] Sociologist J.R Coplin, who conducted interviews in India as part of his research on the TM organization, says that Swami Shantanand’s successor as Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math, Swami Vishnudevanand, “speaks highly of Maharishi and sees his teaching as a reflection of their master’s (Brahmananda Saraswati)”.[38]Early morning person (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this seems like a sensible move. --BwB (talk) 09:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think that was an improvement as it throws off the chronology of the article. Why, in the section devoted to the mid-1960s, are we discussing things that happened in 2010 and in the mid-1950s? How does it fit into any sensible narrative? I suggest moving most of it back to "early life", and perhaps moving the 2010 material to the "death" section, or otherwise re-writing it, or moving it all to "death". But it has no connection to the events of 1967, IMO.   Will Beback  talk  08:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I put it there because it sort of fit in with the theme of MMY being criticized by some other Indian sages. However, I think you are right. The article is structured to a large extent around the chronology of the subject's life, and it was misplaced from that valid point of view. Seems to fit better at the end of the Years in Vlodrop (1991 - 2008) sect, not only chronologically, because of the later quotation from Swaroopananda, but also because it fits in thematically--MMY's career is assessed in the last sentence ("In 2008, BBC News reported . . .") and that kind of reflection is strongly present in the added text also.Early morning person (talk) 01:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

That's much better. Thanks for fixing it.   Will Beback  talk  08:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Will, that the current version is better.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

British or American spelling?

The subject was born in India (which uses British spellings, came to America in the 1960s and achieved fame there, achieved greater fame with the Beatles in London and India, then spent his last decades in Europe. Most of the sources in the article are American, and I assume most of the editors are American as well. Should we use British or American spelling for this article? The guideline says that if there is a clear connection to one or the other tradition then that should be the determinant, but if there's no such connection the article should follow whichever spelling style was used to write the article in the first place. (I looked a little in the history but couldn't find a distinctive edit in the first dozen). I mention it now because an uninvolved editor has determined that British English should be used.[27] I think it'd be good to either ratify or reject that decision. I have no preference. Does anyone care?   Will Beback  talk  11:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't really care, but since Maharishi was a citizen of India, it might be nice to use British English. So I'm OK with the recent edit to British spelling. --BwB (talk) 12:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No preference. British English is fine.(olive (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC))

"Indian Hindu spiritual teacher"

Someone added this text to the lead. Someone else deleted it, saying "reverted recently added POV phrasing--should be properly sourced".[28] There's no problem finding sources for that, and it seems like a reasonable introduction. What is the POV phrasing?   Will Beback  talk  20:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the syntax is what's confusing. If it means MMY is an Indian Hindu who is a spiritual teacher it would be accurate, it it means MMY is Indian who teaches Hindu spirituality that's more contentious and would need a source. I depends on where one places a comma:

Indian, Hindu spiritual teacher or Indian Hindu, spiritual teacher.(olive (talk) 23:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC))

There's no comma in the proposed text.

• Maharishi Mahesh Yogi... was an Indian Hindu spiritual teacher who developed [TM]'

Can you suggest an improvement?   Will Beback  talk  23:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I know there's no comma that's why there's a problem. Had there been a comma we could judge what the editor who entered the content meant. Sure, I could make several suggestions, but go ahead, I'm sure you and EMP can work this out. I'm fine with whatever is accurate per the sources.(olive (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC))

I think it's clear enough as written. I'll find sources and restore it.   Will Beback  talk  00:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

sigh, why pick a phrasing that causes needless misunderstandings? "Indian Hindu" smacks of tautology. Yes, I know that you can be an "Indian Muslim" or an "American Hindu", but nevertheless the term "Hindu" is simply the Persian equivalent of "Indian".

MMY was born in India. This is undisputed, and it isn't necessary to label him "Indian" at every turn. His TM is usually classified as "Neo-Hindu spirituality" or similar. It is obviously influenced by Hindu teaching, but clearly not classical or orthodox Hinduism.

Why reduce this to a silly apposition like "Indian Hindu spiritual teacher"? Just throw this out as bad phrasing, and then put it properly, and you have no dispute. --dab (𒁳) 12:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right that's it's not the best phrasing. Some anon wrote it. But a core idea of Wikipedia is to "state the obvious". Everybody in India is not Hindu, and every Hindu is not in India. The terms could be split across different sentences, something like this: "MMY was a spiritual teacher from India... MMY, a Hindu monk, was..." Would that be better?   Will Beback  talk  12:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Why not include his birth city in the first sentence after the date? That will establish his Indianness. The other title (or job description) "guru" means "spiritual teacher". Then the silly apposition becomes redundant (as well as silly.) Rumiton (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes since we have the next sentence saying "..the leader or "guru" of the TM movement, a new religious movement.." it is established that he is a guru, or spiritual leader. Enough said. --BwB (talk) 13:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Googling gives several cities for his birth. Is there a definitive source? Rumiton (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

if you read the article (yes, it has more than just the lead paragraph), it becomes clear that this is because he didn't like to talk about his origins. There is no definitive source.

Of course MMY had a Hindu background, and he was perceived as a Hindu guru, but I doubt whether we can say he was a "Hindu monk" after he had begun to exploit his "scientistic" shtick in the west.

If you ask me, it is fine as it stands. He was the guru of the TM movemement, which became successful in the 1970s because some of the hip pop culture people advertised it. It doesn't pay to harp on the Hindu or not Hindu question. It was "plastic export Hinduism", 'Hindu' in the eyes of the westerners who knew nothing about Hinduism, certainly not Hindu in the eyes of traditional or orthodox Hindus. --dab (𒁳) 15:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

"new spiritual movement"

I don't think that "remove weasel" describes this edit fully.[29] Be that as it may, "new spiritual movement" is not a common term. I searched Proquest for ["new spiritual movement" maharishi] and got zero hits. For ["new religious movement" maharishi] I got about 7 hits. For [cult maharishi] I got 466 hits. I'm not suggesting adding "cult", but I don't think "new spiritual movement" is common enough to include in the lead.   Will Beback  talk  22:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

That's my mistake. Apology for the confusion. That should read "spiritual movement". What are you suggesting by bringing up my edit summary? If we're going to use descriptions in this article of the TM movement it seems obvious to use our own description. This article is not about the TM movement and per WP:LEAD, i suspect we have too much information about TM movement for the lead on MMY, that's what the links are for. (olive (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC))

We all make mistakes, but adding significant material with an edit summary that only mentions deleting something is unhelpful. Not a big deal. If you're concerned about having too much information in lead then how does adding "spiritual movement" help?   Will Beback  talk  00:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Will, scrutinizing my edit summary is a senseless waste of anyone's time and energy. If I had a record of hiding my edits in my edit summary then maybe you'd learn something from my edit summaries. I don't. That I didn't add more to my edit summary is a completely random decision probably based on my being in a hurry.

We have in other articles defined TM movement as a spiritual movement. That's the consensus definition. Adding it to this article is not contentious or significant, its just the standard. If we are going to define TM movement which I don't think we have do because its linked, then the agreed upon definition is what I added. I suggest we remove the other descriptions as unnecessary detail for a lead. However, for the sake of consistency, whatever is left in this article, the first choice should be the obvious and agreed upon "spiritual movement"(olive (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC))

Well I guess leaving a misleading edit summary for a miss-worded edit could be regarded as a way of wasting editors' time too. If you didn't mean to write "new spiritual movement" then maybe you should fix it? Whatever the result of the discussion may be, it sounds like that is not what you're proposing.   Will Beback  talk  01:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to inconvenience anyone, so I'll keep that in mind. What are your thoughts on the various descriptions of the TM movement in the lead of this article?(olive (talk) 02:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC))

We do not have to describe the TMM in the lead. It is linked and readers can follow link if they have an interest. Let's take out all description of TMM and simply state that Maharishi was the leader of TMM. --BwB (talk) 08:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The "TM movement" is a spiritual movement. It is also a new religious movement (NRM). All NRMs are "spiritual movements", but mot all spiritual movements are NRMs. MMY's notability is entirely due to his being the founder of a NRM, so I do not think it is superfluous to mention this fact in the lead. We cannot expect the reader of the lead section to be aware that the "TMM" is a Neo-Hindu NRM. If you are aware of this fact, chances are you already know who MMY is anyway. --dab (𒁳) 10:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

While I think the original edit was helpful, as other edits have also been, I can't say that any of them are worth the hassle. I suggest going back to the status quo ante.   Will Beback  talk  11:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence is a battle-scarred piece of junk at the moment. Going back to a more elegant version wouldn't hurt. Rumiton (talk) 11:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I must agree.

Battle-scarred piece of junk: developed the Transcendental Meditation technique, and was the leader or "guru" of the TM movement, classified in diverse ways including as a new religious movement, spiritual movement, and as "Neo-Hindu"

reverting to : was the leader or "guru" of the TM movement, a "Neo-Hindu" new religious movement dedicated to his Transcendental Meditation technique

Please, I don't insist on a particular revision, but if you must edit this, make sure you don't end up with a ridiculous version that does nothing but make people roll their eyes. --dab (𒁳) 14:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Elegant in the first line would be simply stating," Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (Sanskrit महर्षि महेश योगी maharṣi maheśa yogī), born Mahesh Prasad Varma (January 12, 1914 - February 5, 2008) developed the Transcendental Meditation technique and was the leader or "guru" of the TM movement.

Some further thoughts on what we have now:

-NRM, spiritual movement (removed), and Neo Hindu are terms used to categorize and pigeon hole often for the sake of study. TMM has been categorized as one of these.

-TMM can be described in multiple ways, but first, it is above all the structure of organizations and techniques that developed around the Transcendental Meditation technique.That is its primary definition and description. Categorizing and describing are very different ways of dealing with information.

-If we are going to categorize and or define why not categorize TM technique, then Neo Hindusim, then SRM. They're linked, that's why, and this is a lead on MMY not on any of these other topics. TMM is linked for the reader who wants a full description of what TMM is.

-I'd like to simplify what we have in the lead and allow the links to do the work of describing TMM, lessening the clutter in those first few lines.

-I won't make this change unless we have general agreement.(olive (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC))

Like this version - simple, straightforward, to the point. The links can tell the whole story. Vote to use this version. --BwB (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

well, doh, the entire point of an encyclopedia is to "pigeonhole" things. We can lose the "Neo-Hindu" as idiosyncratic, but there is no way around "new religious movements". The attempts to remove this is just pov-pushing by TM adherents, it wouldn't occur to any uninvolved observer to even bring this up. We also have Christians and Muslims trolling Wikipedia who insist that their faith isn't a "religion". I am sure you can wave your hands until Christianity stops qualfying as a religion, but Wikipedia isn't the place for this kind of rhetoric exercise.

I am also not sure whether MMY "developed" the TM technique. What is clear is just that he named it (his trademark being emphatically non-Sanskritic, "scientistic" terminology, contrasting him with his Sanskrit-heavy competition of the Prabhupada variety) and sold it extremely successfully. As for "developing", hey, it's "chant a mantra 15 minutes a day", the "developing" of this technique isn't what makes him notable (it's just bits taken from his days with Swami Saraswati), it is his extremely astute selling of the same technique to western hipsters. --dab (𒁳) 11:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a topic of considerable debate, and we probably won't be able to resolve it easily. Many sources elide the matter and simply refer to TM as something that MMY brought to the West, or as MMY's TM, using a possessive. I think we should try to avoid this debate regarding the MMY lead, though it might be a meaty topic for the other sections or articles.   Will Beback  talk  12:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

As a verb, pigeon hole means to place boundaries or stereotype as a noun means an often simplified category, so no, Wikipedia doesn't operate that way. It unfortunate this discussion deteriorated into attack and opinion. In fact the lead should summarize, and the links to complete articles provide the best comprehensive information we have without cluttering up the syntax. By the way sources seem to indicate the TM mantras are silent and not chanted.(olive (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC))

Every time we decide where to put something it, or whether to include it at all, we're setting boundaries for an article. It's unavoidable.   Will Beback  talk  11:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Since others have felt at liberty to change the sentence in question while the discussion is ongoing in this thread, I have restored the text to a version previously in place. --BwB (talk) 10:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Abandoning the scorpion nation

I am not personally familiar with this subject, but this apparent reference to Britain seems worthy of inclusion (if well sourced.) Rumiton (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The comment has been reported very widely, especially in British papers. I can't find a full quotation anywhere, though. The fullest version is in this sentence:

• Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, who might be a midfield in himself, says there is no point, post Iraq, in wasting "the beautiful nectar on a scorpion nation".
  • Football: Premiership: Coleman peddling hard as Fayed's bike looms Jeremy Alexander at Ewood Park. The Guardian. London (UK): Aug 22, 2005. pg. 8

This source reports another fragment:

• The UK, the 95-year-old sage claims, has become a "Scorpion nation", and meditative teachings merely serve to "feed the destroyer of the world". [30]

In any case, MMY's declaration and his order to stop teaching TM in the UK seems notable enough to include.   Will Beback  talk  09:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain where the "fullest version" is from, and what "might be a midfield in himself" is supposed to mean?

The interesting thing here is that MMY seems to imply that practicing TM does not necessarily make you a better person; if practiced by evil people, TM would appear to strengthen or "feed" them, but in doing so only make them more evil. Based on this, it would seem that followers of MMY need to take great care only to teach TM to good people, and to keep the practice away from evil people. This is a radically different angle from the earlier teachings that if only everybody would practice TM, world peace and universal happiness would immediately follow. --dab (𒁳) 11:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I added the citation to the first excerpt above. The quotation was so well known that it was used as an analogy in a report on a football match. MMY apparently issued some sort of statement or press release. Here are some other germane reports from the Proquest newspaper archive.

• In 2005 he ordered his followers to stop teaching the technique in Britain in protest against Tony Blair's support for the US during the Iraq war and the British electorate's failure to unseat him at the general election. He said there was no point in wasting the beautiful nectar of TM on a scorpion nation.
  • How The Beatles' meditation technique could cure depression Jeremy Laurance. The Independent. London (UK): Apr 8, 2010. pg. 16
• When the UK proved impervious to the thought beams, he announced that there was no point in continuing to waste the "beautiful nectar" of TM on a "scorpion" nation such as Britain, ordering his followers to withdraw their meditative services since they served only to "feed the destroyer of the world".
  • Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Sunday Independent. Dublin: Feb 10, 2008. pg. 1
• Back in 2005, the Maharishi declared Britain a "scorpion nation" and banned the teaching of TM in this country. He was angry about Britain's influence on the wider world and in particular its involvement in Iraq.
  • THE TOWN THAT LOST ITS GURU; Mark Hughes. The Independent. London (UK): Feb 7, 2008. pg. 16
• In 2005, he ordered his followers to stop teaching the technique in Britain in protest against Tony Blair's support for the US in the Iraq war and the British electorate's failure to unseat him at the general election. He said there was no point in wasting the "beautiful nectar" of TM on a "scorpion nation."
  • The Big Question: What is transcendental meditation, and is it the cure for society's ills? Jeremy Laurance. Belfast Telegraph. Belfast: Oct 25, 2007. pg. 1
• Now, though, a dark cloud casts its shadow over the Maharishi's British flock. The UK, the 95-year-old sage claims, has become a 'Scorpion nation', and meditative teachings merely serve to 'feed the destroyer of the world'. The Maharishi, it seems, is rather ticked off about the Iraq War and the arms trade. Teaching TM must cease in the UK immediately, he has ordered. 'We are rejecting one nation " Britain " which has proven to be a poisonous, divisive influence in the world family,' the leader blasts in a memo issued to his Global Country of World Peace recently.
  • The town that lost its guru, Stephen Khan. The Independent. London (UK): Aug 17, 2005. pg. 36.37
• You can do it in peace-loving countries such as Ireland and the Netherlands. And, despite its record in Vietnam and Iraq, you can do it in the US. But try meditating for a more enlightened Britain and you could find yourself accused of feeding "the destroyer of the world".
• Nearly 40 years after he first turned the Beatles on to transcendental meditation at his Indian ashram - sparking an upsurge of interest in his philosophy across the world - the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi has ordered his followers to stop teaching his advanced meditation and levitation techniques in Britain.
• Disgusted at Tony Blair's support for the US in the Iraq war and the British electorate's failure to unseat the prime minister at the general election, the 95-year-old guru says there is no point in continuing to waste the "beautiful nectar" of TM on a "scorpion" nation.
• "The good effects of transcendental meditation - increased creativity and long life - should not be given to a dangerous country that is constantly busy destroying the world," said the maharishi, speaking at one his regular press conferences in the Netherlands. "TM is a gift from me to those who want to create peace and harmony in the world."
• "It has had quite a deep impact on our organisation," acknowledged Geoffrey Clements, the former Natural Law candidate for Southport who also chairs the maharishi's UK charity. "But the maharishi explained to us that the poison in this country was so concentrated that he felt it was no use our continuing to nurture creativity and intelligence here."
• To generate a similar "maharishi effect" across the UK, however, Dr Clements said the Skelmersdale centre would have needed much larger groups. "Unfortunately, except for brief periods over last summer, we weren't able to create a critical mass," he said. "That was a source of disappointment to the maharishi. There was a measure of exasperation when he spoke to us in May because there is a large percentage of people in this country who have expressed their distaste for the government, but in the end he came to the conclusion that the tradition of divide and rule in Britain was too deeply embedded."
  • All you need is love and peace - but not in destructive , so maharishi pulls out: Followers split as 95-year-old guru ends meditation teaching in 'scorpion nation' Mark Honigsbaum. The Guardian. London (UK): Aug 15, 2005. pg. 3

The Honigsbaum piece is the most thorough, obviously. I suppose calling TM a personal gift from MMY might also be contrary to normal TM dogma. However I don't think we can add any of our own conclusions. Let's just summarize what Honigsbaum says in a short paragraph or a couple of lines.   Will Beback  talk  12:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

That looks fine. It might be good to get some official confirmation though, especially as I see it claimed that MMY rescinded the ban about 2 years later, "at about the time that Tony Blair ceased to be Prime Minister." Rumiton (talk) 13:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

We also have this mentioned in another article if I remember. My thought is that while this may be significant in terms of impact on a movement's history and development, I don't see its importance in terms of impact on MMY and his life. However, I'm fine with including content on this since others are in agreement.(olive (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC))

The matter was featured prominently in MMY's obituaries, at least those in British papers. Here's The Telegraph 's obit,[31] which devotes about a tenth of the space to it. The BBC posted a special page just to get public opinions about the declaration.[32]   Will Beback  talk  20:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

To Rumiton: Here's an article from a local paper about the lifting of the ban.[33]   Will Beback  talk  20:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That looks like enough to establish notability and provide a balanced coverage of the incident and its resolution. Does anyone else object? Rumiton (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we could post the text here for discussion prior to publication? Just a thought. --BwB (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI, here is the applicable text from the press conference excerpts:

‘When I am adopting some countries to raise them to invincibility, I am withdrawing all my interest from one country. I declared this three, four days ago, and I am now telling the world press that I have withdrawn my activity from Britain. . . .

‘I am not going to feed Britain with those values which are produced through the Transcendental Meditation Technique. All the scientific research that Dr Hagelin has been telling me about from week to week, and even now today, shows that TM increases life span and reduces cancer. So I do not want to increase the life span of the destroyer of the world.

‘Therefore, I am very happy to withdraw my interest and close my movement in Great Britain. This was three, four days ago. This beautiful knowledge, this nectar, cannot be given to those who are destroyers of the world. . . . This beautiful nectar is not for the dragon, so that he can swallow the world.

‘I want to let it go down in history that when I am adopting countries to make them invincible, I am refusing the nectar tablets from being wasted to feed the destroyers of the world. This programme is to bring invincibility. I must withdraw from the destructive policy of Great Britain. I must withdraw. I cannot support life and long life and healthy life and more creativity in a country which is destroying the world.

‘Let the world press take notice of it. Dr Hagelin, you can inform the world press that I enjoy their reports of the good things that are happening here and there. That I appreciate, that I expected, that I am creating in the world. At the same time, there is something which I must reject and denounce, so I have withdrawn my efforts from Great Britain. I have put my sole parental role in three, four, five countries, and in the whole family of nations. Things are going to be better and better. But there is something which is chronic. When there is no hope, let them go where they want to go.

‘That is one new thing in my planning—adopting three, four countries and rejecting one country. This is the effectiveness of the programme. When the programme is so effective, then it is my responsibility to not feed those who are destroyers of the world. As with a snake or a scorpion, you cannot afford to feed the scorpion, because the more healthy the scorpion becomes, the more sting will come to life. We have no plan to destroy, but we can quietly withdraw our positive support from a country. Now the press will find more negativity rising in Britain, because whatever candle lights were lit up have been extinguished.’

— 11 May 2005 Press Conference Highlights [34]

He refers to it as "my movement". IIRC, some editors here had at one time insisted that there was no movement, and if there was then it wasn't called a movement. But that's beside the point.   Will Beback  talk  23:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

At this time, there is no official TM movement as I've said over and over again. It is a cliche ridden term used to encompass. There's a big difference in MMY, who had the final say on the diverse aspects of very loosely held together group of organizations, saying "my movement" to describe those organizations, and a group of editors defining this movement as an entity in an encyclopedia per the often times muddled use of the term in the press and in sources where its hard to even tell many times what is meant, an organization or a technique. While I went with the agreement of other editors on this, I don't agree that there is an official movement, and I suspect the TM movement article is a kind of subtle OR. For the record, but discussed to death, my position.(olive (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC))

• In 2005, the Maharishi ordered a suspension in TM training in Britain due to his opposition to Prime Minister Tony Blair's decision to support the Iraq War. The Maharishi said that he did not want to waste the "beautiful nectar" of TM on a "scorpion nation". He lifted the ban after Blair's resignation in 2007.

The coverage in the history article can discuss the departure of UK meditators, etc.   Will Beback  talk  23:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Slightly different syntax: Because he opposed Prime Minister Tony Blair's decision to support the Iraq War, the Maharishi ordered that all teaching of Transcendental Meditation be suspended.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs)

That seems like "burying the lead". The key fact was that he stopped meditation training and called Britain a "scorpion nation". The cause, while important, is not what the sources focused on.   Will Beback  talk  08:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure about "burying the lead" but logically I believe it should be: (1) This is what he did. And (2) this is why he did it. Rumiton (talk) 09:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow!. I changed the syntax to make it flow better. Assume good faith anyone. I tried to bury the lead? Amazing instance of ABF.(olive (talk) 15:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC))

Same back at ya. :) Rumiton (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC) The above text in italics looks about right to me. Neutral and concise, therefore not giving undue weight to this incident. Rumiton (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

My comment wasn't directed at you, and there is a point where AGF isn't funny anymore. No reader is going to look at those sentences and infer one meaning or another dependent on this simple syntax change. I thought Will's version was fine and I thank him for drafting it.The syntax is slightly awkward.(olive (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC))

Saying that a draft "buries the lead" is not an assumption of bad faith - it's a criticism of the proposed edit. Please stop bickering. If we all think that the first draft is fine then let's just use it. If someone can explain why it's grammatically incorrect then a change would be warranted. I'll go ahead and post it with citations.   Will Beback  talk  23:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Bickering? There's a difference between incorrect grammar and a syntax change. I didn't say there was a grammatical mistake, I said the syntax was slightly awkward. Changes in articles are warranted all of the time when one editor works with another. If you don't want your version copy edited for syntax, I have no desire to stand in your way. Its not worth my time arguing about syntax when there are bigger issues to deal with. Thanks for drafting the lines.(olive (talk) 00:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC))

(undent) Like the wording in the article. Thanks Will. --BwB (talk) 09:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Glad you approve. There are many small details of this subject's life that deserve small attention. As I often say, we're just here to verifiably summrize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. Little by little, we're making the best biography of the subject.   Will Beback  talk  10:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

To Rumiton: I just came across this book, Totality Beliefs and the Religious Imagination, which briefly mentions the withdrawal as an illogical kind of punishment.[35] It's a first person account of an 11-year involvement with the TM movement.   Will Beback  talk  00:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. Well-written and even-handed, but seems to just touch on the quitting of Britain as a paradox. He does not really seem to cast any light on it, though I think he does make some sense of it in the whole picture he draws of the personality and provenance of MMY. I had a similar problem in researching the Prem Rawat article. Reinhard Hummel spends half a chapter in explaining the tensions that arose between Rawat's father and the organisation that arose to support him (the Divine Light Mission) and how those tensions shaped the resulting movement. He is a very thorough and careful researcher, yet without any single statement that summarizes his opinion, it is hard to use his research in Wikipedia. Rumiton (talk) 12:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Lest anyone think otherwise, it appears to be self-published so we wouldn't use it as a source. The same author published through regular channels a book on TM in the 1970s, but it's rare. If I ever track it down it might be a source, but not Totality Beliefs and the Religious Imagination.   Will Beback  talk  09:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

"Pool of mud"

An even more widely reported comment and command was when Maharishi suggested that his staff and disciples leave Washington DC in 1991 after a multi-year effort there, calling that city a "pool of mud".[36] One newspaper quotes him as saying, "I would not advise anyone to stay in the pool of mud," [..] "Save yourself from the criminal atmosphere . . . At least be there only during office hours." I'd suggest a similar treatment, maybe slightly shorter, as the British ban.   Will Beback  talk  08:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Are there any more such incidents of MMY's condemning a particular area? If so, to avoid undue weight perhaps they should be acknowledged in one reference, rather than enumerating them one by one. Rumiton (talk) 13:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

If we have also... and I don't know if there are sources on this....comments MMY made that were positive about places he visited should this also not be added. As it is, what is it we are saying about MMY... That he had opinions? Not sure if I'm asking this in a way that makes any sense.(olive (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC))

It's not just the commenting, but the order to leave that probably makes these so notable. There are cases in which he ordered people to go to places, like Manila, Managua, etc. for short term Maharishi Effect sessions. I'm not sure how many of those are connected with pithy comments that have been reported in the media.   Will Beback  talk  20:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Being new to the subject, I am getting the impression that Maharishi considered some places bad enough to need his help but not good enough to deserve it. This seeming paradox hangs in the air somewhat for me. Am I misunderstanding? Has any source, primary or secondary, commented on it? Rumiton (talk) 03:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I believe so. Britain and Washington are the largest was of withdrawals of support that I've heard of. But his offers of support have been even better reported. He is known for supporting authoritarian or non-democratic governments, and has offered his consulting services to dictatorships and socialist systems (and at least one governemnt did sign a contract). There's a remarkable public letter from Tony Nader (now known as Maharaja Raja Raam) praising Robert Mugabe. OTOH, he [the maharishi] hated GW Bush and reportedly celebrated for three days when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, an architect of the Iraq war, resigned. There are certainly many sources that discuss either his changing views on politics or his requests to followers to conduct special group mediation sessions. Many of those special sessions were studied and published, see TM-Sidhi program#Maharishi Effect. The Manila trip in support of Marcos led to anti-TM demonstrations (though they still reported it a success). See History of Transcendental Meditation#1980s. We might write a short paragraph on those special sessions but they're covered in other articles at greater length.   Will Beback  talk  09:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I see. I really meant has any source tried to explain this seeming contradiction? I guess for us the question is, Where do we stop? It seems to me a brief mention of Washington might appropriately be added to the UK paragraph, but mentioning his apparent (or alleged) collaboration with despots might be a bit over the top, as well as being adequately covered elsewhere. Rumiton (talk) 10:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't proposing adding material on that issue, though if more sources on it turn up we may revisit that. I was just answering your question with some background. I have seen him say that TM always does good. When asked if it was a panacea he said yes. As I look through sources I'll keep an eye out for attempts to explain the contradiction.   Will Beback  talk 

Thanks. It's quite a fascinating subject. Rumiton (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I think so too. There are many surprising dimensions. Although similarities abound to other spiritual and political movements, there are numerous unique elements that add up to a complex whole unlike any other. I've done a comparable depth of research on Prem Rawat and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, but the latter pile is three times as high. We aren't the only ones who find it interesting.   Will Beback  talk  12:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, FWIW, the Washington DC exodus was different from the British shutdown. He ordered his people out of Washington because it was hopeless and to save them from being harmed by the negativity there, while he ordered them out of Britain to punish the nation (or maybe just the prime minister). It's a interesting that just three years after lifting the ban the UK now has a PM who practices TM.   Will Beback  talk  12:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

has it occurred to you that perhaps, during the 40 years between 1965 to 2005, MMY turned from a well-meaning Hindu teacher bringing the practice of meditation to the west, to a cranky, megalomaniac self-deluded guru who lost all grasp of reality, trying to "punish" governments by not teaching in their jurisdiction? I humbly submit that this assumption would go to explain most of what happened with the movement during the period. --dab (𒁳) 12:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, DB - what happened to the "movement" during this period? --BwB (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I will say this. I think that MMY and his movement have received less serious attention from scholars in recent decades than they did in the 1970s. Whatever the reasons, the changes over the last 30 years have not been fully investigated or described. When historians do write this chapter they may agree with you. But we shouldn't spend too much time speculating on that ourselves.   Will Beback  talk  12:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting that just three years after lifting the ban the UK now has a PM who practices TM. Interesting? Mygosh, that's almost eery! Rumiton (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Cameron, Hague and Clegg all have learned and/or practice TM. --BwB (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• In 1991, the Maharishi called Washington D.C., which had the second largest TM community in the US, a "pool of mud" and told his followers to save themselves from its "criminal atmosphere".

How's that? More details can go into the "history" article.   Will Beback  talk  23:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems fine but needs to have the context which is ,"has abandoned his decadelong effort to lower the city's crime rate and, not incidentally, promote world peace through collective meditation."

• How about : In 1991, after a decade of attempts to lower the rate of crime in the city, the Maharishi called Washington D.C., which had the second largest TM community in the US, a "pool of mud" and told his followers to leave and save themselves from its "criminal atmosphere".

Maybe something like this?(olive (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC))

That looks good to me.   Will Beback  talk  23:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The occurrence is interesting and notable, and those words appear to summarize it well. Rumiton (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Added the content.(olive (talk))

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi passport

In the article we have had text about the birth year of Maharishi from Mason with a question about its reliability sine Jan 2010. Do we feel that the text should now be removed?

"The place of birth given in his passport is "Pounalulla", India and his birth date as 12 January 1918." --BwB (talk) 09:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Dbachmann added the tag "Verify credibility" on 1/18/10 [37] but gave no indication as to whether he had any real question as to the source. Is there any question as to its authenticity? Seeing that this document was obtained and posted online by Paul Mason, I would think that there is some mention of it in Mason's biography of MMY. A quick Google search appears to show that there are other reliable sources (excluding the Rajeev Verma book, which plagiarizes Wikipedia) that contain the same information and reference this passport. I'm inclined to think that this appears to be an authentic document reliably published because Mason is a recognized expert on MMY's biography, and on balance this would appear to be a RS and a permissible use under WP:PRIMARY of what is clearly a primary source. So, I wouldn't remove it. But, if others have a contrary view and we can't come to an agreement, I'd suggest taking this up at WP:RSN for outside assessment. Fladrif (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I was just wondering if after 1 year whether it should be removed or replaced with a source that is clearly "credible". Not fussed either way, it just came to my attention. --BwB (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

If there's no ongoing question of the reliability of the passport then let's remove the tag.   Will Beback  talk  19:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we could solicit an opinion from User:Dbachmann since he tagged it in the first place. I'll place a note on his talk page and see if he wants to comment. --BwB (talk) 09:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Since we have not heard from dbachmann I will remover tag. --BwB (talk) 09:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The choice of lead photo

It puzzles me that such a heavily cropped photo has been chosen as lead photo. What is the rationale of the choise? Are there others that find this choise debateable?

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

There are very few options from which to pick. That's about the only picture we have of him from the era of his greatest fame. The others are from when he was much older.   Will Beback  talk  08:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought there were thousands pf pictures of the Maharishi taken over the years. Wonder why we have to have a photo from the "era of his greatest fame"? --BwB (talk) 08:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

For copyright reasons, we can only use pictures that have free licenses. Basically, people have to donate pictures they've taken themselves. If you or anyone you know has photos of him to donate then those would enrich the Wikipedia Commons. If the main photo of the article does not depict him around the time of his greatest notability, his "prime", then which period of his life would be better to represent? I don't see any problem with the photo, or even the cropping.   Will Beback  talk  09:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

His era of "greatest notability" seems like subjective evaluation. Is there a Wikipedia policy that specifies we use a photo of "greatest notability"? If not then Wiki Commons has several photos from different periods of his life.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The policy is "use common sense". The other photos in the Commons are not as good. The only other one that's perhaps usable, in my opinion, is File:MaharishiMaheshYogi-01.jpg, which was taken just two months before his death. We already include a similar picture (with eyes closed) later in the article. Is there any actual problem with the photo in question? What's the issue here?   Will Beback  talk  22:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

My primary issue here is that the photo is so heavily cropped. In a biographical article in a dictionary it is not usual, nor, in my opinion, comme il fault, to have a picture where a large portion of the person's head is cropped away. Also, the technical quality of the photo could be better.

I think it's a very valid point that there should be one picture ("lead picture" or not) from "from the era of his greatest fame" (late sixties to early seventies?). Finding a better public domain picture from Maharishi's most notable years is probably not undoable.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 06:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

When you find a better public domain picture let us know.   Will Beback  talk  06:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

To me, common sense, would mean using one of the high quality photos we have available (File:MaharishiMaheshYogi-06.jpg) and putting the lower quality photo in the History section of the corresponding time period. That would be my suggestion. Later if a better 70's picture is found, we could consider switching.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to only have one photo from approximately the same time period.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 22:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The photo in question is a high quality photo. The photo Keithbob is proposing is from the end of MMY's life, a year or less before he died. File:MaharishiMaheshYogi-06.jpg   Will Beback  talk  22:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Note number 173

There's an error message in red.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Reference corrected on February 7. Thank you, AnomieBOT!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maharishi_Mahesh_Yogi&diff=412613428&oldid=412311967

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Coplin's speculations on "Shaivite family", note 18

Note 18:

The given name "Mahesh", an epithet of Shiva, indicated that the Maharishi came from a Shaivaite family.

Maharishi's first names are said to be Mahesh Prasad, but, on the other hand, his father's first names are said to be Ram Prasad. Using Coplin's flimsy logic, one could obviously just as well conclude that Maharishi came from a Vaishnava family. It would appear to me that Coplin's statement is pure speculation, and of a highly debateable encyclopedic value.

[ Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 9 March 2011 ]

Oops, I forgot to sign! This was written by me on March 9.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• The name "Mahesh" indicates that the family was probably Saiva (worshippers of Shiva), the largest Hindu group in the South, but second to Vaishnavas in North India where Krishna's life unfolded. -Coplin "SRM's Emergence"

As far as I can tell, Coplin does not cite that assertion in his paper. If we deem Coplin to be a reliable source, then we can't just toss out his findings because we disagree with them. However this is clearly presented by Coplin himself as speculation, which we don't convey on our text. We have two options: fixing it with attribution ("According to Coplin, the given name "Mahesh", an epithet of Shiva, indicated that the Maharishi probably came from a Shaivaite family") or deleting it on account of it being unhelpful speculation. I don't see it as being that helpful to readers, since we can't say for sure. Any other thoughts?   [[User

Will Beback|Will Beback]]  talk  21:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you have stated the two options clearly, and I suggest the second one. A general problem with Wikipedia is that it is a collage. It is pointless to adduce unhelpful matter only because there is a written reference. Anyone can write anything, and the fact that someone has written something is not a good criterion for inclusion. Coplin is not an expert in this field, and thus not a reliable source — this is substantiated both by his lack of references and by his confused wording in the quotation above. Besides, as I have indicated, if the Maharishi's father was called Ram Prasad, then anyone can see that Coplins speculations are nonsense.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 05:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, speculations and findings are different things. Findings would indicate research.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 06:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Am/Br English

The article has a mix of American and British English spellings. The guideline here is consistency and lang variety appropriate to the subject. The subject being Indian I should think Br English favored. Spicemix (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I see in the Infobox Br Eng was specified in Nov 2010. Spicemix (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Good. Let's use British English spelling. --BwB (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense to me too, but one small point. Normally, we spell out numbers up to nine, and use numerals for 10 and up. See [38]. But perhaps there is some different approach in British style? Early morning person (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I see the next point there allows flexibility so long as there's consistency. The article before was a mix of both styles. I think spelt-out numbers, up to say a hundred, are considered a more pleasing or more literary style in Am and Br Eng, and my own judgement is one might go one way or the other depending on whether it's a more scientific or literary article. The William Shakespeare article, considered high quality, spells out ten, and goes into numbers elsewhere, and Winston Churchill is mixed.... Spicemix (talk) 09:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I find numbers more visually pleasing and easier to pick out in dense text. --BwB (talk) 09:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Spicemix's comment on flexibility as long as there is consistency: yes, quite right, as long as the number over nine is expressed in two or fewer words [39].Early morning person (talk) 13:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"unrelated to religion"

• ... the leader or "guru" of the TM movement, varyingly characterized as a "Neo-Hindu" new religious movement, and as an organization unrelated to religion.

The highlighted text was added with the edit summary "adjusted language for NPOV".[40] The footnote includes these citations:

• The Herald Scotland, April 21, 2007 Meditation-for-old-hippies-or-a-better-way-of-life? [41]
• Johnston, William. . Silent Music: The Science of Meditation. Harper SanFrancisco, a division of Harper Collins, (1974); p15.[42]

I don't see that assertion in either source. The Rawson article (at least the excerpted part) doesn't mention religion, and the Johnston book doesn't mention the TM movement. I'm sure we can find better sources which make this assertion directly.   Will Beback  talk  23:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I've found the complete Rawson article here:[43]. Rawson repeats the standard[44] "mantra", "TM is not a religion and requires no change in belief or lifestyle." However it is not clear that he is referring to the movement. While practicing the technique does not require changes in lifestyle, belonging to the movement does. I think we shouldn't make the highlighted assertion unless we can find a source which supports it directly.   Will Beback  talk  00:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

If the sources are weak, yes we should endeavor to improve them.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

If you feel the sources are not strong enough we can try to find more. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'll remove it sources that say the movement is not related to religion.   Will Beback  talk  21:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a bit rushed. It is not what I meant. Better to not remove anything until we have come up with some sort of solution.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The sources don't support the assertion. Please don't add it back until we've found sources for it.   Will Beback  talk  03:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I would not add it back because it would be petty, but I think that if I had removed a source unilaterally you would have gotten quite annoyed at me. I believe the most correct and respectful thing to do would be for you to restore it yourself and wait for this to be resolved.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Quite inappropriate to delete with no consensus while the matter is under discussion and after WBB has said "I'm sure we can find better sources which make this assertion directly."-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Keithbob, when I recently came across another assertion that was incorrectly sourced, and started a thread about it, you wrote that when an editor misreads a sources its best to make the correction and move on. Talk:Transcendental Meditation movement#Poor research, again.

Nobody here disputes that the assertion wasn't supported by the sources. I'm sure no one here thinks that unsourced statements should be kept. The addition of the text was a well-intentioned error that has been corrected. The problem is resolved. If someone finds sources which say that the movement is unrelated to religion then we can add those. No problem.   Will Beback  talk  21:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Editors in this thread said they were willing to discuss and address your concerns-- there was no consensus for removal. It is therefore quite inappropriate to delete this sourced content without consensus while the matter is under discussion and especially after you yourself have said at the beginning of this thread "I'm sure we can find better sources which make this assertion directly."-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

As soon as we find a source which supports the assertion we can add it back. No problem. As I said before, I'm sure we can find a source for this. Let's keep looking.   Will Beback  talk  22:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

American Veda

In his book American Veda Goldberg notes that one of Maharishi's central points was that Vedanta is compatible with science but I cannot see that point being clearly brought out in the article. This seems to be an ommission. Any comments on this? Oxford73 (talk) 08:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Great Oxford, if you have sources, then please propose some text on this point for discussion here. --BweeB (talk) 08:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well something like "Interfaith minister Phillip Goldberg notes that when Maharishi first began teaching he had three main aims: to revive the spiritual tradition in India, that meditation was for everyone and not just for recluses, and to show that Vedanta is compatible with science." American Veda, 2010, New York, Harmony Books pp154-155. Harmony is a subsidiary of Random House. Oxford73 (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

On reflection it may be better to omit the bit about Phillip Goldberg as his name will be in the reference and start from "when". What I like about this is that it gives some sort of overall summary. The article, as with many wiki articles, is a little bitty.Oxford73 (talk) 10:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure where to put it. Any suggestions? I would suggest somewhere early on perhaps tour of India section. Oxford73 (talk) 05:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

What about the "philosophy and teaching" section? --BweeB (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

OK did it. Oxford73 (talk) 05:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Good.--BweeB (talk) 08:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

neo-Hindu

I put Neo-Hindu down in case to neo-Hindu recently, but now it's gone back up again. MOS is quite explicit: "Religions, sects, and churches and their followers (in noun or adjective form) start with a capital letter....Philosophies, theories, movements, and doctrines do not begin with a capital letter". A comparable example is neo-Nazi.

I'm not clear why the phrase is in quotes: "Neo-Hindu". It seems to indicate that the term is exotic or non-standard or contentious. If that's the case, it shouldn't be given such a prominent place at the top of the article. A lack of currency and importance seems to be borne out when we follow the link: Neo-Hindu is not more than a disambiguation page, and when we end up at Hinduism in the West, we find an unreferenced article which also puts "Neo-Hindu" in quotes. Better I think to take it out the lead and move it down the article. Spicemix (talk) 05:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Both Hindu reform movements and Hinduism in the West are applicable. The term is in the lead because of its importance to this topic, not because of the quality of the target article(s). Rather than deleting it perhaps we'd be better off improving those articles.   Will Beback  talk  06:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think a good start would be to have neo-Hindu. Also the quotes issue needs to be fixed. As things stand, the term is effectively being tagged as questionable, and as such is placed in a very prominent position in the article. Spicemix (talk) 06:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I've made those corrections.   Will Beback  talk  06:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That looks a lot cleaner, thanks. It still leaves us with issues with neo-Hindu though. It's not transparent how strongly referenced it is, or even if it's referenced at all, because the citation is at the end of a sentence which includes two different quantities, neo-Hindu and new religious movement. The wording of the reference doesn't specify that neo-Hindu is included. Can anyone help by positively saying it is? Spicemix (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I suppose we should hash this out. The general problem is that when sources use the term we have to make a decision about which of the two meanings they intended. In this case, MMY has had a big impact in India as well as the West. Both articles apply. Maybe they should be merged?   Will Beback  talk  11:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

What two articles should be merged, Will? --BweeB (talk) 12:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It's just a thought. Hindu reform movements and Hinduism in the West.   Will Beback  talk  12:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I find that reference 1 which is used to source the phrase "sometimes characterised as a neo-Hindu new religious movement" has been copied from another website but with content deleted. (NB: this page is not stable. To get the relevant version you may need to reload it.) When that content is restored it shows that the sources are all citing numbers of people involved in TM, and are not referring in the way claimed. Here is reference 1:

New Religious Movements (University of Virginia) (1998), citing Melton, J. Gordon, 1993, Encyclopedia of American Religions. 4th ed. Detroit: Gale Research Inc, 945-946. Occhiogrosso, Peter. The Joy of Sects: A Spirited Guide to the World's Religious Traditions. New York: Doubleday (1996); p 66. O'Brien, J. & M. Palmer. The State of Religion Atlas. Simon & Schuster: New York (1993); pg. 35. O'Brien, J. & M. Palmer. The State of Religion Atlas. Simon & Schuster: New York (1993); p. 35. Petersen, William J. Those Curious New Cults in the 80s. New Canaan, Connecticut: Keats Publishing (1982), p 123.

and here is the passage:

Estimated to have tens of thousands of participants, with high estimates citing as many as several million,"tens of thousands": New Religious Movements (University of Virginia) (1998), citing Melton, J. Gordon, 1993, Encyclopedia of American Religions. 4th ed. Detroit: Gale Research Inc, 945-946. Occhiogrosso, Peter. The Joy of Sects: A Spirited Guide to the World's Religious Traditions. New York: Doubleday (1996); p 66, citing "close to a million" in the USA. The three million estimate appears to originate with The State of Religion Atlas. Simon & Schuster: New York (1993); pg. 35. O'Brien, J. & M. Palmer. The State of Religion Atlas. Simon & Schuster: New York (1993); p. 35. Petersen, William J. Those Curious New Cults in the 80s. New Canaan, Connecticut: Keats Publishing (1982), p 123 claims "more than a million" in the USA and Europe.

The phrase "sometimes characterised as a neo-Hindu new religious movement" I think now should be removed from the article until references can be found for it.

New religious movement was added by Dbachmann and then, according to his edit summary, sourced, as above, in a slapdash way: "just to humour you I'll copy the references from the article on the movement, although I do not believe in spamming lead sections with footnotes just for WP:POINT." He later added "Neo-Hindu" without adding a source. Spicemix (talk) 10:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

http://transcendental-meditation-movement.co.tv is a WP:MIRROR, a copy of this article. We can ignore it and certainly shouldn't use it as a source.

Thanks for catching the problem with the citation. Dbachmann is a good editor, but sometimes forgets about the details.

The "Neo-Hindu" description is easy to source. I guess the most obvious one would be:

• Lowe, Scott (2010). "The Neo-Hindu Transformation of an Iowa Town". Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions. 13 (3): 81–91. doi:10.1525/nr.2010.13.3.81. ISSN (print), 1541-8480 (electronic) 1092-6690 (print), 1541-8480 (electronic). {{cite journal}}: Check |issn= value (help)

However he doesn't actually use the term in the paper, just the title. OTOH there are these assertions:

• Of the neo-Hindu movements that have flourished in the West, mantras are probably most central to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's Transcendental Meditation movement, TM;...[45]
• There are also so-called 'neo-Hindu' movements which also attract British adherents, such as Transcendental Meditation, Ramakrishna Mission, the Brahma Kumaris and the International Society for Krsna Consciousness (ISKCON), ...[46]
• American followers of neo-Hindu movements have also adopted this scientific stance. Transcendental Meditation (TM, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's movement which claims a membership of over two million in the West) have been taking great pains to show the scientific truth... [47]
• Some of the better known of these export brands of Neo-Hinduism include: [..] The Spiritual Regeneration Movement or Transcendental Meditation (TM), founded by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi...[48]
• Similarly, research has been done on Western converts to Hinduism, especially on Westerners who have converted to neo-Hindu groups such as Transcendental Meditation,... [49]

And so on. If these are acceptable we can use them in place of the faulty citations.   Will Beback  talk  21:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Reference 1 should be deleted, and on several grounds: it sources a different assertion (namely numbers of people involved in TM); it comes second-hand from an unreliable source (the mirror site); and it contains elements which are prima facie flippant and unreliable (The Joy of Sects, A Spirited Guide, Those Curious New Cults).

The phrase itself: the correct thing is surely to remove it until something is sorted out. We have a very recent precedent for that with the removal of part of the same sentence (see 21:14, 31 March 2011, above).

The alternative is to keep the original sentence, but unreferenced and with citation tags. It would then read: "varyingly characterised as a neo-Hindu new religious movement, and as an organisation unrelated to religion."

In my view this option highlights the inappropriate placement of this phrase in the lead. There are several reasons why. MOS says the lead should "summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies". Perhaps this is a controversy, but it is not a prominent one; it uses terms concerning to a specialist sociologist only, and which are disputed even by them—one of the proposed sources above says "so-called 'neo-Hindu'". It is not even directly about the life of MMY: it is a sociological discussion of TM. Note that even in the articles on TM, here and here, this issue does not merit so prominent a placement.

MOS also says: "its first paragraph should be able to stand alone as a concise definition"; "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources"; "The lead should define the topic, establish context,"—and surely importantly—"explain why the subject is interesting or notable". None of these criteria is met with the inclusion of any part of the phrase in question.

MMY is notable because he introduced to the West a form of meditation which has been learned, it seems, by millions of people, the first time and perhaps the only time this has been done. I think the lead needs to be rejigged to reflect this, otherwise there is a danger of diminishing or misrepresenting his notability before it has been basically stated in the article. Spicemix (talk) 05:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe the references in footnote #1 are for "new religious movement". Someone has placed a citation request after that term. I don't see any problem with those sources for that term, but we can fix any that exist as there are numerous sources. The sources for "neo-Hindu" seem adequate as well. We can add more about it to the text and the other articles. Wikipedia is a work in progress. I don't think we need to place a footnote after after each phrase. We can still put the footnotes at the end, as usual. Some editors annotate the citation, such as "For 'neo-Hindu', see X, Y, Z. For 'new religious movement', see..." That avoids future confusion.   Will Beback  talk  05:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, reference 1 should be deleted for several reasons: it sources a different assertion (namely numbers of people involved in TM); it comes second-hand from an unreliable source (the mirror site); and it contains elements which are prima facie flippant and unreliable (The Joy of Sects, A Spirited Guide, Those Curious New Cults).

To this could be added, though it's implicit in its being second-hand: the sources it cites have not been researched or checked by any WP editor. Dbachmann's edit summary (see above) was: "just to humour you I'll copy the references from the article on the movement".

Talk threads can go on quite a long time. 1400 people have visited the article in the last two days and each one will be reading the first paragraph and taking it at face value. What remains of the phrase, since part of it was taken down because unsourced, should likewise be taken down, as unsourced in the case of neo-Hindu, and wrongly sourced in the case of new religious movement. Citation tagging is also technically an option, but I judge the first paragraph of the lead to be too prominent a place to have disputed and unsupported assertions.

Parallel to this issue, and a sufficient reason in itself for deletion of the phrase, is the inappropriateness of the subject-matter to the lead, per MOS:LEAD. Neither neo-Hindu nor new religious movement are relevant terms in a summary description of the notability of MMY. Spicemix (talk) 09:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Spice for your considered comments on this issue. I agree with your assertions that per MOS:LEAD the text on neo-Hindu should be removed. They have been given too much weight in the lead. --BweeB (talk) 09:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

[E/C] I've fixed Ref#1, it's entirely fresh now and has references for both neo-Hindu and NRM. MMY is notable for creating a movement, specifically an NRM.   Will Beback  talk  09:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The third source, Alper, has a list of the founders of 17 movements which he considers neo-Hindu: Ramakrishna, Yogi Ramacharaka, Swami Vivekananda, Swami Abhedananda, Sri Aurobindo, Sivananda Saraswati, Ramana Maharshi, Paramahansa Yogananda, Jiddu Krishnamurti, A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Pandit Gopi Krishna, Swami Narayanananda, Satyananda Saraswati, Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh), pt:Swami Kuvalayananda, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and Sri Anandamayi Ma. Of the 17 Wikipedia articles on these people only one, this article, asserts neo-Hinduism in the lead. What must be a total of many dozens of editors over several years have not considered it an appropriate term. Probably to closely approaching 100% of the readers of this article it will be a neologism. It does not establish the notability of the subject or even describe the subject at all. Nor does it define any major controversy that surrounded the subject. It does not define either the TM technique or the TM movement in the ways considered primary in the Wikipedia articles on these topics. Its prominent placement was not discussed or agreed and it should not be in the lead. The criteria for the lead are fully defined at MOS:LEAD. Spicemix (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

SpiceMix’s points are valid. The neo-Hindu tag gives undue weight to the small group of scholars interested in the sociology of spiritual groups of assorted kinds. This term is rarely used in the quality treatment of this subject that I have read over the years, in mainstream media, books, or even in scholarly coverage. Fine to include and discuss this term later in the article, since it does apprear in some reliable sources; but it doesn’t deserve to appear in the lead, where every word should be devoted to explaining who the subject is and why he/she is notable. Weighing the lead down with pedantic terms does not help entice the reader to read on. In general, this whole long lead section is a real snore, lacking focus on the subject’s claim to fame. For ex., we only get to know that the subject introduced meditation to the world on a rather large scale at the end of five paragraphs. As I’ve said before, let’s get more reader-friendly around here! Early morning person (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

From the comments by BweeB, Early morning person and myself, it appears there is a consensus to move neo-Hindu out of the lead and into the body of the article. If there is no further discussion, then I'd like to move it. Spicemix (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I see Will Beback is on wikibreak and as he's been active in the discussion, I'll wait until he's back. Spicemix (talk) 02:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi BweeB, I've taken down your recent addition of Spiritual Regeneration Movt while the sentence is still under discussion, per this thread. Also, while it's a fact, I'm not convinced it's so notable as to merit a place in the first para. Shall we discuss it later? Spicemix (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with you reverting my edit. I have seen other instances in the past when changes have been made to Wiki articles while a topic is under discussion. If the text "sometimes characterised" is OK to be in the lead, then the name of the Movement is a valid point. --BweeB (talk) 08:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bweeb, no offense meant! I just thought it would be better to talk about one point at a time in that particular sentence. I think the other changes you've made are good. Are you able to wait a few days before re-adding SRM? I'd be very grateful, because I feel it will help get a resolution to the current discussion. Then that will pave the way for discussing your proposal. Does that sound OK? Spicemix (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

After a week's wait for editors to add to the discussion, as we have consensus I've moved neo-Hindu from the lead to the section Philosophy and teaching. Spicemix (talk) 07:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

(undent) OK by me. But this word "sometimes" give me pause. --BweeB (talk) 08:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I've remvoed , initially called "The Spiritual Regeneration Movement", again, since it's too much detail for the lead. The Maharishi created numerous entities and technologies over his life. The first sentence should only mention the most famous and inclusive. It'd make sense in the second paragraph, if folks really want it in the intro.   Will Beback  talk  10:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)