Talk:Golden Domes

Acknowledgements

This article is the result of many hands. A small amount of text is copied from the Wikipedia articles on John Hagelin, Maharishi University of Management, and TM-Sidhi program. In addition, I contacted a number of people who've been published on the topic, and several of them gave me significant help in researching and drafting this article. Their input has improved the article immeasurably. However I am solely responsible for the posted text and any errors it may contain.   <b>Will Beback  talk  11:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Coatrack

While I respect the effort you've put into this article, I believe its a coatrack article. For example, its a big stretch to collect information on a building , and to eventually deal with research considerations. I won't engage you further on it at this time, but this is my opinion.(olive (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC))

With the exception of the short, clearly-marked "background" and "Other" sections, everything in the article is about the domes or what happens inside them. If there's any particular passage that's of concern we can discuss it.   Will Beback  talk  20:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC) amended   Will Beback  talk  10:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I have multiple concerns but I've also got a backlog of work I feel committed to so it will take a few days to get to this. (olive (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC))

No rush.   Will Beback  talk  23:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Concerns:

The article is not encyclopedic in nature. Extended form the actual information about the domes themselves are multiple other topics, the TM Sidhi research for example which is only peripherally related to the domes themselves. Much of the ME research was not carried on in Fairfield, and was not affected per the studies by the building which housed the practitioners.

This is an example of the coatrack aspect:

Domes(buildings)---->TM sidhi program (some is done in the domes in Fairfield Iowa, much is done all over the world in all kinds of places including homes.)---------> Entire section on ME research (not dependent on the domes at all...)

This is only one example. The style of the article is more journalistic or like that of a research paper. If Wikipedia supports this type of writing, fine, but it should be clarified since there are other topic areas where the same kind of writing treatment could be applied.

Maybe the best way to explain would be to edit the article in a sand box... so you could see what I mean, and whether you agree or not while comparing to the original.(olive (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC))

Actually, all of the ME research in the article was conducted in relation to the Golden Domes. The article does not include research or studies done elsewhere. The studies of the domes is very much on-topic. Can you point to a single example that is unrelated the domes?   Will Beback  talk  21:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Olive, you deleted "in the domes" several times from the article, but those are what help keep the articles focused on the domes. Sure the movement does studies of ME elsewhere, and makes claims for its effects elsewhere. But this article covers only what happens in the domes and what is claimed for the domes. I've restored those important phrases.   Will Beback  talk  22:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at one, but this isn't the issue...The domes are incidental to the research.... you're creating connections that are insignificant at best...and in some cases are misleading. Attaching the word domes to sentences to make connections is risky,encyclopedic writing. The article implies the connection to the domes is significant to the studies its not. The article implies Buckminster Fuller had some impact on creating the domes . He didn't as far as I know. I've never seen that in sources...nor have I seen sources that say the ME research was dependent on the domes.

The results of this study were compelling. The regularity and extent to which events

in the Lebanon War responded to changes in group size in Jerusalem were highly significant, both in statistical and human terms (war deaths, for example, being reduced by 76%

below expected levels...quotation

the group was in Jerusalem not in Fairfield, Iowa. The Washington DC course the group was in Washington... and so on

Of course you deleted my changes .... so what's new.....(olive (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC))

This article is full of mistakes. I could care less about the article but I don't like the precedent being set for Wikipedia articles. If this kind of article is acceptable, fine, if not we need to know that . That is a concern. As for peremptory removal of sources.... Do you have a source that says, as your article implies the domes were/are significant to the research. There is no such statement because that is not the case. Such implications are OR. I suggested that I could do a version of the article in a sandbox to describe what I meant, but you'd sooner try and accuse me of removal of RS.(olive (talk) 22:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC))

Doc James removed 8 RS and you supported him and an AE that had me banned for 3 months when I went to ask for a warning... and now you are attacking me, and BWB I noticed, for changes for things like women to ladies. Why is that . Why the timing.(olive (talk) 22:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC))

You're quoting "Assessing the impact of coherence-creating groups on the Lebanon War." That study is not cited in this article. There's no doubt that ME has been conducted elsewhere. But this article is solely concerned with ME that has occurred in the Golden Domes. It's rather as if we were writing about a famous hospital, and describing the pioneering surgeries which first took place there. It's not that the treatments can only be conducted there, but that's the most important center of them. Or, when writing about a concert hall, describing the concerts that have been performed there, which does not imply that that hall is the only place concerts can be performed. These are specific events which have taken place in the Golden Domes.

If there are mistakes, please point them out. The article was reviewed by a number of former and current dome attendees prior to posting, so I don't think there are any major mistakes, but it's always possible to get a detail wrong.   Will Beback  talk  22:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

PS: I'm not sure what you're talking about with the "women" vs. "ladies" issue.   Will Beback  talk  22:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry not interested in discussing further. I came here to try and point out a concern I had. I have no time for this kind unpleasantness. Best wishes.(olive (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC))

Whichever. I'm happy to discuss this but if you're not interested then I can't force you. I'm not "attacking" anyone. As for timing, I started this article months ago, in response to a discussion with you, IIRC. It certainly isn't a quickly thrown-together stub created for some tactical advantage. That seems like an assertion of bad faith, which I hope it was not.   Will Beback  talk  23:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's make this the best possible article.   Will Beback  talk  11:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Wrong picture/ wrong time of year

The picture of the 1983 Taste of Utopia coursed is clearly not a picture of that course which was held in December While it would be nice if things were warm enough for green field and trees in Dec., that's not Iowa's climate. I've removed until an other pic is found.(olive (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC))

No, that's the picture, it was just retouched. It can be seen in context on a number of movement websites.[1] I'm going to restore it.   Will Beback  talk  20:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right! Good grief! Thanks for catching my error. Add Batman to that edit summary.(olive (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC))

OR

We have the sentence "The domes' structure is based on the geodesic domes[16] developed by Buckminster Fuller, who had participated in a symposium with the Maharishi in 1971.[17][18]."

Yes the dome is based on geodesic designs. Yes Fuller developed geodesic domes. Yes Fuller participated in a symposium with the Maharishi in 1971. But stringing these 3 pieces of information together to give the reader the impression that Fuller was somehow directly involved in the design of the Golden Domes is Original Research. Maybe Fuller was involved in the design on the Domes, but we need a reliable secondary source to state this directly. --BweeB (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that this text gives the impression that Fuller had anything to do with these domes. It certainly doesn't say so.   Will Beback  talk  03:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there some issue with mentioning Fuller? [2] At one time the connection was an item of pride, if i understand correctly.   Will Beback  talk  05:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• The domes' structure is based on the geodesic domes[16] developed in the 1950s by Buckminster Fuller, who had participated in a symposium with the Maharishi in 1971.

Does that make it clearer that Fuller's creation of geodesic domes precedes the symposium?   Will Beback  talk  09:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, they aren't geodesic. We probably shouldn't say that in the infobox. There's some similarity but they don't have geodesic geometry. TimidGuy (talk) 10:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Interior photos show triangles, a hallmark of geodesic domes. But more to the point, we have sources which say so. If there are sources which say something else let's include those too.   Will Beback  talk  10:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you please quote the sources? TimidGuy (talk) 11:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• But drive north out of town, and you enter another world. Those two golden, geodesic domes on the right of Iowa 1? That's where 1,000 people a day meditate together, women in one dome, men in the other.
  • Wood, Toni (April 4, 2004). "Midwestern meditations: There's enlightenment among the corn in an Iowa city". Kansas City Star.

Is there a better source which discusses the domes' structure?   Will Beback  talk  20:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

(undent) Perhaps BeBack could clarify the information that he intends the read to get from this sentence? Why mention the symposium at all if there is no intention to connect Fuller somehow with the design of the domes? --BweeB (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

At a minimum it's an interesting coincidence. Many casual readers may be surprised to learn of the connection. I've also seen a suggestion that the idea for the university was first raised at the symposium. OTOH, I'm not married to the material. I thought the connection to Fuller was a point of pride. And the structure of the dome seems relevant. Is this material objectionable for some reason?   Will Beback  talk  21:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Not objectionable material. Simply want the article to be accurate, reflect reliable sources and not be Original Research. I feel this sentence is OR. --BweeB (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I think if you read the sentence a little more carefully you'll see that it does not assert that the Golden Domes were designed by Buckminster Fuller. It simply says that they are based on the geodesic dome developed by Fuller. That seems pretty clear.   Will Beback  talk  00:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Also: from the MUM history page:

• At that conference, in the presence of leading scientists like Buckminster Fuller, Maharishi announced his intention to create a university whose entire curriculum would incorporate the Science of Creative Intelligence. Its name would be Maharishi International University. [3]

So that 1971 symposium was where the first public announcement of MMY's intention to found the university where the domes are located. However I wouldn't put all of that in this article. Maybe the MUM article would be a good place for this detail.   Will Beback  talk  00:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

So why mention Fuller and the symposium at all here? --BweeB (talk) 01:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You've deleted two references to Fuller from TM articles, and you're seeking to delete it here too. Do you believe that it should not be mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia?   Will Beback  talk  04:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

BweeB, how's this: why don't you add an account of the 1971 Amherst event to the article where you thin kit belongs best? Then we can remove it from here.   Will Beback  talk  10:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

(undent) BeBack, you don't seem to be addressing the point of this discussion - that the sentence as it stands is OR. All the other stuff about Fuller is a red herring. --BweeB (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I've addressed it repeatedly. It's not OR. The structure of Golden Domes is based on a geodesic dome. Fuller is known as the creator of the geodesic dome. Fuller participated in an important symposium with the Maharishi in 1971. Each of those is a sourced fact. You're the only person who thinks that the text concludes that Fuller designed the Golden Domes. It's just not in the text.   Will Beback  talk  07:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

However, as a concession, I'll remove the part about the 1971 symposium, since it is only indirecty related to the Golden Domes.   Will Beback  talk  07:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Geodesic

Refactoring from above:

For what it's worth, they aren't geodesic. We probably shouldn't say that in the infobox. There's some similarity but they don't have geodesic geometry. TimidGuy (talk) 10:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Interior photos show triangles, a hallmark of geodesic domes. But more to the point, we have sources which say so. If there are sources which say something else let's include those too. Will Beback talk 10:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you please quote the sources? TimidGuy (talk) 11:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

But drive north out of town, and you enter another world. Those two golden, geodesic domes on the right of Iowa 1? That's where 1,000 people a day meditate together, women in one dome, men in the other." Wood, Toni (April 4, 2004). "Midwestern meditations: There's enlightenment among the corn in an Iowa city". Kansas City Star.

Is there a better source which discusses the domes' structure? Will Beback talk 20:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

If you look closely at a photo, you'll see that there are more trapezoidal shapes in the lattice than triangles. A geodesic dome wouldn't have trapezoids. No official source refers to it as geodesic dome. Also, it has a flatter shape than a geodesic dome does. It seems like we shouldn't state this as fact unless we have a good source about the structure. I've never actually seen anything that discusses the structure. TimidGuy (talk) 09:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Geodesic domes can have a wide range of profiles, so flatness isn't determinative. My concern with the designation is that, for many people, every dome is a "geodesic dome".   Will Beback  talk  10:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe we should remove it until we find a more definitive source regarding the structure. TimidGuy (talk) 10:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The best photo I've seen of th rafters is here.[4] I see triangles. I also see crossbeams inside the triangles. Are those the trapezoids to which you referred?   Will Beback  talk  10:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I've written to the Buckminster Fuller Institute asking if anyone there can make a determination. I know that's a bit unusual, but I'm sure we want to be both verifiable and true wherever possible.   Will Beback  talk  10:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Based on the photo? What I noticed is that the structure in some ways resembles a geodesic pattern, but that the dome sort of has "seams," with four quadrants and with the pattern varying at these seams. This may result in the flatter shape. It doesn't seem to have the uniformity of a pure geodesic dome pattern. It might be correct to refer to it as a modified geodesic dome. But all this, unfortunately, is a guess. Thanks for following up. The original architect, Henry Clark, is deceased, but Jon Lipman would likely know. Or he'd maybe know the manufacturer that the university purchased it from. If they're still around, they'd likely have a web page describing the structure in detail. TimidGuy (talk) 10:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's use the best sources we have.   Will Beback  talk  01:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, it occurred to me that it's obvious that the walls aren't part of the geodesic structure. So in that sense, it's not a geodesic building. Just the roof has a resemblance. TimidGuy (talk) 09:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

While I was looking into this I found that it's not uncommon to have a skirt wall supporting a dome, geodesic or otherwise. For example: [5][6][7][8][9]. The presence of a wall has no bearing on whether the dome above is geodesic or not.

The domes are more than roofs for the buildings: they are the defining characteristic. The walls are minor by comparison. Nobody calls them the "dome-roofed buildings", or even the "domed buildings". They are the "domes". Whether they are geodesic or not is the question.   Will Beback  talk  10:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fairly common to call them "domed buildings." See [10]. TimidGuy (talk) 10:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that doesn't affect whether the domes are geodesic or not.   Will Beback  talk  10:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

And either way, "domes" or "domed buildings", their domed-ness is their defining quality. Everybody writes about them uses the word "dome". They are, first and foremost, domes.   Will Beback  talk  11:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I won't fight over it further. It's a thin source. I've removed all mention of "geodesic" and Fuller. I hope we can find more definite information about the structure of the domes.   Will Beback  talk  11:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It will be interesting to find out. I was wrong when I said quadrants. It's divided into six sections. Sort of like a pie sliced into 6 pieces and raised up in the middle. Each of the six pieces does have a geodesic-like pattern, and the pattern is uniform among the sections. But the pattern breaks at the seams. Every example of a geodesic dome that I've ever seen is completely uniform -- no seams or anything. Also, I asked yet another person, who said that he had heard it's not technically geodesic because the triangles in a geodesic dome are always equilateral, and that's not the case with the MUM domes. Anyway, it'll be interesting to find this out. It might be considered a modified geodesic structure. TimidGuy (talk) 10:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Spoke too soon. The six segments don't have the same pattern. The two north/south segments have the same pattern, and the four east/west segments are the same. But the north/south and east/west segments differ from one another. It's a beautiful complex design and very difficult to figure out the pattern. It's almost like an optical illusion: if you look at it one way, there are four segments, look at it another way and there are six. You'll just have to see it yourself sometime. TimidGuy (talk) 09:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

A geodesic dome is a triangulation of a Platonic solid or other polyhedron to produce a close approximation to a sphere (or hemisphere) (source: Wolfram Mathworld). I would think that the owner or architect of the MUM domes could state or have stated whether the dome support structures (which may not be visible) are indeed geodesic. This would seem the best way to settle the matter, as claims from other sources would most likely spring from ignorance of the mathematical definition. The word 'geodesic' has acquired a sort of content-free semantics in popular usage, but WP should be better than that. David Spector (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I attended the SCI symposium at which Fuller spoke. While many of his presented ideas seemed compatible with SCI (and good engineering), he didn't seem fully aware of SCI or its basis in consciousness, and to the best of my knowledge had little or no further association with Maharishi's Movement. Corrections are welcome. David Spector (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Regal

I'm curious what Regal says about the Maharishi Effect (footnote 8). It's not available via Google Books or Amazon. Could you please quote the text? Thanks much. TimidGuy (talk) 10:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Along with much of the background section that line was copied from the TM-Sidhi program intro. I don't know who wrote it. I suggest that discussion of it would be better held at the TM-Sidhi program talk page.   Will Beback  talk  10:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't put sources in Wikipedia that you haven't seen. I suggest you remove this until you've been able to look at the source. TimidGuy (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It's just a standard summary issue. I'm not saying we should cut short this discussion, just that the best place to discuss it would be talk:TM-Sidhi program#Regal, since it's copied from that article. I'll start a thread there. Whatever the outcome we can adjust this text.   Will Beback  talk  11:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that you should remove all material you simply copied from other articles. A lot of misrepresentation of sources has occurred in the past, and it makes matters worse to risk proliferating misrepresentations. Again, I think it's bad form to put material into Wikipedia when you haven't examined the sources. TimidGuy (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the text in questions and it can be discussed on TM-Sidhi pages. --BweeB (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I've opened the discussion at the page linked above. I'll note that the text has been stable since February, and that it is primarily a summary of the material in the other article's "critique and reception" section. Let's please not delete sourced material (or a neutral summary of sourced material) until there's a consensus.   Will Beback  talk  06:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

On occasion, you've threatened to delete material if I didn't provide a quote from the source. You added a source to this article that you acknowledge you didn't examine. You haven't provided a quote from the source, as requested six days ago. You haven't indicated any intention of looking at the source. I'm curious what we're going to do about this source? TimidGuy (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

This text is just a copy of the text in the intro to the TM-Sidhi program article. There is a discussion there. is there some reason that the issues at this article are different from the issues at that article? If no then let's just discuss it in one place. Frankly, I'm not sure why you're suddenly so upset about this material, which has been non-controversial since it was written in February.   Will Beback  talk  10:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Should I assume, then, that you have no intention of quoting from the source, as requested? TimidGuy (talk) 10:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Ask me at the other talk page.   Will Beback  talk  10:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Peremptory removal of sourced material

I restored a couple of sourced sentences which were deleted without discussion.   Will Beback  talk  22:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Blum Stadium

• The domes are built on hills beside the location of the former Blum Stadium, a football stadium built by Parsons College hurriedly in 1966 and torn down in the 2000s.

What is being questioned here?   Will Beback  talk  06:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

we do not have a ref that it was torn down in 2000s. The Blunt Stadium article itself does not have a reference for this. --BweeB (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it still there? Apparently not. There is a photo of John Hagelin standing next to it in about 2000, IIRC, ergo it was demolished afterwards. Is this a contentious or disputed assertion?   Will Beback  talk  21:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Per Wiki policy we need a reliable source. --BweeB (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

There are pictures from the 1990s that show them, and pictures from the 2000s that don't. Let me ask you again, are you challenging the fact that the stadium was torn down in the 2000s? That seems like a trivial issue.   Will Beback  talk  01:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Not challenging anything, just wanted a source. No problem. --BweeB (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

If it's not challenged then it doesn't need to footnote. It really isn't necessary to cite every single sentence.   Will Beback  talk  02:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

"Torn down" doesn't seem like the right wording. The field is still there. A press box that was falling apart and dangerous was taken down, probably well before 2000. Likely in the early 1980s. In the 2000s the bleachers, which sat directly on sloping berms, were removed and the berms partially leveled. Nothing was actually "torn down." TimidGuy (talk) 10:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

"Taken down" is a fine alternative to "torn down". I'm "down" with that.   Will Beback  talk  11:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• ...built hurriedly in 1966. In later years, the bleachers and a press box were taken down, the berms were leveled, and housing was built on one edge of the former stadium.

How's that? Better?   Will Beback  talk  11:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Certainly the press box came "down," but there was nothing "down" about the removal of the bleachers. They were at ground level on a sloping berm. The crumbling concrete rested on the ground. The bolts holding the benches in place had rusted, such that some of the benches had come off. And the wood was rotting. The concrete and benches were removed. "Former stadium" seems a bit misleading in this context. And the housing was built on top of where the berm had been. Maybe say "on the edge of the playing field," which is still in use, by the way. TimidGuy (talk) 09:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, so "taken down" won't work either. How about "removed"?   Will Beback  talk  09:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Whew, I'm glad we got that resolved. : ) TimidGuy (talk) 11:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

If there are no objections to that text I'll post it and remove the tag.   Will Beback  talk  05:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. I added "between 1994 and 2005", because there are Google Earth photos from those years which show the stadium and then its absence.   Will Beback  talk  03:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Namesakes

Propose we delete this text. It is not directly about the domes.

"The Golden Dome Market and Cafe is adjacent to the Ladies' Dome.[129] It sells organic produce from the MUM farm, gifts, and Maharishi Ayurveda products, and it serves vegetarian meals in the evening.[48] A 23-unit building for women, the Golden Domes Apartments, is planned for a site nearby.[130] The Golden Domes Quarterly is a newsletter for the MUM community published by MUM Press.[48]" --BweeB (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

This section is no different from Woodrow Wilson#Legacy, John_Muir#Tributes_and_honors, or countless similar sections that list things named after the topics of the articles. The fact that things are named for the Golden Domes is an indicator of their notability and puts them in context.   Will Beback  talk  21:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Waste of space IMHO. But if you insist........... --BweeB (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

When Wikipedia begins to run short of space we can revisit the matter.   Will Beback  talk  03:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Taste of Utopia assembly photo

• [[File:Taste of Utopia.jpg|thumb|left|alt=A formal portrait of thousands of people standing in a snowy field. Two large signs and some large paintings are in front.|Seven thousand attendees of the Taste of Utopia assembly, December 27, 1983, in front of the Men's Dome]]

An editor deleted this photo with the comment, "not fair use: other imgs of Golden Domes exist in article".[11] That's true, but there are no other photographs of the historic "Taste of Utopia" assembly, which is what this photo portrays. The taking of the photograph is discussed in the article, allowing for its fair use for the purpose of commentary on the photo itself.   Will Beback  talk  18:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

IMO, the photo fails Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria: 1. No free equivalent: There were 7000 potential photographers, there may be one of them, who may release a photo of the assembly, which may not be from the same view as File:Taste of Utopia.jpg 2. Contextual significance (main reason of removal): The figure 7000 gives an idea of the people present. Its presence does not "significantly" increase readers' understanding of the topic and its omission is not detrimental to that understanding of the reader. Without the image now, I understand the same fact that 7000 people came. This article is not about the Taste of Utopia assembly where the image "significantly" would significantly readers' understanding of the topic. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your thinking. 1. This is a formal portrait, akin a to a class photograph at school. People were told to stand in place. If anyone happened to have a camera, all they could have photographed were the people around them, not the entire assembly. Due to the frequency with which this image has been copied, it comes close to being a historic photograph in its own right. 2. The Taste of Utopia Assembly was the most significant single event to occur in the Golden Domes. While the article isn't about the assembly per se, the article does devote considerable space to the event and, in a separate section, to its effects. The article describes how the participants had to stand for an hour in deep snow while the photograph was taken, but the description alone does not convey how the participants were packed a group that sprawled down the hillside below the Men's Dome. I think it does serve an informational purpose. While I appreciate the hard work of editors who seek to enforce the NFCC policy strictly, I believe that this image does qualify, and should be restored. 3. An interesting aspect of the photograph is that is is heavily retouched. The copy of the photograph published the during the event shows the ground covered in snow, with more snow on the roof. The copies distributed later show green grass, along with a line of trees in the distance that don't appear in the original. I had been considering uploading the original copy as well, to illustrate the alterations. That context would be hard to express in words.   Will Beback  talk  19:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Seeing no further objection, I'll go ahead and restore the image. This won't be the final word on the matter. I'm sure this article will get reviewed further and the images will receive close scrutiny.   Will Beback  talk  08:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

No OR Noticeboard

I have posted a request on the NOR Notice Board [12]. Thanks, --BwB (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the coatracking issue that was raised in a thread above, to help resolve this dispute I posted to the No Original Research Noticeboard for input from uninvolved editors. Itsmejudith posted this comment, which gives clear direction for moving forward -

"This accusation won't have come as a surprise to you because "coatracking" was raised on the day after you created the article. And the GA reviewer called it "a rather shameless fluff piece" for TM. Since the article is about buildings it should contain the info about the buildings. Yes, you can briefly mention things that regularly happen or have happened in the buildings. But also, the article should stick to the point. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)"

In a subsequent comment, Itsmejudith pointed to this WP article as a model: King's College Chapel, Cambridge

The next step now that we have received this feedback at dispute resolution, is to put this article in a sandbox and edit it down so that it sticks to the point. And then invite Itsmejudith to review the revised version to see if it satisfies his/her objections. --BwB (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not the next step, unless we're going to rename this article to King's College Chapel. The next step is to add more information from sources. I just came across another significant one.

If there is any specific information in this article which you don't think is directly related to the Golden Domes, please list it. So far as I can tell, the only such material would be in the explicitly labeled "background" section.

I don't understand your animosity towards this article. It's a pretty obscure topic. What do you care?   Will Beback  talk  22:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It is a very possible next step. I can't speak for BWB but I prefer to stick to Wikipedia standards on encyclopedic writing which iI feel tbis isn't as I said from the beginning. Why do you assume animosity towards a topic because someone doesn't agree with you. Since I suggested doing a revision in a sand box earlier, I'll be happy to start working on that.(olive (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC))

If someone can point to a specific part of the article which isn't about the Golden Domes then we can address it. There's no need for a sandbox. Meanwhile, I'm going to continue to improve the article.   Will Beback  talk  00:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Earlier, Littleolive oil said the article is full of mistakes, but none have been specified. Can we see a list so they can be fixed?   Will Beback  talk  00:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

We have neutral information from a NB on the coatrack issue. I'll try and comply with that.(olive (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC))

There was no agreement on the NB that it's a coatrack. Please get consensus here before deleting any material.   Will Beback  talk  00:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

No one suggested deletion of content.(olive (talk) 03:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC))

What changes are being proposed then?   Will Beback  talk  04:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

About "coatrack": many WP articles discuss ancillary topics. Such discussion is certainly not forbidden under WP guidelines. Since the Golden Domes are not general-purpose structures, the fact that they are used almost exclusively for practice of the TM-Sidhi Program makes that topic germane to the article. As I read it, the article is a well-written essay on the domes themselves as well as many naturally-related topics. It clearly fails the WP definition of a coatrack article. Furthermore, I'd like to congratulate Will for a fine piece of writing and research. The other editors would do well to emulate this leadership instead of picking nits and splitting hairs. David Spector (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

"time period"

An editors added dates based on sources, implying that certain activities were limited to those years alone.[13] I don't see how this benefits the article. There's no evidence that the timings have changed. If this type of edit is helpful here, would it be helpful in other articles? Virtually every sentence of every article could be amended similarly. "As of 2008, the Transcendental Meditation technique is practiced for twenty minutes, twice daily. In 1979, it was said to bring relaxation and alertness." And so on. I agree that these equivocations can be useful when there are changes to the asserted facts, but they are otherwise disruptive and even misleading.   Will Beback  talk  21:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Some of the materials used as sources are from many years ago. Perhaps policies/procedures have changed over time. We need to let the reader know that at certain times these policies applied and may not be current. How do you suggest we do that? Perhaps more current sources with current info can be found? --BwB (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

2003 was "many years ago"? Sure, perhaps policies have changed. Perhaps policies regarding every aspect of TM have changed. Are we going to add similar equivocations to every line in Wikipedia? I suggest that we omit the dates unless we have any actual evidence that the information has changed, in which case knowing the dates would be helpful.   Will Beback  talk  22:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Content creates false information

"MUM researchers have conducted numerous studies on the effects of Yogic Flying in the domes. Proponents assert that lower crime rates, increases in stock market indices, the reunification of Germany, fewer air traffic fatalities, and other quantifiable changes are the result of lowering tension in the world by practicing TM-Sidhi in the domes."

This wording has multiple problems:

• It implies the research takes place in the domes .... misplaced modifier
• It implies the domes are integral aspects of the research... they're not
• Many ME studies have nothing to do with the domes...

I'd like to reword it but since my efforts to correct this have been revereted once, I'd like to open discussion again on this. Thanks (olive (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC))

How about "MUM researchers have conducted numerous studies on the effects of Yogic Flyers doing the TM-Sidhi program in the domes." End of story. --BwB (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Well that isn't right, really. The domes have nothing to do with the research itself. The program can and has been done anywhere with the same effects noted. The building is not part of the equation in terms of reserach outcomes, but this article makes it seems that it is... Further the domes as buildings have become a jumping off place for content about the research which isn't appropriate in an encyclopedia ,in a research paper or journalistic article yes, but not here. So this is something that needs to be cleaned up.(olive (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC))

That's like saying the Rose Bowl has nothing to do with the Rose Bowl Games, because football can be played anywhere. Yes, Yogic Flying can be practiced anywhere, but the point of that sentence is that numerous studies have been conducted of the Yogic Flying being practiced in the Golden Domes. Bigweeboy's proposal adds " doing the TM-Sidhi program", but I don't believe it's possible to to Yogic Flying without doing the TM-Sidhi program, so it seems redundant. I'd suggest we either say "Yogic Flying" or "TM-Sidhi program", but not both. I don't think that the existing text conveys either of the connotations Littleolive oil sees. As for the ME studies conducted elsewhere, they are not relevant to this article. Another section of text, in the intro, used to read:

• According to proponents, group practice of the TM-Sidhi program in the domes and elsewhere creates the Maharishi Effect, which they describe as a coherence-producing field the extent of which depends on the number of people practicing in one place.

But Littleolive oil changed it to:

• According to proponents, group practice of the TM-Sidhi program creates the Maharishi Effect, which they describe as a coherence-producing field the effects of which depend on the number of people practicing in one place.

If anything, that makes it less evident that ME is studied elsewhere. To that extent, it's counter-productive. I've added back:

• According to proponents, group practice of the TM-Sidhi program, such as done in the domes, ...

To tie it back to the domes.  Will Beback  talk  03:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The domes are not conditions of the research. If we were researching the number of touchdowns by some player or team in a season, the stadium is not an aspect of that research. The article implies the research and its results are somehow dependent on the domes. The research doesn't say this and the article shouldn't imply this Please indicate where the research and its results are dependent on the place where the technique is being practiced,.if you can't and I know you can't, then we have to revamp parts of the article which are inaccurate.(olive (talk) 03:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC))

That analogy isn't quite germane. Players and teams always play their games in a variety of stadiums so any season-long research on them would inevitably include multiple venues. This article does not say that the research is dependent on the domes. It says that the research was conducted on Yogic Flying taking place in the domes. That is true and relevant. Another, perhaps closer, analogy would be to research conducted at the Stanford Linear Accelerator. In theory, that research, which is on fundamental forces of the universe, is not dependent on its location and could be replicated in any sufficiently large linear accelerator. Nonetheless, it's relevant to say which research was conducted at that particular accelerator.   Will Beback  talk  04:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's look again at the text:

• MUM researchers have conducted numerous studies on the effects of Yogic Flying in the domes.

There is no implication that research on Yogic Flying is restricted to the domes. It simply says that the there have been many studies done on YF done in the domes.   Will Beback  talk  04:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

No. Researchers have not conducted numerous studies of Yogic Flying in the domes. They have researched Yogic Flying period ... in the domes or in McDonalds is not in the equation. We're creating a coatrack here to hang content about research. If you can't see the concern should we bring this to outside eyes? We may need third party. Malleus seems experienced in article reviews. I just feel we're not getting anywhere on this and we may need an outside view or views.(olive (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC))

Yes, the research in question, which includes numerous studies, was conducted on YF being done in the domes. For YF research in general see the TM-Sidhi article. How about this:

• In addition to studies conducted elsewhere, MUM researchers have conducted numerous studies on the effects of Yogic Flying in the domes.

That would make it crystal-clear that other research has been done.   Will Beback  talk  04:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

"done in the domes" creates false meaning. Unless the place where the YF was done was a significant factor in the results of the studies we cannot make that kind of statement. The problem may just a simple as a misplaced modifier. We could say, 'Yogic Flying research has been conducted on practitioners in the domes as well as at other locations."(olive (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC))

That's fine with me, though I'd prefer to get rid of the passive voice. Maybe: MUM researchers have conducted numerous studies on Yogic Flying practitioners in the domes as well as at other locations.   Will Beback  talk  23:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Seeing no further comments, I've added the proposed text.   Will Beback  talk  08:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Oprah Winfrey in the Golden Dome

Oprah Winfrey, who learned TM last summer, flew to Iowa in her private Global Express jet and visited the MUM Ladies' Dome and meditated with 400 women there for 20 minutes on October 19, 2011. She also paid for her entire staff to learn TM; they arrived at MUM a week earlier to begin work on an hour-long show on Fairfield's meditation community in the series Oprah's Lifeclass, to be seen on the Oprah Winfrey Network (OWN).

She also spoke with students at the K-12 Maharishi School (part of MUM; not to be confused with the Maharishi School in Lancashire, England) about her spiritual journey, according to School director Richard Beall.

Celebrity friend Rosie O'Donnell's personal discovery of TM was covered on Oprah's website over a year ago.

Celebrity M.D. Dr. Mehmet Oz wrote about TM on Oprah's website five years ago. Clearly, Oprah's interest has been percolating for some time. She typically shares what she learns and likes with her many fans when she feels ready.

These events have been covered by reliable sources, including the Associated Press, the Huffington Post, and Yahoo! News (at WP-blocked link http://www.associated content.com/article/9052925/oprah_winfrey_meditated_in_fairfield.html?cat=7). I've been waiting for over a month for someone to report them here, so I guess it's up to me to be WP:BOLD and do so myself. Feel free to make factual corrections to the above. I did not dare to add this material to the article, because I am not that WP:BOLD :o) David Spector (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

There's been a discussion of this issue at Talk:List of Transcendental Meditation practitioners#Oprah Winfrey. Editors there feel that none of the sources we've found are sufficient to categorize Winfrey as a TM practitioner. However the bar is a bit lower for saying she visited the Domes, and I'd been meaning to add it here. (Thanks for the BOLD reminder). FWIW, I understand that her visit to Fairfield was to film material for a new show on her network that starts in January. Probably the way to proceed would be to start by saying she visited, and then once the program airs we can add additional info. My guess is that, since it's a new show, the program might be distributed ahead of time to reviewers, so we won't have to see the episode itself.   Will Beback  talk  19:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Unresolved issues per GA nomination

The Golden Dome article was recently reviewed on theWP:NOR Notice Board[14]. Concerns[15] raised by an uninvolved editor on that NB have not been addressed nor has there been removal of the "fluff"noted by Malleus in the last GA review. I have had concerns from the beginning that this article is largely a coatrack article. I'd like the GE reviewer to consider these points. I have created a first draft of a pared down version of this article which may address the coatrack issue. However, I'm happy to let this matter drop once a reviewer has made a determination on the status of this article (olive (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC))

Most of the issues raised by that reviewer were addressed in subsequent edits. If you have any specific issues you'd like addressed please raise them here.   Will Beback  talk  19:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm addressing the reviewer, Will. I'm happy to go with whatever the reviewer decides. To clarify, if the reviewer does not see this as a coatrack article, I'd be happy to let the coatrack issue drop whatever my opinion. (olive (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC))

It's probably best if the reviewer starts from scratch. Many changes have been made since the first review.   Will Beback  talk  21:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Golden Domes.   Will Beback  talk  20:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Note to GA reviewer

Please note the status of the image File:Taste of Utopia.jpg used in the article. Details are linked to from that page. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

To the extent that this article goes beyond discussing the buildings themselves and presents information about TM (primarly the Golden Domes#Effects and studies section), it needs to follow WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. The section in question only presents information and quotes from TM adherents and gives no information about their reception in the true scientific community. cmadler (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

A very interesting point. The article should not go beyond the buildings to discussion about the research. TM Sidhi research is not dependent on the domes or any other building. Such added content is coatrack material and should be removed, I've created a revised version of this article and could post in the next day or two. We've already had comments from a GE reviewer per the "fluff" in this article, and have taken the article to a NB where the uninvolved editor also suggested there was content in this article that did not belong.(olive (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC))

Littleolive oil, do you agree that the material in question is pseudoscience or pro-TM fluff? The material in question is all about things that have happened in the Domes, the topic of the article. There's actually very little overlap with the more general TM-Sidhi program article.

Cmadler, in almost all of these cases there is no response from the scientific community. There is a response to the claim that the weather was altered to expedite construction, in the "Construction" section. The other material is all attributed to the proponents, so I don't think readers would get the impression that the claims are endorsed by others. However I'll do a search to see if I can find any other responses that were left out before.   Will Beback  talk  19:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Will, the article is a coatrack article and has been from the beginning. I don't think its a good idea to ignore both a GA reviewer and a Notice Board. I'm happy to take this back to a NB though. I'm not interested in labels Will, or your interrogations, I'm interested in an article that complies with the way in which an encyclopedia is written. Please show me where in the TM Sidhi research, the place where the research is carried out, is a parameter for the research. If its not it has very little place here, possibly a mention at most.(olive (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC))

First, remember that WP:COATRACK is just an essay. Second, the article is not a coatrack. Everything in it is directly related to the Domes or what happens in them (except for the short "background" section). Third, this article is not about TM-Sidhi research in general, so your question is out of place. Cmadler is concerned about the pseudoscience issue and let's try to address that.   Will Beback  talk  20:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

"Everything in it is directly related to the Domes or what happens in them". Not so - there is more fluff about "Golden Dome Market", and other irrelevant material. All this can be trimmed. --BwB (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

A building is not a pseudoscience. First the content has to be in the right place to describe it as a pseudoscience. If it is fine we can go to the next step in the discussion. if its not the discussion is moot.(olive (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC))

(ec) Perhaps a starting point would be to rename the section "Claimed effects", since that's really what it is. The section should have a "see also" to TM-Sidhi program#Critiques and responses. A further improvement would be to insert the following after the first sentence of the section: "However, independent researchers such as Philip Schrodt, Evan Fales, and Barry Markovsky have found serious problems with the Maharishi Effect." (Citations to be pulled from the above-linked section). I think these changes (or something similar) would make it clear that the effects mentioned are claimed by adherents but generally not accepted by the scientific community. cmadler (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Those seem like reasonable changes. Any objections?   Will Beback  talk  20:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Something similar should also be added to the second paragraph of the lede, and I think the third paragraph of the lede should be removed entirely (a little of it could be combined into the second paragraph). cmadler (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd object to removing the third paragraph of the lede, because the claims for the effects of group practice in the domes are significant. But I agree that we could re-work it and the second paragraph to better incorporate the views of non-proponents.   Will Beback  talk  21:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

My thought was not to completely remove the content, but to combine them into something like:

According to proponents, group practice of the TM-Sidhi program, as done in the domes, creates the "Maharishi Effect", which they describe as a coherence-producing field which has resulted in lower crime rates, increases in stock market indices, the reunification of Germany, fewer air traffic fatalities, and more. Proponents claim that the effects depend on the number of people practicing in one place; the domes have a capacity of 3,000 practitioners, but assemblies have brought together as many as 7,000 Yogic Flyers. However, these claims are not generally accepted by the scientific community, which generally considers Transcendental Meditation and its associated theories to be pseudoscience.

I think that retains the key points while eliminating some minor extra wording and adding the scientific viewpoint. cmadler (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

We would need a reliable source that says "these claims are not generally accepted by the scientific community". Otherwise it is OR. --BwB (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

This research is on the TM Sidhi program not the TM program.... and a meditation technique is not a science of any kind, actually. I think you're other changes are fine dependent on whether this content belongs in the article at all. Further the scientific community is a generalization and weasel wording. You might want to be more specific. Clearly the scientific community has shown interest in the TM research give the number of reviews on the topic. I'd suggest you don't make changes until the NB comments come in and we see hwe uninvolved editors react to the article.(olive (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC))

Fair enough. I don't really know anything about TM, TM-Sidhi, the domes, etc. except what I've read here and in the sources over the past day. I just want to make sure we're not presenting things in a manner that makes it appears that there is a scientific basis for all those claims. cmadler (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletions

A large amount of sourced, relevant info was removed in a series of edits.[16][17][18][19] We can discuss the issues here. None of the edit summaries quote any policy-based reasons for deletion. If there are no good reasons for deletion I'll restore the material, all of which is adequately sourced and relevant.   Will Beback  talk  06:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

This comment fails to refer to a significant discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Golden_Domes where there was a clear consensus that the article contained excessive material about TM or yogic flying that was at best tangential to the subject. While the specific deletions were not discussed as such at that board, to restore them wholesale without a detailed discussion here would seem to fly in the face of that consensus. Please discuss the proposed additions, and please also make sure that they are clearly about the subject of this article, namely the physical structures or about events that verifiably took place in them. Material about TM/yogic flying in general would not be appropriate. Assertions about the effects of events in these structures especially should be verifiable from reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In the context of this article, I would tend to exclude assertions from MUM and its affiliates about those alleged effects. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

That's why I've started this thread. The material which was deleted goes far beyond what was discussed at the noticeboard.

There is no requirement that all material in an article needs to come from third-party sources. The general point in that policy is that articles should not be based exclusively on first-party sources. However a large amount of material with third-party sources was deleted.   Will Beback  talk  21:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:V requires "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source" and "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Right. But I'm not sure I understand how you're interpreting "based on". Is it your assertion that Wikipedia article may not use any first-party sources? If not, then there is some middle ground in which some such sources are allowed.   Will Beback  talk  22:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

My deletions

Ok. Let's look at what I actually deleted. The first edit [20] removed the 'Use and significance' section in its entirity. The first paragraph merely tells us how the Maharishi and his followers have used metaphor describe it, which relates to neither 'use' nor 'significance'. The next section, on 'attendence' tells us repeatedly that 'thousands' of people have attended the domes, and that many have moved into the area to do so regularly: it is hardly necessary to expand five paragraphs on this, surely? The 'Admission' section seems completely off-topic, relating to who is entiltled to use the domes, rather than to the Domes themselves. The 'Interior and program' section seems to be a strange hybrid of descriptions of the interior (a reasonable enough topic for the article), and yet more detail about the 'program' including such trivia as a statement that "Late admission is not permitted". The 'Assemblies' section combines discussion of attendence at special events (which may merit mention) with off-topic discussion of fees for the TM-Sidhi program being underwritten. The last section I deleted, 'Events' discusses the marriage of a stage magician at the dome, a few concerts, and the 'World Yogic Flying competitions' - with a great deal of off-topic waffle about 'World Peace' etc. In my opinion, what little useful content there is here can comfortably be reduced to a couple of paragraphs, if the hyperbole and off-topic rambling is removed. A paragraph (or perhaps more - this article is supposedly about the buildings) describing the interior, and another paragraph describing the uses to which the buildings are put (without fringe claims regarding what effect events there supposedly have on the outside world), should be more than enough - We have an article on the TM-Sidhi program, and it is entirely unnecessary to describe it all again here.

My next edit [21] removed an 'Other' section - a micellany of material on TV appearences etc, a cafe which isn't part of the Dome, and material relating to buildings in other locations entirely - off-topic trivia.

I then [22] removed a paragraph recounting the implausible claims made by attendees regarding the supposed effects of 'Yogic Flying' - much of which appears not to have taken place at the Domes. I'd also point out that presenting material in this way looks like a breach of NPOV, given the undue weight inherent in presentin 'MUM researchers' output as 'studies'. I also deleted the next paragraph - yey more material on attendence etc.

My final edit [23] removed a paragraph regarding more implausible claims regarding the construction of the Domes, and an obvious refutation of this. I was tempted to leave this in, given that it at least aded a little balence to the facile regurgetation of hyperbole that pervaded the rest of the article, but NPOV suggests this bit of trivia should probably be ommitted too.

THe whole article not only veered wildly off-topic, and gave a ridiculous amount of undue weight to the fringe claims of a religious movement that likes to put on a facade of 'scientific credibility' wholely unjustified by any neutral criteria, but lacked any semblence of a coherent structure, with material seemingly jammed in almost at random. Regardless of the effectiveness of what goes on inside the Domes, the buildings themselves appear rather more sensibly and solidly constructed than this article. Can I suggest that we try to at least do justice to the buildings, and construct an article that actually tells our readers about them in a coherent manner, rather than engaging in wholesale hyperbole and trivia? Will Beback describes the material removed as 'sourced' and 'relevant' which is rather getting priorities backwards: 'relevance' needs to be demonstrated before sourcing becomes an issue, and far too much of the article seemed to consist of material either entirely unrelated to the Domes, or only related in as much as the dubious claims of the 'program' assert its relevance. It seems to me that the article resembles rather too closely one of the in-universe Star Trek fansites one sees that treat fiction as fact, and fail to relate to external reality at all. It is bad enough when Wikipeia articles on Star Trek and the like show symptoms of this, and to have a similar problem in an article describing a major piece of architecture for a not-insignificant movement is unacceptable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your thorough reply. There a lot of material in question. Let's take them in reverse order.

Regarding construction: [24] That material has three sources: a movement publication (purportedly scientific), a skeptical magazine, and a textbook on statistics. The claim that the weather was altered literally became a "textbook example" of faulty analysis. It is relevant to the building, since it's about the construction, and it's notable, since it's been discussed in two third-party sources. I don't think that altering the weather to facilitate construction is trivia.   Will Beback  talk  23:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Answering that particular point, I'd say that suggesting this is 'about the construction' is rather stretching things. What it seems to me to be 'about' is the tendency of the supporters of this particular movement/cult/religion/science/whatever to make wild claims about their ability to affect events - and that this particular one concerned their own construction project is merely a detail. As such, it is yet another example of coatracking the movements rather unorthodox claims and worldview into an article supposedly about buildings. That third-party sources cite this particular bit of weirdness as poor statistics or whatever may well be relevant to an article on statistics, or even perhaps (at a stretch) to one on weather-modification, but it seems out of place here. While Wikipedia may not have a specific policy regarding fringe claims concerning the pouring of cement, I think the general principle of WP:FRINGE would suggest that we don't apply undue weight to assertions that 'Yogic Flying', or the like can be a factor in this - and in my opinion, any weight at all is undue - it is trivia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

If this were an article about construction, weather, or some other mainstream topic then you'd be right. But this is an article about a fringe topic, so it's appropriate to report the noted claims about the building, even if those claims are also based in a fringe view. The fact that it is accompanied by other views means it is NPOV compliant.   Will Beback  talk  04:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry? What exactly is 'fringe' about a building? Nothing at all, that I can see. The fringe material is the coatracked hyperbole that this article has been burdened with. And no, NPOV in regard to fringe materials isn't satisfied by 'accompanying' such things with 'other views'. NPOV requires due weight - and in reference to an article about a building, I can see no reason why any significant 'weight' is due at all. The belief system of TM-Sidhi followers is a subject for that article, not this one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It is entirely plausible that there can be significant fringe views connected to inanimate objects which are relevant in an article about the objects. For example, let's say we were writing about the hypothetical "Amulet of KanonRa". If some group believed that the amulet had special powers we would naturally include those in the article. Or, if a group believed that a piece of bread achieved certain certain spiritual import during a rite, we'd include those too, even though we're ultimately just writing about a piece of bread.

As for how to handle fringe views, that's covered in WP:FRINGE. It stresses the importance of presenting such views in a neutral fashion ("all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately"), and of including other views where available. There's nothing which says that Fringe views should be omitted entirely from articles closely connected to those views. In the case of the construction weather material, it's a notable assertion as demonstrated by the coverage in independent sources.

I don't want to try to discuss everything at once, but some of the other deleted material concerned the domes in popular culture. TV star Oprah Winfrey did a segment on Fairfield which includes video of her meditating on the Ladies' Dome, which is set to air in the next week or two.   Will Beback  talk  20:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The belief that the buildings have a special mystical power only needs to be discussed briefly; a paragraph or two. Repeatedly discussing various meetings and activities and Oprah and so on is not the way to get the article out from under dispute. WP:UNDUE is the hammer that will knock down any overemphasis on mystical qualities. Binksternet (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

UNDUE is determined by coverage in reliable secondary sources. It has nothing to do with adding or deleting "mystical qualities". If a topic is covered in reliable sources then it probably deserves some weight.   Will Beback  talk  04:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The buildings have special mystical powers?...I've never heard that before. It will be Interesting to see what sources there are for that claim.(olive (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC))

No one has said that the buildings have such powers. But the buildings are built for and used for activities which some might characterize as spiritual or mystical, and which are said to achieve remarkable results. Various aspects about the buildings and their use are reported in numerous reliable sources. Scholarly and journalistic sources should be sufficient for this article, as they are for other articles.   Will Beback  talk  04:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

To be clear about this, are the sources claiming that the buildings have 'spiritual or mystical powers', or are they claiming that the activities that take place within them do? I'd assumed it was the latter, in which case the appropriate place to discuss them is the TM-Sidhi article. If they are making specific claims about these buildings then we may need to cover this in the article - but we'd need a source that stated exactly what was being claimed, rather than the rag-bag approach the article had before. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If I understand it correctly, the believers say that the buildings are like a lens, focusing the mystical powers of the people inside them. I see this as analogous to a satellite dish or parabolic mirror; the dish or mirror can be described as having certain observed focusing properties. In the case of the Golden Domes, the notional properties are observed primarily by MUM scholars and immersed believers (leading to problems with walled garden and undue emphasis), so the description of mystical focusing power should be kept to a minimum. If any uninvolved, non-MUM scholars comment on the domes' mystical focusing power, those comments should be given prominence. Binksternet (talk) 05:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Where did you get these ideas? None of that was in the article. It's a bit disturbing if folks are deleting entire sections without having actually read the article.   Will Beback  talk  07:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Where did you get the impression that anyone was deleting things without reading the article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

"If I understand it correctly, the believers say that the buildings are like a lens, focusing the mystical powers of the people inside them." The article never said anything like that.   Will Beback  talk  18:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The deleted content included quotes that suggested that the buildings had some power beyond simply being gathering places for large numbers of TM practitioners. For example, The Maharishi called the domes "particle accelerators of consciousness" in 1979.[55] The first dome was described in the MUM 1981 yearbook as "the capital of world consciousness".[20] MUM's Review newsletter said in 2001 that they are home to the "nation's largest coherence-creating group".[56] An MUM alumnus wrote in 2006 that the Men's Dome is the movement's "holiest of holies".[57] I'm not quite sure what any of these statements actually mean, but they do seem to suggest some sort of special power. cmadler (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that the purported power which emanates from the domes is due almost entirely to the activities practiced there, rather than to the design of the domes themselves. The small exception are the modifications of the domes in order to bring them closer to Maharishi Sthapatya Veda. So in some senses the domes are comparable to a church which is designed for prayer, but it the the praying which as the effect, not the church. Unlike churches, this is the only notable gathering place for Yogic Flying, which is why describing the actual practice conducted there seems relevant to this article. Those practices are not described generically, but rather are specific to these buildings. For example, the issues about admission to the buildings.   Will Beback  talk  21:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think its uncommon for people to describe buildings in a way that might be reverent... even homes... my home is my castle ... my home is my oasis of solitude, and churches of course, but that seems very different from saying in a literal way that a building is exerting some mystical power... I do think t would be fine to quote MMY on this, as in "particle accelerators..." as long as we have more than one comment from him along this line so the text doesn't have undue weight.(olive (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC))

It is proportionate to state that this belief is held and influenced the design of these specific buildings or of a class of buildings of which these are members, if reliable sources can be found to verify those assertions of course. What we do not want is a long description of all the wonderful effects that are supposed to arise from those powers. Such a description belongs, if anywhere, in an article about the mystical powers themselves. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of literature on Transcendental Meditation and the TM Sidhi program, but I have never seen any that suggests the buildings the techniques are practiced in have mystical powers. From my own research I'd say that idea is far fetched. The theory that has been researched and published in peer review publications is that the group practice of a meditation technique has an influence beyond the individual practicing the technique, and might be compared for discussion here to theories that group prayer for example may have influences beyond a single person praying, although the TM Sidhi program is a technique not a religious practice. People of all religious denominations practice it. The research on the technique does not in anyway depend on the building or any gathering place where the technique is practiced, and please note none of the studies say the technique is dependent on the building nor is the building a parameter of the studies. While the research and the idea of the technique may be hard to understand or swallow, we have to understand the technique came out of an eastern tradition and such techniques for the benefit of an individual are common place in the Eastern traditions.If there are reliable sources that say the buildings are mystical in some way, I've missed them and would certainly be happy to see them.(olive (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC))

Skelmersdale & MVC Domes

Shouldn't the article include the Maharishi Golden Dome completed in Skelmersdale in 1988 [25] as well as the domes included in the master plan for Maharishi Vedic City? Just askin'. Fladrif (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

No. They are other buildings, in other locations. They are not the subject of this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

There might, however, be some value in an article about such domes in general, similar to Church (building). cmadler (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Only if such buildings have been discussed, as a group, in secondary sources. Otherwise, it would be synthesis. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

"Flying halls", the generic term for buildings used for Yogic Flying, are discussed as a generic type.   Will Beback  talk  18:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking that a lot of the deleted material, such as on the assemblies and the other flying halls, could be added to the TM-Sidhi program article.   Will Beback  talk  17:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Some probably can be: but we don't want to burden the article with trivia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not trivia to those who build and use them.   Will Beback  talk  18:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe so, but that does not determine how we write the encyclopaedia. I agree that material about TM and yogic flying in general, and its alleged benefits in particular belongs, if anywhere, at the article on those things: a suitably short summary of the general position and any material that is about these buildings in particular would be all that we might consider as appropriate here. What is appropriate at some other page should be discussed at the corresponding talk page, not here. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I think a lot of sports info is trivia, but I don't impose my opinion on articles about sports stadiums. My point is that info like appearances in popular media, or noted events, is not necessarily trivia.   Will Beback  talk  00:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

(undent) Perhaps we need to change the title of the article to "Golden Dome at Maharishi University of Management"? --BwB (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't seem like a common usage. Why do you think that would be a better title?   Will Beback  talk  00:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Capacity

3000 in total or 3000 each? Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

That's documented in some of the deleted material. Capacity seems like a central issue for a building. I'll restore it unless there's a specific objection.   Will Beback  talk  00:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source for the capacity then by all means cite it. Please do not take that as a reason to add anything else that has been deleted without further discussion. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Unless there are specific, policy-based objections, I'll put in this material:

Attendance

Thousands of people have moved to Fairfield to participate in group practice in the domes. Hundreds of TM-Sidhi practitioners go to the Golden Domes every morning and evening, creating a "parade", a "stream", or a "flood" of attendees walking, pedaling, or driving to the domes. The resulting traffic jams and parking problems have irritated their non-meditating neighbors. Homes and accommodations within walking distance of the domes are desirable. An office building across the highway from the domes is advertised as "just a few seconds from the Golden Domes by car". The campus shuts down during program sessions.

The executive vice president of the local Chamber of Commerce said in 1991 that TM practitioners, who make up from a quarter to a third of the town's population, "spend a great portion of their days in the Domes". The Men's Dome is typically occupied 14 hours a day. MUM President Bevan Morris said in 2009 that there have been "something like 30 million hours of transcending" in the domes.

Attendees range from MUM faculty and students (who receive academic credit for meditating), to business owners and executives. Yogic Flyers living in Fairfield who are not part of the university are said to be members of the "Town Super Radiance" (TSR) community.

It is directly related to the domes, and is not "coatracking".   Will Beback  talk  23:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This is only another version of coatracking the practices into the article. Binksternet (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Over-detailed, and comes across as PR, rather than as encyclopaedic content... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

"Coatracking" isn't a policy. Is there any policy basis for deleting this material? Most of it is from 3rd-party sources.   Will Beback  talk  00:09, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

You're getting it backwards - you need to provide policy-based reasons to include it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

There are few policies that touch on what should be in an article. If we all had to find policy justifications for adding material, that'd be a steep hill. The main policy in question is probably WP:NPOV, which says "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." So the question is whether the material is from reliable sources and is significant. If it is, then it should be included. If we're trading essays, then Wikipedia:Wikipedia is comprehensive is relevant. So are Wikipedia:The perfect article:"Acknowledges and explores all aspects of the subject; i.e., it covers every encyclopedic angle of the subject" and Wikipedia:Featured article criteria: comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context".

Are there any policies mandating its deletion?   Will Beback  talk  00:18, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The ruling policy here is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which at WP:NPOV says "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." I agree with others that the material is excessive, insufficiently relevant and promotional in tone. Some examples:

• Thousands of people have moved to Fairfield to participate in group practice in the domes About the town not the dome
• An office building across the highway from the domes is advertised as "just a few seconds from the Golden Domes by car". Trivia
• The campus shuts down during program sessions About the university not about the domes
• Attendees range from MUM faculty and students (who receive academic credit for meditating), to business owners and executives Marginal relevance; promotional in tone
• For students at the Maharishi School of the Age of Enlightenment, many of whose parents came to Fairfield to practice in the domes, becoming a Sidha and doing Yogic Flying seems to be a rite of passage, according to headmaster Ashley Deans. Not about the domes
• Yogic Flyers living in Fairfield who are not part of the university are said to be members of the "Town Super Radiance" (TSR) community. Not about the domes

Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Cusop has good points. The final one is glaringly obvious—this sentence is not about the Domes: "Yogic Flyers living in Fairfield who are not part of the university are said to be members of the 'Town Super Radiance' (TSR) community." Binksternet (talk) 07:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

(←)Unless there are specific, policy-based objections, I'll put in this material is not how it works. Articles are written by consensus. One editor does not get to tell the others what arguments they are or are not willing to accept. See Wikipedia:Consensus#Reaching_consensus_through_discussion. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Although I agree with most of Cusop's points above, I think "Thousands of people have moved to Fairfield to participate in group practice in the domes", assuming the sources are good (didn't check) is relevant in this article, as it gives a real effect of the domes. Keep in mind that Fairfield is a town of less than 10,000, so drawing thousands is a significant result. (Original reseach: Looking at historical population figures, Fairfield gained 340 people from 1980 to 1990 and just 36 from 1980 to 2010, so if this statement is true, the thousands of new residents either offset what would have been a precipitous 20%+ population decline -- possible -- or perhaps the presence of the domes and/or the TM community has led former residents to leave in greater numbers than they otherwise might, for little or no net gain.) cmadler (talk) 11:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see Cusop has removed For students at the Maharishi School of the Age of Enlightenment, many of whose parents came to Fairfield to practice in the domes, becoming a Sidha and doing Yogic Flying seems to be a rite of passage, according to headmaster Ashley Deans and I've struck out Yogic Flyers living in Fairfield who are not part of the university are said to be members of the "Town Super Radiance" (TSR) community. That leaves the material on the number of people who attend, the widely reported traffic jams, the desirability of living or working close them, and other info directly related to attendance at the Golden Domes. The fact that MUM students receive academic credit for attending seems relevant, but if folks object we could remove the "business owner and executives" material. Is this a workable compromise?   Will Beback  talk  21:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't object strongly to just having Thousands of people have moved to Fairfield to participate in group practice in the domes. The other statements seem insufficiently relevant to this subject and look like synthesis of a number of disparate news reports into a point of view not directly supported by a reliable source. So, no. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Assemblies

The sentences The Transcendental Meditation movement has conducted a number of assemblies bringing together thousands of Yogic Flyers in the hope of positively influencing the United States and the world. The largest assembly brought together 7,000 Yogic Flyers for several weeks starting in December 1983. are unsourced and it is thus not clear whether they refer to assemblies held in these structures, in which case they are relevant, or elsewhere, in which case they are not. Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

This matter was discussed in some of the deleted material. Based on input, it sounds like the thing to do will be to cover the assemblies in detail in the TM-Sidhi program article. It'd probably be suitable, per WP:SS, to mention them briefly in this article, since they happened in the Golden Domes.   Will Beback  talk  00:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

How did 7000 people fit in the Golden Domes which has a capacity of about 3000 for both? Maybe it was due to the magical power of the building? --BwB (talk) 03:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

If the assemblies happened in the domes, then it seems reasonable to memtion a notable one (such as the largest) but we do not want a long list of every such assembly, nor do we want a long list of all the benefits that are supposed to have accrued from them. Such details should be considered for another article. BTW, I asked about capacity in another section. It would however be helpful if the reference explained whether all 7000 were in the domes at one time, or whether they flew shifts. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Or were in other buildings? --BwB (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not uncommon to wish that sources explain things in more detail than they do.   Will Beback  talk  18:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)