Talk:Maharishi Mahesh Yogi/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Honorifics

I would be intersted when MMY first styled himself "Maharishi". Was this before or after 1958? The article does not appear to be aware of this, and mostly treats "Maharishi" as if it was a name. --dab (𒁳) 16:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

MMY never gave himself that name. A reporter called him that sometime in the mid 1950s after MMY answered his questions. MMY was following the guideline that a teacher should not talk about himself. Therefore, instead of giving his actual birth name in response to a reporter's question, MMY probably responded with a detailed explanation of what it meant to be a yogi and what it meant to be a rishi or a maha-rishi. I can just imagine MMY being delighted with the name "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi" as being just right for the message he was bringing to the world. Another note: gurus and sometimes other famous people in India are usually renamed, and the names are considered both a name and an honorific in one. BTW, the name "the Maharishi" is a complete mistake (thanks, Beatles!). Also, by the Sanskrt rules of Sandhi, "Maharishi" should be pronounced "Maharshi". Final note: all of the above is my understanding, but I have seen no reliable references. David spector (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If we can find sources for that it'd be good to add. We should also add that he is or was in life referred to as "His Holiness". There may be a better infobox with a space for honorifics.   Will Beback  talk  23:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox religious biography has some extra fields which might apply to this subject, such as "monastic name", "teacher", "students", and "works". I'm not sure if either "His Holiness" (an honorific) or "Maharishi" (a title that became a name) would fit into the "title field". Many articles, especially on topics with foreign language titles, have pronunciation guides, even recordings. Something like that would improve the article.   Will Beback  talk  03:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It is undisputed that maharshi is an honorific. However, the trademark Maharishi became something like a pseudonym (MMY is never called maharshi, he is "the Maharishi"). This should be pointed out with some more clarity. Also, sources illuminating how the epithet originated would be most welcome. The problem is, if we treat "Maharishi" as an honorific, we will be left with calling him just "Mahesh" and that wouldn't be quite proper. Perhaps the article should settle for referring to him as Varma. Compare Hulk Hogan, nobody knows "the Hulk" is called Bollea, but the article still talks about Bollea matter-of-factly after introducing the name. --dab (𒁳) 13:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

fwiiw, google books gives me references to "the yogi Maharishi Mahesh" dating to 1960. There is also a 1961 reference to a History Thesis: "The teaching of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi as a Neo-Hindu version of Sankara's Vedanta: a modern stage in the development of Vedantic ideas.[7] These are the earliest references I can find so far. The latter reference is also interesting in classifying TM as a branch of Hinduism. TM is of course very much parallel to the Hare Krishna movement in that it started out as part of the hippie subculture, but while ISKCON is ostensibly a Hindu denomination, TM has replaced Hindu terminology with pseudo-western science-like terminology so that it is not obviously part of Hinduism. Referenced academic opinion would be valuable here. --dab (𒁳) 15:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The New York Times uses "the Maharishi".[8] It seems analogous the "the Pope". If a preponderance of scholars prefer something else then we should go with their choice instead. If we have sources for different names or variations it might be worth reporting them too.   Will Beback  talk  11:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note that "yogi" is not an honorific, it's an indication someone has trained in yoga-darshana and been initiated. According to one of the Shankaracharya's of Jyotir Math, Mahesh was never trained in yoga. In fact his course on yoga, was actually written by someone else, a gym teacher.--Kala Bethere (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

In Beacon Light of the Himalayas (October, 1955), he was being called "Maharshi [sic.] Bala Brahmachari Mahesh Yogi Maharaj", and was signing letters "Bala Brahmachari Mahesh". [9]Fladrif (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he has assumed a number of different aliases, esp. in self published works like "Beacon". The successor of Guru Dev stated however, regarding Mahesh: "In the ashram he was doing the work of typing and writing and translation. Then he became a sadhu. However, he has never practiced yoga." In the 60's Mahesh wrote a booklet on the yoga asanas, A Six Month Course in Yoga Asanas, still used in TM rounding and the TM-SP. Despite still using the title "yogi", the book states it was devised by a "Professor Hari Krishna" of the University of Travancore. It would be highly unusual for someone claiming the title "yogi" to not be a master of the standard yogic scriptures, which include the yoga asanas (i.e. the hatha-yoga asanas).--Kala Bethere (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not uncommon, apparently, for Indian spiritual leaders to use a range of names, titles, and sobriquets. I believe "maharishi" and "maharshi" are both valid variations of spelling, and within the movement the latter seems to the be preferred pronunciation.   Will Beback  talk  23:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

how is "yogi" not a honorific seeing that it means "somebody has been initiated in something"? It's the same with sir, professor or saint.

the correct spelling is maharshi, but while I used to think that maharishi was the creation of MMY, I have since seen 19th century English language sources with this spelling, so for the purposes of English, they are just spelling variants.

And yes, Indian spiritual leaders by all appearances are mostly in it for the honorifics, titles and sobriquets. It's a cultural thing I suppose. --dab (𒁳) 07:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

According to one of the Maharishi's fellow students with Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, he never studied yoga and he also assumed the name of Maharishi (he states is inappropriate). There's a difference between assuming a title and actually having earned it.--Kala Bethere (talk) 12:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If we have a source we can add that. Getting back to "his holiness", while there are many sources that use the phrase I've found these that talk about its use:

• Maharishi's devotees, who refer to Maharishi as "His Holiness," ...
• The Maharishi, whom meditators refer to as "his holiness," ...
• University administrators insist that transcendental meditation is not a religion, even if portraits of the Maharishi identify him as "His Holiness."
• The Maharishi is referred to as "his holiness" ...
• Undeterred, last year the maharishi, who is known to his followers as "his holiness" and to his detractors as the "giggling guru" because of his habit of laughing in interviews, ...

So we have "meditators", "devotees", and "followers" who use the term. Does anyone have a preference for one of those over the others?   Will Beback  talk  09:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we have a source which is an interview the Shankaracharya of the North, a fellow student of the Maharishi, admitted during the Kropinski trial IIRC. This interview also states that the Maharishi should NOT be using the grandiose title "Maharishi" (a very high claim, reserved for actual saints).--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

According to a book by one of the Maharishi's former secretaries, Call No Man Master, Maharishi himself was caught adding "His Holiness" to his name! In other words, this is another alias he tried to add himself. I believe such acts are common in megalomaniacs like the Maharishi. If we similarly added all the sobriquets of say Idi Amin to his WP entry it would cover the whole top of the page. John and Yoko appear "right on" on this one: there's nothing "holy" about a self-titled teacher who's been involved in spiritual incest with his students. To qualify that in an encyclopedia article would be a most egregious error IMO.--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's the source from Kropinski's interview with the Shankaracharya of the North entitled

Q: Mahesh Yogi claims that he preaches yoga according to the instruction

of his Guru. The truth of the matter, however, is that Guru Dev never asked anyone who is not a Brahmin by birth to go and spread his teachings. What is your opinion?

Shankaracharya: This is true. In reality, preaching, initiating, guiding

people engaged in spiritual pursuits, is the duty of those who are born in a Brahmin family. If he is a follower of Sanatan Dharma (the Hindu religion), he should not do what he is doing. This is against the orders of his Guru. Moreover, making others write puujya (revered), calling himself Maharishi (a great seer) is totally inappropriate. No assembly of saints has either conferred upon him a title of Maharishi nor has announced him puujya.

In the ashram he was doing the work of typing and writing and translation.

Then he became a sadhu. However, he has never practiced yoga.

It is said that Guru Dev was given poison. Who gave that poison we

don't know but we know that there was poison in his body. When Guru Dev's body became unwell, then we wanted him to go to Kashi to rest. But he (Mahesh) removed him from that trip forcibly and took him to speak in Calcutta. There he died.

After that, this man [Mahesh Varma] spread his net. He went abroad. First to Singapore.

The expatriate Indians there, thinking that he is the disciple of Shankaracharya, received him well and got him a ticket for the United States. After going to America, he brought the Beatles back here. It was rumored that he did inappropriate things with them and that's why they left him and went away.

Note: this last part points to he fact that Swami Brahmananda Saraswati was poisoned to death and that Mahesh Varma was one of the primary suspects.--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow. All I can say is that strong personalities evoke strong reactions. Let's start with the widely reported fact that he is called "his holiness" by his followers or devotees, and any basic information on the derivation of "Maharishi". Due to the controversial nature of some of these assertions, it might be best to use only mainstream or repeated sources for them. That said, I think it's implicit that he wasn't called anything by his followers that he didn't want to be called.   Will Beback  talk  13:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd use the book Call No Man Master [10] then, since she witnessed it, first hand. But either this book or the Shankaracharya's interview are important, the Shankaracharya being like a Hindu pope and in this case, a fellow student of the Maharishi.--Kala Bethere (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Call No Man Master may not be reliable per the publisher:

[11]

Original addition: Which is Gateway. A quick look. There may be others http://www.jimdo.com/user/www.gateway-books.com

http://www.lendinglibmystery.com/Gateway/Covers.html

http://www.gatewaypress.com/

Most recent publicayion is self published and past publisher may be a self publication publisher as well. I don't have time to look further but reliability is in question.(olive (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC))

Agree that the current publisher is definitely a vanity press. Can't tell one way or the other on Gateway Books, which is apparently out of business. The first edition appears to have been published by Gateway Books (CN) as a paperback.[12] No idea whether that was a vanity press, but the Gateway Books here doesn't appear to be the Gateway Books division of Regnery nor to be the Gateway Press that olive found. Gateway Press is definitely being a vanity press. If there's a better source, we should go with that in preference to this. Fladrif (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The entire book, as of a couple of years ago, was online (IIRC, on the authors web page!). If it's not still online, it would be accessible through the Internet Archive. Not sure who the original publisher is.--Kala Bethere (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand that it's available online. You can get it at Google Books. That isn't the issue. The original edition was published by Gateway Books (CN). What we can't figure out is whether or not that was a vanity press. If it was, then this books is just like a blog, i.e. self-published, and can't be used as a reliable source except for very, very narrow things (such as what the author says about him or herself).Fladrif (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It's trick to determine whether a book published is a vanity press or not. Here's a list of books by the same publisher. [13] One factor that makes it look more like a regular publisher is that they've published several series on travel, business, and retirement written by different authors. They have published other books on spirituality or the paranormal, which makes it appear like a publisher's interest. I'd expect a vanity publisher to have an essentially random collection of titles.   Will Beback  talk  22:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The author has a website, http://www.joycecollinsmith.co.uk/. I've written to her asking about Gateway Books and about any changes between the editions.   Will Beback  talk  22:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I found an article about David Icke, which includes this:

• However, Icke's views have so worried Gateway Books, the Bath publisher of four of his books, that it has refused to publish his next one. Kevin Redpath, the company's marketing director, said: "We were very worried by revisionist material in the manuscript as well as things he says about certain named people, which are completely unsourced and unsubstantiated."

I doubt that vanity publishers have marketing directors who worry about publishing revisionist material.   Will Beback  talk  22:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I did a search on Abebooks using the advanced search for "gateway" as the publisher and got a lot of New Age genre works, with very tacky covers.--Kala Bethere (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Pending any evidence otherwise, it appears that Gateway Books was a legitimate publisher. I haven't had a chance to look at the second edition, but it might indicate if there are significnat changes from the first edition.   Will Beback  talk  00:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The word "Yogi" in MMY's name does not mean a master of physical poses or stretching exercises (hatha yoga). It refers to the original meaning (yoga=yoked) of 'uniting the mind and senses with the Divine, universal level of life'. It is completely irrelevant that MMY's standard hatha yoga booklets used on teacher training and other residence courses were written and illustrated by other people. Stretching poses are a minor part of the TM program and are not even taught to TM practitioners until they attend such a course. And even then, they were often taught by ordinary course participants (who happened to have had some hatha yoga experience), at least in the 1960s and 1970s when I attended them. David spector (talk) 04:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting that The New York Times, because of its revered status, can be used as a reliable source for the usage "The Maharishi" in spite of the experience of me and other people here who actually attended his lectures that no one other than complete outsiders called him "The Maharishi". We all called him Maharishi or Maharshi because that was his current name. IMO, this is a rare example of where the correct use of WP guidelines (such as the related WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:CITE) results in factual error. David spector (talk) 04:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It isn't just the NYT that uses "the Maharishi". In addition to dozens of other newspapers, it's used by The Hindustan Times, The Times of India, and The Hindu, papers that are presumably familiar with the proper use of Indian titles. It's also used by newspapers in the U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Israel, in one case as early as 1966. It's also used by religious scholars like George D. Chryssides and Timothy Miller. Since it's a title, it seems like good grammar to include the article. We say "the Pope" of "Pope John", but never "Pope". We'd say "the professor" or "Professor Jones", but not "Professor" by itself. If there's a source that discusses variations in his names and titles then we could add a few lines about it.   Will Beback  talk  05:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

We went through this some time ago, and actually a couple of times. If you check the talk page archives, it appears that the Styleguides of the NYTimes and the BBC indicate "the Maharishi". The MUM styleguide, which used to be online but I can't find anymore, would indicate "Maharishi". I guess I see DS's observation from another perspective: no-where, except among TM practitioners, do I see the use of "Maharishi" - the near universal usage outside of that small circle is "the Maharishi". Using "Maharishi" automatically labels the speaker/writer as an insider.Fladrif (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Maharishi is not an honorific anymore than the title we used in high school for our male teachers, sir, or calling a teacher...well...teacher, which we don't use in the US since it is more formal . Maharishi in general translates as teacher, and its etymology is sage or poet [14].Calling him "the Maharishi" specifies as "the one" teacher, while calling him Maharishi generalizes as one of many "teachers". The term is more a matter of respect and etiquette than an honorific title, and I believe is or was used that way. We have to remember Maharishi was Indian and standards of etiquette in that country are not the same as in the US. However inaccurate the sources are, we have to go with them unless there is another consensus here to go with something else.(olive (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC))

In the Larry King interview (May 12, 2002), MMY says it's a "title", which means "great seer", which through useage has become "a sort of a name". Which, one might conclude, only confuses the question all the more. But, as olive says, right or wrong, the way to go in this article is with what mainstream sources use, which is almost universally "the Maharishi". Fladrif (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

To Olive, three prominent English-language newspapers in India use "the Maharishi", so I think it's inaccurate to say that this is a case of a mistake by Americans who are unfamiliar with Indian etiquette. While the students of a teacher may call him or her "teacher/Teacher", that's not how an encyclopedia article would routinely refer to that person.   Will Beback  talk  22:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say there was a mistake made and the etiquette point did not have to do with the Maharishi but with whether some non Americans use certain titles to show respect rather than first names or even surnames. Sir, would be a title denoting respect for a teacher as would Maharishi . No mistakes were made. Different traditional values are in affect. The Maharishi as opposed to Maharishi was/is a syntactical clarification. The points are moot.We go with the sources.(olive (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC))

Family

• Members of the Maharishi's family lit the funeral pyre, which had been decorated with flower petals and flags.[15]
• The family finished the ceremony by removing the white shroud from the Maharishi, anointing the body with ghee, or clarified butter, and covering it with saffron-colored powder. They then set it ablaze, sending plumes of white smoke into the air.[16]

Do we have any information about his surviving family?   Will Beback  talk  21:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Meanwhile, Brahmchari Girish, Maharishi's nephew thanked UP CM Mayawati and MP CM Shiv Raj Singh Chauhan for according state honour to His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.
  • Veneration marks 'Shodashi Sanskar' The Hindustan Times. New Delhi: Feb 20, 2008.

• His nephew Brahmchari Girish Verma lit the pyre in 'abhijeet muhurat'. [..] His successors Tony Nadaar and Girish Verma, along with 60 others, had brought the body from Holland.
  • Homage To Maharishi Mahesh Yogi [17]

• Under the perpetual divine guidance & blessing of His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Ji and under the able leadership and guidance of Brahmachari Girish Ji, Hon’ble Chairman, National Board of Directors, Maharishi Vidya Mandir Schools Group, three-day Maharishi National Cultural Celebration 2009 was organised and hosted by Maharishi Vidya Mandir-1, Raipur from 9 October 2009 to 11 October 2009
  • http://www.e-gyan.net/November09/picture/E-GyanNovember.pdf
• His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Ji was the founder and the first Chancellor of MMYVV. At present Brahmachari (Dr.) Girish ji is the Chancellor and as per divine desire and guidance provided by Maharishi Ji, is trying to impart knowledge to large number of Students.
  • http://www.e-gyan.net/July/picture/E-GyanNewsletter-JULY.pdf

So apparently there's a nephew who is head of the Maharishi school system.   Will Beback  talk  06:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Operational Organizations within India

Construction of buildings in Phases 1 and 2 of the project and land ownership of the 1,200 acres in the geographic center of India are being done by the Spiritual Regeneration Movement of India, a charitable trust founded by Maharishi. In Phase 2 of the project, for the establishment of the 48 Brahmananda Saraswati Nagars, affiliated charities in India founded by Maharishi which also operate under the umbrella of the Global Country of World Peace will also be involved in some location-specific tasks.

Training and employment of Vedic Pandits is being carried out by Maharishi Veda Vigyan Vishwa Vidya Peeth, a charitable trust in India.

The management team for these charities in India is led by Dr. Girish Chandra Varma. Dr Varma is Director General of the Maharishi Capital of World Peace in the Brahmasthan of India, Chancellor of Maharishi University of Management, Chhattisgarh, and as Chancellor of Maharishi Vidya Mandir Schools group has provided the executive direction over the establishment and operation of a private school system with 160 schools and 88,000 students.

The Creating World Peace project is an initiative of the Global Country of World Peace

So it appears that, in addition to running the schools, the nephew is also responsible for a charitable trust and an official of the Global Country of World Peace.   Will Beback  talk  20:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added two sentences on the nephews.   Will Beback  talk  23:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd try to be consistent in English-Hindi transliteration and keep it as "Varma", rather than as "Verma".--Kala Bethere (talk) 02:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that.   Will Beback  talk  02:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

References

(moved to bottom)-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed text for Early Life section

I removed text from this section as the ref was from a self-published primary source.

"However, another source [ Statement by Richard J. Williams concerning Maharishi and the Shankaracharyas.] states that Guru Dev and Mahesh both wanted Shri Swami Shantanand Saraswati to become the next Shankaracharya (which happened). This same source also recounts several ways in which Swami Shantanand, like Guru Dev before him, subsequently supported Maharishi."

--BwB (talk) 11:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Maharishi income

In the lede the reader is told that the Maharishi made a good deal of income in the 1970's. Text reads "..yielding immense profit, providing the guru with an estimated yearly income of several million GBP during the 1970s." A few points for discussion:

1. There is no reference for this statement. Can we get one to support the text?;

2. I understand the lede to be a summary of the text contained in the article. However, I do not see any discussion of the Maharishi's personal net worth or is income in the article. Perhaps we could add something to the article, or remove the statement from the lede; and,

3 The lede text refers to income during the 1970s. Perhaps it would be better to have information that is more current, say from the 2000s? Or statements about his personal income over the 50+ years of his career?

Thanks. --BwB (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

oops! May have shot the gun here before rereading the text. I'll come back to this later after I look thru the article again. --BwB (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

well, the source of the six million figure is the Times obituary, but it doesn't name a specific year. The context is the 1970s. I readily admit that we need better sources for this, but as MMY was notable for his love of luxury, display of wealth, and mentally handling even greater riches (I mean the 5% cuts of the $300 trillion he wanted for telling the world to demolish 95% of the planet's buildings), I do think the article should pay much more attention to financial matters. I think User:Will Beback is collecting references on the net worth of MMY's assets by the time of his death (several billion), but we definitely need better sources, if you have any please add them. --dab (𒁳) 16:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a biography, so information from any period of the subject's life is relevant. A 2006 article in the Daily Mail discusses the subject's finances extensively. The most relevant to this thread:

• [Bob] Roth puts Maharishi's assets at between Pounds 300million and Pounds 600million, but some analysts believe they are several times greater.
  • "MY AUDIENCE WITH THE YOGI" DAVID JONES. Daily Mail. London (UK): Mar 18, 2006. pg. 34

Note that it clearly attributes those assets to the Maharishi himself.

This references appears to discuss incomes some time ago:

• Although the guru's association with the Beatles was brief, the publicity it created was invaluable. Converts to the cause grew and he made a series of canny property investments with the funds that he amassed. In England alone he bought Mentmore Towers in Buckinghamshire, Roydon Hall in Maidstone, Swythamley Park in the Peak District and a Georgian rectory in Suffolk. He was reported to have an income of Pounds 6 million. [..] From this small beginning the Maharishi over his lifetime developed a global organisation with nearly 1,000 TM centres, property assets valued in 1998 at $3.5 billion and an estimated four million disciples.
  • "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi" The Times. London (UK): Feb 7, 2008. pg. 62

I'll keep looking for more.   Will Beback  talk  20:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

of course the TM imperium was under the direct personal control of MMY. But did he also legally own its assets? Or was it organized more like an, ahem, not-for-profit organization? Also, the question of inheritance imposes itself. Who ended up with MMY's personal fortune? Or is there a legal battle still ongoing? --dab (𒁳) 20:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It'd take more searching, but I recall seeing somewhere that his family back in India amassed large properties. That came as a surprise to me since I'd assumed he had no family ties. I've also seen some mention of a tax problem in India, and even the confiscation of assets. Also a tax problem in Switzerland. I don't recall now if those were in reliable sources or blogs, so we'll need to pin them down before adding them.   Will Beback  talk  21:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• The Maharishi also ran into income tax problems in India in the '70s, so he moved his operations to Holland.
  • "TM disciples remain loyal despite controversies" Steve Rabey, Religion Editor. Colorado Springs Gazette - Telegraph. Colorado Springs, Colo.: Sep 17, 1994. pg. E.2

That's too sketchy to use, but I imagine we could find a better source.   Will Beback  talk  21:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

it seems we just need to look a little deeper, and a lot of interesting background on "jet-setting gurus" will emerge, such as involvement in murky arms deals.[18] --dab (𒁳) 12:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

But really...arms deals?? ....Keep in mind in your digging the fringe guideline... anybody can say anything and apparently will but significance must be established.Truly remarkable.(olive (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC))

I think Dbachmann misread the source. It is Chandra Swami who's been accused of involvement in arming the Contras, not Maharishi or Rajneesh.   Will Beback  talk  00:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

With respect to all editors here, I just want to be sure that, since this article is about MMY, (of course he was head of many world wide organizations) that if we are going to add material about his personal new worth or ownership of assets, we are careful to ensure that MMY himself owned the assets or had bank accounts. The press (God bless them) sometimes has the tendency to want to attribute ownership of assets to individuals when they actually belong to organizations. --BwB (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

We should certainly be careful to report sources accurately. However since the Maharishi controlled the organization and directed the use of its resources the distinction between them is very small.   Will Beback  talk  22:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we should reflect the sources accurately. That is the main point.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the lead section requires strong verifiability. Also since some editors have requested a source and none has been provided over the past few days, then, for the sake of accuracy for our readers, I am parking the sentence/phrase here, until a reliable source can be found.

• "yielding immense profit, providing the guru with an estimated yearly income of several million GBP during the 1970s."-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I tracked down a source for the figure of 6 million GBP, so we can re-add it with that. (See the quoted text in this thread). "Immense" is a judgment call, and I think we can leave that out.   Will Beback  talk  22:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

"immense" may be subjective, but I think you will be hard put to name many nrms with yearly revenues of several million, except a handful very good at making money such as Scientology. The interesting part is that Scientology insists that they are religious and has numerous court rulings telling them they aren't, while the TM movement appears to insist they aren't and has numerous court rulings insisting that they are, while otherwise both organizations are pretty much doing the same thing, striving for world domination with a good serving of ineptitude. --dab (𒁳) 17:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Kbob hasn't restore this material now that a source has been identified.   Will Beback  talk  20:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Kbob, are you going to add this back. You "parked" it here pending a source, and one has been found.   Will Beback  talk 

Sorry I lost track of this conversation annd Will I don't know what source you are referring to. Can someone post it here, please? I can then amend my deletion in accordance with the source. Thanks,-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

See ""Maharishi Mahesh Yogi" The Times. London (UK): Feb 7, 2008. pg. 62" earlier in this thread.   Will Beback  talk  03:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks!-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you left out the income part, the subject of this thread.   Will Beback  talk  00:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It's been ten days since the material was moved to here, where a reliable sources was already discussed. And it still hasn't been restored. I guess that Kbob isn't going to do it.   Will Beback  talk  18:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm just catching up with many discussions, but it looks to me as if content was added to the lead on Maharishi's income. (olive (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC))

Perhaps I'm missing it. Could you quote the text in the lead that addresses Maharishi's income?   Will Beback  talk  19:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

"Over the course of his life, the Maharishi developed a global organization with an estimated four million followers, 1,000 Transcendental Meditation centers and property assets valued at $3.5 billion in 1998."(olive (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC))

That's not income. The text that was deleted for the (mistaken) reason that it wasn't sourced said "providing the guru with an estimated yearly income of several million GBP during the 1970s." It's been shown several times to have a reliable source.   Will Beback  talk  19:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with what's in place. I don't feel that specifically using either one or the other of the terms, assets or income is significant, but if you want to add more I guess either you or Kbob should go ahead.(olive (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC))

I think the current sentence which I placed in the lead is OK as it gives an overview of what MMY accomplished with his organization (his life's work) in terms of followers, TM centers and assets. I was not OK with the prior version which implied personal income and personal assets as that is not what the London Times source says. Will has provided some other sources that seem to reference personal income and this could be included in the article somewhere but since its contentious and will include sources with varying POV's, it doesn't seem appropriate for the lead.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

His income is exactly what the source reports: "He was reported to have an income of Pounds 6 million." When you removed it you said you were doing so because of a lack of a source. Since a source has been provided, are you now changing your reason for deleting it?   Will Beback  talk  18:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the material in the lede is a summary of the article. In the lede we have the wording "..and property assets valued at $3.5 billion in 1998. [The Times London, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Feb 7 2008, pg 62]", but there is no discussion on the Maharishi's property in the article. We should either remove this point form the lede or create some text in the article. --BwB (talk) 11:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I moved this up because it's related to this thread.   Will Beback  talk  20:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for moving this to the correct place, Will. Now we need to address the point that my posting made. --BwB (talk) 10:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

seeing that as the movement's guru, MMY had complete control over all aspects of the movement, including its finances, It is futile to try and make a distinction between MMY's personal wealth and the movement's assets.

The Times obituary cites "property assets valued in 1998 at $3.5 billion and an estimated four million disciples" in a biography of MMY, which is the very context in which we are using it here. If you have a better or more recent estimate, let us know. --dab (𒁳) 15:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not disputing the content itself, rather the fact that there is mention of income in the lede, but this not elaborated in the text. Either the text needs to be removed from the lede, or material added to the article on the topic. --BwB (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Folks are confusing income and assets. To recount, Kbob deleted the income from the lead because he erroneously thought it was unsourced. When asked about it (repeatedly) he added the assets of the whole organization instead. Now Bwb is complaining about having assets in the lead that aren't discussed in the text. I'll go add back the original text about the income, text which never should have been deleted and which is discussed in the text, and hopefully that will resolve this unnecessary farce.   Will Beback  talk  20:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Reference section discussion

There was consensus in the past to have this ref list at the bottom of the talk page. Even tho its annoying to have to move, its also handy for discussion. Please start a discussion if you would like to change this tradition. Thanks!-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

wow, so there is now a "talkpage tradition" peculiar to the TM articles? Let me tell you something. I have 10,000 pages on my watchlist. I have posted to literally thousands of Wikipedia talkpages. If you feel there should be a special guideline for TM talkpages I do invite you to explain your rationale for that. Otherwise, discussion of Wikipedia talkpage behaviour goes to Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines. --dab (𒁳) 15:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

MERU Press publication

• Proclamations, p.8, MERU Press publication, Germany, G875, 1976,

What kind if source is this? Is it a published book?   Will Beback  talk  02:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Here are two sources and there are more.[19][20]-- — Kbob • Talk • 03:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

So we don't know anything about "Proclamations"? I see it was added by someone at STICHTING MAHARISHI FOUNDATION INTERNATIONAL, in Vlodrop.[21] If know one knows what it is let's remove it. thefamouspeople.com appears to be a tertiary source, and its authors aren't even listed anywhere. I guess that leaves us with the globalgoodnews.com site as a source for this material.   Will Beback  talk  04:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I've searched the archive of the Los Angeles Times, and it doesn't seem to mention any award of a "Key to the City". That's probably because awards like that are given out so freely that they aren't newsworthy. Many of the items in this section appear to be of marginal notability. One thing that I have seen mentioned repeatedly in secondary sources which is omitted here is the commendation by the Illinois state assembly.   Will Beback  talk  11:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to find some more sources. The Man of Hope award was given by the City of Hope which is a suburb of LA. The City of Hope still issues awards today and they are mentioned in the papers but so far I can't find a record of the one the Maharishi received in the 60's. Give me a little time to see what I can find not just for that one but the other awards as well.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The "Man of Hope" awards are reported in the L.A. Times for many years before and after 1970, but not that year. Nor they mention Maharishi in the same article.   Will Beback  talk  03:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Maharishi on Dais Los Angeles Times (1923-Current File). Los Angeles, Calif.: Nov 12, 1970. pg. WS5, 1 pgs

In that article they say that the Maharishi spoke at the annual dinner of the "Professions and Finance Division of the Merchants Club" for the City of Hope. But they don't mention any award.   Will Beback  talk  03:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You've done some good research, if you feel the award is not verifiable than we can remove it. What about the others? Any luck there?-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

In this case, I think secondary sources are needed more to establish notability rather than verifiability. For example, in another article there was a matter of the Mayor of San Francisco declaring a certain date as "___ Day". On further investigation it turned out that the mayor makes such declarations just about every day of the year, that they're rarely reported even by local papers, and that the honor wasn't mentioned in the bios of other honorees. Many of these minor civic awards are just not important.   Will Beback  talk  06:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need a special section for Awards. The ones that are notable and verifiable should be placed in a proper place in the article maybe chronologically.-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's best to place things chronologically, wherever possible.   Will Beback  talk 

Again - if no one can lay their hands on the source for this and describe it then the material should be deleted.   Will Beback  talk  20:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion has meandered. Can you state specifically what you are proposing?-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I will repeat the unanswered questions from the top of the thread: What kind if source is this? Is it a published book?   Will Beback  talk  21:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It would appear to me that these are annual collections assembled by MERU (Maharishi European Research University) of the press releases that appear on Global Good News. The the proper title is likely "Proclamations and Endorsements (1976)". Other than Wikipedia mirrors, this is the only reference I could find to this source on the interwebs. Are press releases going to qualify as RS's for this? I vote to excise this material. The fact that there are no secondary sources on these "key-to-the-City/man-of-the-year" type awards tells me that they aren't notable. Not that I'd turn one down, mind you. They just aren't the Nobel Prize; they're not even even a Kirby Award... I mean Kilby Award. Fladrif (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that the MERU source is reliable. If the information is significant we should be able to find other sources.(olive (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC))

It seems Fladrif has removed the text but I will park it here and when sources are found the text can be re-entered.

• According to a publication by Maharishi European Research University, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi was the recipient of awards and citations during his lifetime. Some of these are:
• Man of Hope award, 1970, City of Hope, California;
• Golden Medal of the City of Delphi, Greece;
• Key to the City of Houston, Texas, USA;
• Key to the City of Los Angeles, California, USA; and, honorary citizenship to the City of Winnipeg, Canada.
• Proclamations given by governing bodies include ones given by Governor Dan Walker of Illinois, and by Members of the Parliament of India.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I've seen the numbered Proclamations of the Government of the Global Country of World Peace on the Web somewhere, published by them. MERU Press is a publishing company that is one of Maharishi's organizations; it cannot be considered objective, hence it is not a prior reliable except for claims. It publishes many books containing general and specific public information about Maharishi, TM, and related topics. In the cases of proclamations and claims made by MERU Press, I do not see any reason for the existence of secondary sources. In the lack of secondary sources, and assuming notability (I would say that receiving keys to cities is notable), reliable primary sources (such as definitive statements by witnesses) would be sufficient. Hope this opinion helps. David Spector 04:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of repetitive and redundant content

Beatles content in the Reception section is very alike and in some cases identical to content earlier in the article. I've removed the content in the reception section. Anything that needs to be re added should be added to the earlier section. None of the content is sourced. I'll see if I can find a source. (olive (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC))

This looks like a good reorg. --BwB (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Mauna

• On January 11, 2008, he announced his retirement from all administrative activities and went into mauna (spiritual silence) until his death three weeks later.

The assertion that the subject entered mauna has never been sourced. It was first added here, so far as I can tell.[22] IIRC, sources say that he stated prior to his death that he would devote his remaining time to completing a commentary on Vedic scriptures, which would seem to be a different activity from spiritual silence. Do we have any sources for mauna?   Will Beback  talk  00:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If not, then it can simply be removed. --BwB (talk) 12:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree, if there is not a source then let's remove it.-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, I saw a Web video of MMY made after his resignation, in which he talks happily about Guru Dev and says "Jai Guru Dev" repeatedly. I would imagine that he went into silence a few hours or days before his body died. David Spector 04:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

He was also allegedly working on his Apaurusheya Bhasya, his "uncreated commentary" on the Rig Veda which he had supposedly been working on for decades.

I heard he died from complications from diabetes. Some claimed he would cry out in pain at times, it was so severe. A very painful way to go. This was seen on videos.

No talk of incorruptibility of the body like that seen in actual saints. The TM Org first tried to pass off an old picture of him from years before with his eyes closed, but those who were there protested and it was removed and replaced with the actual corpse pics.--Kala Bethere (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

what's with the COI accounts

This article, and the TM topics in general, continues to be edited tendentiously out of MUM. Wasn't there some administrative intervention against these accounts at some point, or why are they still editing? --dab (𒁳) 12:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Did not know of any ban of any editors. --BwB (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

They are still allowing the TM Org editors to edit and so you'll notice a lot of the Pro-TM advertisement-style material is being slowly restored, as are blatantly primary sources from TM Org associates. Unfortunately, they were never banned. It's been really sad to watch the vandalization take place right under our noses. No one does anything about it.

If any neutral editors leave for a few days (or even if they don't) the TM Org editors work stealthily to restore material.

Now they're even attacking the neutral editors and accusing us of being sockpuppets and other lies, harassment and incivilities to try to divert attention away from their own actions.--Kala Bethere (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Girish Chandra Varma

I've added a reference for Maharishi's nephew, Dr. Girish Chandra Varma, and a quotation from him. This seems to me NPOV and uncontroversial, but if anyone disagrees, feel free to revert or edit. David Spector 04:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It actually seems quite controversial. Unsupported magical changes in behavior? Quite bizarre. I reverted it David.--Kala Bethere (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I changed it back. A mysterious one-page PDF replaced a newsletter with clear provenance as the source. Also, we don't use academic titles like "Dr". If he's a medical doctor we should note that independently, saying something like, "Varma, a physician,..." or "Varma, a cardiologist,..."   Will Beback  talk  20:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have accidentally deleted a reference. I was objecting to the quote, not to Girishiji's inclusion, which is relevant as he is a key relative of the Maharishi and an important financial successor.--Kala Bethere (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

We have our signals crossed. Kala deleted the quotation. I would have deleted it too, since it doesn't mention MMY. I also reverted this edit, [23], for the reasons specified above.   Will Beback  talk  01:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

John Alex Mardas affidavit, February 2010

John Alex Mardas, "Magic Alex" of Rishikesh course fame, issues a sworn affidavit on defamation and the real story behind Maharishi's action on this course with Beatle John Lennon [24].--Kala Bethere (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

There are so many different views of what happened at Rishikesh, and the other details of the relationship between MMY and The Beatles, that perhaps the best solution will be to create a standalone article.   Will Beback  talk  01:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Seelisberg

In 1968 Maharishi announced that he would withdraw from public activity and began training meditators at his global headquarters in Seelisberg, Switzerland, who would take over the teaching of the technique. This date is not correct. The Seelisberg headquarters were purchased in the early 1970s. Until then, TM teacher training was conducted in:

1969 - Estes Park, Colorado, United States

1971 - Mallorca, Spain

1972 - Mallorca, Spain and Fiuggi, Italy

1973 - Mallorca, Spain

An anon added the material in italics, which was properly reverted as a comment.[25] However the issue remains. So far as I've read, the Seelisburg center didn't become active until roughly the mid-1970s. Some of this material is perhaps more relevant to another article, like TMM#History. But if we can find a source to correct then we should.   Will Beback  talk  01:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Occultism & Parapsychology, 5th Ed. ISBN 0810385708 says that: "In 1968, the [World Plan Executive Council] moved its headquarters to Seelisberg, Switzerland,..."

That's not quite the same as what we're asserting. Maybe we can finesse the issue, though without sources for the original assertion it's hard to know quite what to say.   Will Beback  talk  03:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if Paul Mason, The Maharishi would have the information. The book can't be previewed, but perhaps if someone owns it or can easily get hold of it.....?(olive (talk) 03:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC))

A NEA wire service article Kleiner, Dick "Meditation movement raising big think on US campuses" Owosso Argus-Press (NEA) (September 10, 1969) p 18 quotes Jerry Jarvis, director of SIMS, in September 1969, as stating that TM teacher training was being conducted at the time in India. Fladrif (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe the Rishikesh ashram was still going at least as late as 1970. So perhaps we should say something like, "In the late 1960 and early '70s, the Maharishi provided TM teacher training in various locations, including India, Mallorca, Fuiggi, and Seelisberg."   Will Beback  talk  20:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That's probably right. A quick look through Google News seems to indicate that teacher training was going on at a lot of different places. India, Seelisberg, France, Belgium, Mallorca, the Catskills....etc. The precise timing is probably going to be impossible, and probably pointless, to pin down. A February 1972 LA Times Article Parrott, Jennings, "Yogi goes to top for Swiss quarters", Los Angeles Times" (February 9, 1972) pB2 recounts the difficulties the Maharishi was experiencing in getting necessary governmental permits for building a meditation center at Seelisberg. Just short of two years later, a November 2003 NY Times article identifies Seelisburg (note variations in spelling) as the international adminstrative HQ of the TM Movement. Horsley, Carter, "Catskills hotel sold as meditation center", New York Times (November 25, 1973) Somewhere in-between the TM Movement got the necessary permits, and MERU was established there, splitting time between Switzerland in the Winter, and France in the Summer.Cafferty, Bethia, "New university centers on TM", St. Petersburg Evening Independent (July 16, 1975) Fladrif (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Srivastava

Many sources list "Srivastava" as the subject's last name,[26][27][28][29][30] but we don't mention it until the sixth paragraph. It would seem more appropriate to list both "Srivastava" and "Varma" as possible surnames in the lead, since there are sources for both. Any thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  18:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have Mason's bio, but a messageboard post purported to be by Mason[31] addresses this question and quotes from Mason's bio. Mason says that it is difficult to pin down, but posits that Srivastava is the correct birth name, but that Mahesh left his family home at a young age to live with relatives, and adopted his uncle's surname, Varma. Fladrif (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I have Paul Mason's biography. He says, "Mahesh Prasad Varma was born..." There is no indication that Maharishi lived with his uncle , left home to live with relatives, used the name Srivastava or took his uncle's name...If that's any help.(olive (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC))

As I say, I don't, so you have the advantage. While it is entirely possible, somehow I doubt that the quote in the messageboard post[32] simply invented the quote from the book out of whole cloth. Perhaps it is somewhere later in the book and you've missed it.Fladrif (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of which, is there some reason why we don't use the Mason biography as a source for this article? We seem to rely heavily on the subject's self-published memoir, so it'd be better to find other sources.   Will Beback  talk  04:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Paul Mason's biography is probably the best independent source I've seen. He seems quite discerning and very approachable via email I am told, although mostly researching the Maharishi's guru Swami Brahmananda these days. But I'm sure he could clarify any specific questions and give sources you would need.--Kala Bethere (talk) 12:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It would appear that the reason that Mason's biography is not used as a source is because the Fairfield Editors have opposed use of it as a source. It is apparently a banned book in TM-Movement circles. TimidGuy has vigorously opposed use of Mason's book in these articles and that opposition became one of the central points of discussion in the March 2007 COIN dicsussion.[33], where TG asserted that he simply could not accept Mason, claimed he was untrained and biased, self-published (which is false) etc. Olive argued that including Mason "wasn't an option" for reasons that I, frankly, don't understand. DSeer in that discussion quotes an e-mail to him from Mason saying that the TM Movement has tried to supress the book. I hoped that Olive is not risking excommunication if word gets out that she has a copy. Fladrif (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Information on the publisher seems lacking.[34]. Whether Mason's book is reliable source is open for discussion it would seem. My comment on the COIN had to do with specific content, in a specific section of the article, and at that stage in development of the article, as far as I can remember, and frankly I don't remember much about it. If the book has been published by a company created just to publish the book, that may be a problem.

Its possible I've missed the quote but the index does not list the name either.(olive (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC))

The original hardcover edition was published by Element Books, published hundreds of books on religion and spirituality-related topics[35], was purchased by HarperCollins in 2000[36] and now publishes as Thorsons/Element[37]. It is not a vanity press. The current paperback version published by Evolution Publishing appears to be the first imprint of that publisher[38] and appears to be owned by someone named Derek Dearden. [39] Whether that is a vanity press or not, I have no idea. In any event, the original hardcover was clearly not self-published. Fladrif (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to using the 1994 Elements (US)/Longmead (UK) edition of Paul Mason's The Maharishi: the biography of the man who gave transcendental meditation to the world ISBN 1852305711 as a source for this article?   Will Beback  talk  19:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This addition seems to be compliant per its publisher. Other versions I'm seeing look to be self published. I would be fine with using the 1994 addition.(olive (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC))

I looked and the 1994 edition makes the statement that Olive transcribed. Perhaps the later edition was changed. In any case, there are other sources that describe "Srivastava" and even "mahesh" as the subject's surname.   Will Beback  talk  01:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Coplin

Does anyone have access to Coplin?

• Coplin, J.R. (1990) Text and Context in the Communication of a Social Movement's Charisma, Ideology, and Consciousness: TM for India and the West. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego

It's used as a source several times, and was added by an anon from Fairfield, user:63.162.80.99.   Will Beback  talk  04:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, some of the material was deleted here: [40][41] The editor calls it "fringe" material. If it is fringe, then the other material from the same source should be reviewed carefully.   Will Beback  talk  04:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I can get a copy of the dissertation, if necessary. TimidGuy (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a UCSD dissertation, but if you can obtain it it and send me a copy that would be very helpful. I've also written to Coplin asking for it.   Will Beback  talk  18:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

As a relatively inexperienced editor at the time, I think I was using fringe to mean extraneous to the topic of the article rather than WP:FRINGE. Around the time I made this edit I was really revamping the article which had had a lot of content added by a new editor who was a good writer but whose editing was more journalistic than encyclopedic in style. The section heading Yoga seemed at the time to be a side step and off the topic but these days with more experience i would think a different heading or placed somewhere else the material would probably be fine, assuming the source is compliant.(olive (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

If it's reliable then it may be a good source for more information, especially about the subject's early life. If it isn't then it should be removed entirely. Let's see if we can find a copy and then go from there.   Will Beback  talk  17:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone found it?   Will Beback  talk  20:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

If we could hold of in any deletions for now, that would be great. I am still trying to get hold of it.(olive (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC))

Sure, if there's still hope of obtaining it.   Will Beback  talk  21:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the standard under WP:RS that unless it's final and publicly-available, it's not regarded as "published"? It's clearly final and, I can see from Coplin's CV that he lists it at University Microfilms, and once upon a time published part of it on his AOL page, but there's no indication whether it's freely available or restricted at UMI. You need an account at ProQuest/UMI to even search for the title. Apparently, the only copies in libraries are at UCSD and IUPUI (why IUPUI of all places?)[42] The IUPUI library indicates that it has a photocopy of the UMI microfilm at it's Payton Library of Philanthropic Studies, (I've no idea whether public access is allowed),[43] and the UCSD collection where it is located in restricted to staff only. [44] At some point, being available solely by buying a subscription as well as paying for a copy or trekking across the country to the single library at which a member of the public might be able to read this starts to no longer look like "publicly available". It's not like anyone can go to their local library, or even to a bookstore whether online or brick-and-mortar and buy a copy. Fladrif (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, some of the editors here may have access to the Proquest/UMI system. Let's see what turns up before worrying about the next step. But generally speaking if it's available in an online archive or through interlibrary loan then it probably qualifies as "publicly available".   Will Beback  talk  22:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone still trying to gain access to this dissertation? If not I can probably get it through an inter-library loan, but I'll have to pay a fee plus more costs to photocopy relevant pages for future reference. If that's the case I'll probably make lavish use of it to justify the expense. ;)   Will Beback  talk  23:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't been checking in here. In the past I borrowed a copy from Coplin. I could get it from him again. Do you want me to send a copy to you via regular mail? I don't see how I could do that without our revealing personal information. TimidGuy (talk) 10:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It's only available in a hard copy? That's so 20th century. Maybe Coplin and I could correspond directly. He'd once posted the gist of the thesis on a free website, but it was all closed down due to economics. I sent a note about this to an old address of his, but I guess it was too old.   Will Beback  talk  11:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I had tried to get hold of a copy and when that didn't work out, I completely forgot about letting everyone know here. Sorry about that. (olive (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC))

My efforts to reach Dr. Coplin haven't succeeded, so I'll go ahead and order the dissertation through inter-library loan.   Will Beback  talk  15:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

James Grant

This book:

• The university in transformation: global perspectives on the futures of the university

Does not appear to be held by any libraries in the US or UK.[45] Worldcat only lists one copy, in Germany. If we're discussing MMY's revival of vedic traditions then maybe we can find a more accessible source. OTOH, if it is verifiable then we might use it for the MUM article.   Will Beback  talk  00:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Never mind: I found it on Google Books.[46] (It kept refusing to show the page before: fickle Google.) Even so, it appears to be a bit sycophantic. I'm sure we can find a better source for Maharishi's revival of Vedic traditions.   Will Beback  talk  00:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

"Immense profit"? 'personal income of millions of pounds'?

Sources

• The mystical other worldliness of the Maharishi was very attractive in the hippie era. But it turns out that the guru, who died last month, amassed a personal fortune that his spokesman told one reporter may exceed $1 billion. He established universities, housing developments and businesses, selling everything from books to organic food products.
  • The 'Beatles' Yogi Became a Billionaire.(16:00-17:00 PM)(Maharishi Mahesh Yogi)(Broadcast transcript) Day To Day, March 4, 2008
• Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the man who turned the world on to meditation and yoga, has died at his retreat in the Netherlands after setting his multi-billion-dollar global empire in order. .. By the time of his death, the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Foundation - which he renamed the Global Country of World Peace - had grown into a spiritual empire with branches in more than 100 countries and was said to be worth two billion pounds.
  • Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, spiritual empire builder, dies The Hindustan Times. New Delhi: Feb 6, 2008.

• His organization's $3.5 billion in assets include a chain of hotels, a health food distribution network and a veritable library of instructional books and videotapes, in addition to real estate holdings that include a five-story, 20,000-square-foot building near the New York Stock Exchange.
  • Maharishi Mahesh Yogi; Was Meditation Guru to the Beatles Patricia Sullivan - Washington Post Staff Writer. The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Feb 7, 2008. pg. B.7
• For the first time after arriving in the Sangam city, the 35 global heads of Maharishi's multi-billion dollar empire, ..
  • Tony Nader to lead Maharishi's mission [India] Rajiv Mani. The Times of India. New Delhi: Feb 11, 2008.
• ...he built a highly successful empire... Maharishi succeeded in making TM his personal trademark, netting for his organisation assets that came to be measured in billions, with an estimated 5 million practitioners worldwide. .. An umbrella organisation, the World Plan Executive Council, was formed to coordinate the various activities of his increasingly complex empire.
  • Obituary: Maharishi Mahesh Yogi: Guru and inventor of Transcendental Meditation, he influenced the Beatles. Malise Ruthven. The Guardian. London (UK): Feb 7, 2008. pg. 40
• It rather depends on your point of view, but one thing is certain about the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi who died this week aged somewhere between 91 and 97 - he was one of the richest religious leaders in history. The 'giggling guru' - so called because of his high-pitched laugh - lived in an opulent 200-room mansion, with helicopters and dozens of cars at his disposal, and was worth an estimated pounds 2billion. He was the head a movement with five million followers worldwide, all seeking a higher consciousness through transcendental meditation.
  • pounds 2BN PROPHET ; EXCLUSIVE He inspired the Beatles and promised world peace but died leaving pounds 2 billion amid rumours of rape and murder; [3 STAR Edition] NICK WEBSTER. The Daily Mirror. London (UK): Feb 7, 2008. pg. 23
• The Maharishi died in seclusion, having amassed a fortune estimated at $2 billion. .. Losing the Beatles as disciples did little to hurt the Maharishi's business empire.
  • OM Sweet OM?; Bruce Ward. The Ottawa Citizen. Ottawa, Ont.: Feb 10, 2008. pg. C.3
• He set out on his international mission to achieve this vision in 1959, beginning in Los Angeles, where he established his movement with an initial following of 25 devotees. From this small beginning the Maharishi over his lifetime developed a global organisation with nearly 1,000 TM centres, property assets valued in 1998 at $3.5 billion and an estimated four million disciples.
  • Maharishi Mahesh Yogi; The Times. London (UK): Feb 7, 2008. pg. 62
• Maharishi lives in Vlodrop, Holland, where he oversees an international empire called Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation, with myriad arms and subsidiaries. Maharishi's name is attached to a line of health and beauty products, a string of health centres in the United States and Europe, an astrology consultation service, a yoga program, music and publishing enterprises, and a design company, Maharishi Global Construction, LLC, which markets Maharishi Sthapatya Vedic buildings.
  • Wasting away in Maharishi-ville:; Brian Hutchinson. National Post. Don Mills, Ont.: Feb 22, 2003. pg. B.1.Fro
• Not many outside the transcendental meditation movement put much stock in the claims, and critics say the project is a ploy to build the Maharishi's $3.3 billion empire. .. In the 1980s, the Maharishi touted his own brands of astrology and medicine, which involve the purchase of gems and remedies.
  • GURU FOLLOWERS SEEK SPACE TO MEDITATE AND LEVITATE; Donovan Slack, Globe Correspondent. Boston Globe. Boston, Mass.: Jun 1, 2003. pg. B.1
• As the largest wooden structure in the Netherlands, his home is a tourist attraction in its own right. It was built, at vast expense, in accordance with the ancient Indian principles of Sthapatya Veda, and squats rather incongruously on the edge of a forest populated by deer, wild boar and Dutch and German tourists. Its glistening cedar exterior is curiously reminiscent both of a Scandinavian sauna and the Taj Mahal - the civil servant's son has done well on the material plane. This is the centre of the Maharishi's empire, which includes a 24- hour global satellite television channel pumping out TM courses - on a subscription basis - in 22 languages to 144 countries. The movement is officially non-profit-making, the money ploughed back into developing TM courses or funding educational programmes in the third world, but conservative estimates put its worth at pounds 2bn. Income is generated by a complex network of companies selling various TM merchandise - massage oils, books, CDs, courses and spiritual consultations. There are also new-age health centres patronised by the rich (a fortnight's all-inclusive stay at the Ayurvedic clinic in Valkenburg, Holland, with a full course of therapy, costs pounds 6,000) and a business which advises architects and homeowners on how to build according to Vedic principles.
  • Real lives: Holy man of Maastricht: Since George Harrison's death, the papers have been full of pictures of him with his Indian guru in the 60s. So what is the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi up to these days? Andrew Osborn tracks him down - to Holland. Andrew Osborn. The Guardian. Manchester (UK): Dec 4, 2001. pg. 4
• Now in his 80s and living in the Netherlands, the maharishi presides over a business empire of real-estate holdings, schools, clinics and products worth billions of dollars, according to some estimates.
  • DE-STRESSING LESSON; SAFFRON ROBE NOT REQUIRED SCIENCE TAKES A LOOK AT THE BENEFITS OF TRANSCENDENTAL MEDITATION; Dispatch Accent Reporter, Dennis Fiely. Columbus Dispatch. Columbus, Ohio: Apr 13, 2000. pg. 0
• Today, the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi has rather more worldly things on his mind. The Sixties guru is behind plans to build the world's tallest building in the heart of South America's largest city. Shaped like a four-sided pyramid, the Maharishi Sao Paulo Tower would dominate the city's skyline and if built could become the symbol of Brazil. Sixty metres higher than Malaysia's Petronas Tower -the tallest building in the world - the Maharishi's mega-building would stretch more than half a kilometre into the sky. Containing a university, two schools, church, theatre, shopping centre and residential sector, the 510 metre-high pyramid is billed as the answer to Sao Paulo's many urban problems. The Maharishi's company has pledged $1.65 billion (GBP 1 billion) to the project in a joint partnership with an investment company, Brasilinvest. .. Minori Yamasaki, the New York architect behind the World Trade Centre, has been paid $80 million by the Maharishi's Global Development Fund for the initial design of the pyramid.
  • Guru behind plan for Brazilian mega-tower; [1 Edition] Nicole Veash in Sao Paulo. The Scotsman. Edinburgh (UK): Nov 15, 1999. pg. 8
• A 1991 story in The Journal of the American Medical Association, citing Indian newspapers, reported that the Maharishi's empire was worth more than $2 billion. As a yogi, the Maharishi himself ""has no money, said university spokeswoman Jennine Fellmer. There are associated but autonomous individuals and companies that do operate for profit, she said.
  • A transcendent transformation/Maharishi's university spawning enterprise in small Iowa town; JOHN STEBBINS. Houston Chronicle. Houston, Tex.: Apr 6, 1997. pg. 2
• The Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is a marketing genius. In just 35 years, this celibate Indian monk has parlayed his meditation technique into a multi-national conglomerate with real-estate ventures, medical products and other holdings worth more than $2 billion.
  • Establishing Transcendental Meditation's identity; Few can agree if it's a religion, Hinduism or meditation; Bob Harvey. The Ottawa Citizen. Ottawa, Ont.: Dec 18, 1993. pg. C.6
• It would appear that the arms of the Maharishi extend far beyond Vlodrop, the Netherlands, where the octogenarian Maharishi has maintained full-time residence after the Indian government investigated him for tax fraud in 1988. His empire has been estimated at $2-billion to $3.5-billion. The relationships also suggest that the Natural Law Party is anything but a home-grown political creation, and more like the political arm of an international corporation.
  • VEDA LAND The New Incarnation of the Maharishi.JACK KAPICA. The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont.: Nov 27, 1993. pg. D.3

Discussion

This article states at the outset that Maharishi's organization yielded "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Transcendental_Meditation/Archive_11#Alternatives_for_.22TM_organization.22_and_.22TM_Movement.22 and provided Maharishi with an estimated yearly income of several million pounds during the 70's. Later, under "Growth and change of the TM Movement (1974-1990)", Maharishi is described as having "immense personal wealth." But these statements are not backed by the source article, a 2008 London Times obit, which only states, "He was reported to have an income of six million pounds,"but does not state to which year or years this applies. Also, no source is disclosed. Four properties in Britain are mentioned as having been purchased, but no mention is made of their worth. Doesn't seem fair to assert "immense profit" or "immense personal wealth" or annual income in the millions during the 70's from this. Is there another source or should we remove the sentences? Any suggestions? --Early morning person (talk) 01:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe we can use the information in the London Times obit, which says," he was reported to have an income of six million pounds" without out knowing where the Times got that information. Adding our own date to that based on a guess or estimate is WP:OR and can't be used."Immense profit", and "immense personal wealth" if not sourced are POV edits and should be removed.(olive (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC))

There are numerous sources that say his "empire" was worth billions of dollars. I can add some later.   Will Beback  talk  03:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, I assume such sources can be added dependent somewhat on WP: Weight, but I believe Early Morning was asking about some very specific language in this article that was unsourced. These comments are editorial comments and not encyclopedic, wouldn't you say.(olive (talk) 03:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC))

Most of us would consider $3 billion to be a fairly "immense" fortune for a monk, but we can replace the adjective with a specific number. No problem.   Will Beback  talk  05:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

We could get into a discussion as to whether a few sheets, a pair of sandals, a shawl, and some beads indicates an immense personal fortune or whether the numbers are an indication of facilities bought and owned by the organization to run TM centers and facilities around the world, but we just need to stick to the sources, I would say. (olive (talk) 11:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC))

We not only could but we have had that discussion. Talk:Maharishi Mahesh Yogi/Archive 5#Maharishi income.   Will Beback  talk  18:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we all agree. Article text should not misrepresent it's source. So if the current text is inaccurate with should either find a new source or change the text. In either case accurately representing the source is of prime importance regardless of the opinions of any and all editors may or may not have on the topic. Let's see what new sources we can find and then discuss how to represent them accurately as needed.-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. Which source is being misrepresented?   Will Beback  talk  21:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, so we've got a bunch of newspaper articles that talk about the "empire". Income isn't the issue covered in most of them, so we might drop that from the lede and just leave the assets. This article should have a small section on the movement (including practitioners), the organizations, and the businesses. (Perhaps an expansion of " Other initiatives, projects and programs".) That'd be the appropriate place to expound on the assets in the body. In the meantime, I've revised the sentence to better summarize the sources list above.   Will Beback  talk  07:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Will, you have created new text but it appears you that you have misrepresented the source.

• Source Says: "From this small beginning the Maharishi over his lifetime developed a global organisation with nearly 1,000 TM centres, property assets valued in 1998 at $3.5 billion and an estimated four million disciples."
• And you Wrote: "The Maharishi, his family and close associates oversaw charitable organizations and for-profit businesses with assets estimated at USD 2 to 3.5 billion and he had an estimated yearly income of several million GBP."-- — Kbob • Talk • 13:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

See the sources above. I'll draft text for the body of the article that summarizes them more fully.   Will Beback  talk  14:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I've created a "Organizations and businesses" section to cover the "empire", and moved the income and assets info down there.   Will Beback  talk  17:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

There are some alternate views on this so I'll add something later .(olive (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC))

Great.   Will Beback  talk  18:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Boy, that's an awfully long quote. Should we create a section to cover MMY's views on wealth? I believe we could find other sources for it.   Will Beback  talk  15:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Jefferson source on finances:

I decided to use quotes rather than paraphrase to make it clear what MMY had actually said and what his stated position was at that time. I've cut out a lot of the quotes Jefferson uses, so what I've added is a condensed version.

I must have deleted a sentence when I moved content into the next paragraph. Thanks for fixing...I missed it completly.

I'm ambivalent about a section on Maharishi and finances. Jefferson does say more which could be used.(olive (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC))

The whole section is now about 396 words, of which 210 are from the Jefferson book. This sentence seems to be opinion without any information:

• He says the paradox of an movement whose concern is spiritual growth should have generated so much conroversy about finances is unfortunate, and notes that other organizations handle finances differently than does the TM org.

Shall we just delete it? And this sentence could have more detail

• The controversy circles around Maharishi’s mission, the comments from leaders of the movement at that time, and fees and charges the TM organization makes.

What comments? What controversy about fees?   Will Beback  talk  16:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Jefferson devotes almost 6 pages to this topic which I have summarized. If there's agreement for more content I can add it... and sure, as with many sources we have an author's opinion. It can be removed, no problem.(olive (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC))

I was arguing for using less from that one source on this one topic rather than more. If we have more different view that'd be good, but this isn't the "Jefferson source on finances" section. Do you have any answers to my questions about the second sentence, above?   Will Beback  talk  17:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Good work on defining the financial size of the organization and on revising the wording regarding the Maharishi’s financial record. I would, however, suggest further revision in order to bring the article more in line with a main source stated, the 2008 Times obit, and also the other coverage that you have helpfully brought to light. It is stated in most of these sources that the wealth of the TM organization consists mainly in property assets, including nearly 1000 TM centers worldwide and quite a few older hotels purchased to become educational centers. In this light, I suggest a rewording of a sentence in the lede as follows:

Current version: The Maharishi, his family and close associates oversaw charitable organizations and for-profit businesses with assets estimated at USD 2 to 3.5 billion.

Suggested: The Maharishi and his close associates oversaw the expansion of his organization to include nearly 1000 TM centers worldwide. The value of his charitable organizations, for-profit businesses, and property assets has been estimated at USD 2 to 3.5 billion.--Early morning person (talk) 01:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Early Mornings suggestion. The current text in the lead still mis-represents the source as the source says he "developed an organization" and says nothing about "his family" "overseeing assets". The current text seems to be a misrepresentation or Original Research.-- — Kbob • Talk • 02:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The family members are the nephews. Two run the Maharishi Group, and a third runs a huge school system. The assets include far more than just TM centers. There are universities, clinics, health supplements, organic food growers, and so on. We don't need to list them all in the lead, so let's just list them in the body.   Will Beback  talk  03:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll change it from "oversaw" to "created", which is closer to the sources.   Will Beback  talk  03:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I don't see any reason to regard The Times as the main source. We have numerous sources for this. I could have added more, but it's tedious to search for these.   Will Beback  talk  03:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The main point here is that text should accurately reflect its sources. At present only the Times article is cited and until other sources are presented the text should reflect that single source accurately. I would suggest that EarlyMorning go ahead and make the change he has suggested above.-- — Kbob • Talk • 13:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

What are we talking about here - the lede or the "Organizations and businesses" section? The latter has five sources.   Will Beback  talk  15:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Question

Does anyone know what is the original source for the estimated worth of the TM organization at something like $3 billion? I looked at the source cited here, the Chris Harris piece in the Hartford Advocate, and it cites The Guardian, which in turn refers only to "most published estimates" as its source. So who did the actual work to figure that the Maharishi's org'n was worth $3 billion?--Early morning person (talk) 10:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a point I've often thought about. My impression is that it's a figure that someone in the past tossed out as a rough estimate, and then over the years it just kept getting repeated. And by virtue of that is now considered an established fact. I've never ever seen any discussion of the basis for this estimate. And there are a couple of odd things about it. First is that's it's remained unchanged over the years, even though it's quite likely that the value would have fluctuated. And second, because there is no single organization and no central bookkeeping, and because there are many many separately incorporated organizations around the world related to Maharishi's teachings, it seems impossible that anyone could know this information. TimidGuy (talk) 11:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Does it matter how it's calculated, or by whom, for our purposes here? We might ask similar questions about the number of practitioners claimed by the movement, a figure which seem to rise, fall, or remain the same without any clear logic. If we're able to discern that some valuation estimates are better than others we could prefer those, but I don't see any basis on which to do that.   Will Beback  talk  15:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does matter. $3 billion is a LOT of money for a privately held organization. With that much money, one would naturally wonder whether the organization is driven by altruism or a profit motive. Its an important question in assessing what the Maharishi was all about.

If, for example, two thirds of that $3 or $3.5 billion is in real estate and buildings, and a 1 - 1.5 billion in inventory and investments, leaving $2 billion in real estate. From what I've read, the Maharishi's organization buys older buildings at low cost--usually for less than $2 million. If we allow $2 million a building, it would give us 1000 buildings! I'm assuming that many of the nearly 1000 TM centres are rented office space, rather than owned, so that would likely not account for much of it. So what was the Maharishi doing with all those buildings? I know this is rough speculation, but I'm just trying to illustrate the scale of the money being discussed. Its a very big figure, and needs a reasonable explanation, or it should be deleted.

And if the figure stands up, it would be very interesting to know what it consists of--whether it is indeed mainly real estate holdings and educational materials that one could assume are used to advance the idealistic purposes of the organization, or if there is a lot of cash that could be used for other purposes?--99.240.234.199 (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)--Early morning person (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Upon which sources are you basing your understanding that 1000 TM centers are locally owned? You seem to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia sourcing standards. If we have a reliable source that says "the suspect was seen driving a green car" then we don't have to know how they found out that information - we accept the source as reliable and report the information. In this case, we have 14 sources listed above that say the "empire" is worth billions of dollars. Each one of them qualifies as a reliable source. On the other side of the balance we have an anonymous editor's "understanding" of the group's finances. Wikipedia policies favor reliable sources over the personal knowledge of editors, so there's really no equivalency. We're not financial journalists, and we don't have the resources to investigate ownerships and balance sheets. Even if we did it would be original research.

It's not so hard to see how the numbers could add up. First off, lots of real estate is held by central organizations. In one transaction, $250 million of it used as collateral, which wouldn't have been possible if it was held by a 1000 different entities. Second, there are numerous businesses which are included in the figure. One arm in India is valued at $700 million, so that's 1/4 of the value right there. Third, the movement has proposed spending between $1 billion and $1.6 billion on various different projects. Vedaland, the Sao Paulo Tower, etc., so they apparently have had some liquid assets as well.   Will Beback  talk  18:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

They proposed spending large amouonts on the tower and Vedaland, but did they actually have the money? Or were they assuming they could raise it on the capital markets? Please also see my comments above.--Early morning person (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Those are great questions and as we find more sources that cover this topic we may be able to find answers. But in the meantime there is no evidence that over a dozen reliable sources are so incorrect that we should delete the material.   Will Beback  talk  18:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

We have a dozen reliable sources citing sources that do not appear to lead anywhere. Its a strange way of establishing one of the key facts in this article.--Early morning person (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow. What sources are the sources citing? We don't require that all of our sources reveal their sources. If we did we could end up in an endless pursuit. There are basic "facts" in the article with fewer sources than this. How many sources do we have for the subject's father's name, for example? The subject's early life is quite mysterious. Yet we report the best sources we can find, and we even report their contradictions. That's how Wikipedia works.   Will Beback  talk  19:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I can understand EMP's concern. There is an important distinction between truth-what the encyclopedia is not concerned with, accuracy which it is, and verifiability which concerns the quality of sources. A so called reliable source may not carry accurate information, and research may indicate that the sources for that information have been misused. As a graduate or undergraduate student, I would have been hit hard for using such information. What I came to realize is that Wikipedia is first of all an encyclopedia and a compilation of sources, and of what is in the sources, rather than the reverse, a place for articles with content for which one find sources to support what is being added, and rather than a research paper , so if the source is itself considered reliable then we can include it, accurate or not. There are lots of inaccuracies in these articles, but if we view them as merely what the source says, rather than truth, and if we are careful how we represent the sources in relation to what is considered majority and minority views, and the weight of each, the reader will hopefully get a sense of accuracy in terms of the overall topic /subject of the article. Unfortunately, often what is in the sources is considered truth on a subject, but nothing could be further from the "truth" . The source is just another opinion that has been accepted somewhat per the publisher, and that is all we have to go on. As editors we could argue as a group for accuracy and more detailed research like EMP is advocating, but that requires some very tight collaborative work and agreement, and on contentious articles I've seen very little of that happen. Anyway.... thoughts —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs)

No one here is arguing against more research. What I disagree with is deleting relevant material with reliable sources just because an editor has a suspicion that there may be an inaccuracy in a source. On this matter, at least, we have no way of knowing what is or isn't accurate or true. All we can do is report the reliable sources using the neutral point of view. If other, equally reliable sources contain different information then we can include that too.   Will Beback  talk  20:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

OK folks. I am slowly coming to accept WP's exclusive reliance on secondary sources. But let's keep trying to track this one down (orig source for est. of $2-3.5 billion).--Early morning person (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you deleted the family from the lead, or added only the 1000 TM centers. I've restored the family, and added a few other kinds of business/organizations.   Will Beback  talk  01:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Many other reputable sources use the words Millions, not Billions:

• “By the time of his death, it had grown into a multi-million dollar empire.[47] BBC News, Indian Guru Maharishi Yogi Dies, Feb 6 2005
• “he transformed his interpretations of ancient scripture into a multimillion-dollar global empire” [48]Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, in peace, Martin Hodgson, Guardian, UK 2/6/05
• “parlayed his interpretations of ancient scripture into a multi-million-dollar global empire”[49] Maharishi Mahesh Yogi dies, AP 2/5/2005</ref>
• “made his interpretations of ancient scripture into the foundation of a multi-million-dollar business”[50] Beatles Meditation Guru Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Dies, AP, Feb 6 2005-- — Kbob • Talk • 02:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no way of knowing what these reporters are including. But we can include the range. Something like, "Reports of the the value of the Maharishi's empire range from the multi-millions to the billions." It sounds like "empire" is the most common term for it.   Will Beback  talk  04:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

There is also this report which estimates the entire "empire" "may exceed $1 billion". There seems to be a wide range of estimated reports. This should be indicated clearly in the article and reflected in the lead. We don't want to mislead our readers into thinking there is any clear number for the "empire".

• National Public Radio host, Madeleine Brand, said in an interview that the Maharishi "amassed a personal fortune that his spokesman told one reporter may exceed $1 billion". cite news|title=The 'Beatles' Yogi Became a Billionaire|work=Day to Day|date=March 4, 2008|url=http://www.npr.mobi/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=87890203}}-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

There may be a difference between the empire and the personal fortune. We should keep those two numbers separate. We currently report the personal fortune in the body. Should we add it to the lede too? That seems like it may be putting too much weight on this issue for the intro.   Will Beback  talk  17:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Relevant?

• In 1993, and 2003 decisions were made to significantly raise the fees for learning the TM technique.

The above sentence is well sourced and would seem to be a good piece of info for the TM article but I'm doubtful of it's relevance here in this BLP since it makes no reference to the subject.-- — Kbob • Talk • 12:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's research it further. My impression is that the fee change was mandated by MMY, but we can see.   Will Beback  talk  14:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

As an aside: Much was mandated by Maharishi. We have individual articles that reflect the delineations between all of the areas he was developing/ mandating/creating otherwise article like TM technique and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi would be too long to manage or bothersome to read. We have to make information accessible to the reader, and making distinctions for the multiple areas Maharishi dealt with is a critical way of doing that. where those delineations occur if its not obvious and if there's dosagreement probably requires input from multiple editors.(olive (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC))

It's a good aside. There were many things the Maharishi mandated throughout the history of his 40 year organization but it doesn't mean they should all go in this article.-- — Kbob • Talk • 13:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Decisions he made that materially affected his movement seem important enough to include.   Will Beback  talk  15:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

What other types of decisions do you think "materially affected his movement", Will? --BwB (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Starting the GCWP, to name one. But let's not get too hypothetical here.   Will Beback  talk  17:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Not being hypothetical at all. Just want to understand your reasoning on why this decision (one of millions no doubt) made by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi to raise the TM fees is important enough to include. --BwB (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm still looking for more sources on this, or rather, trying to find again the sources I've already seen that mention it. We've discussed the fee issue extensively. Suffice it to say that a ten-fold increase in the fees had an apparent effect on the popularity of the TM course. IIRC, it wasn't simply an economic decision but was based on two other considerations: making the course expensive enough that people would value it correctly, and viewing the wealthy as a vanguard who should be targeted preferentially. If so, it's about a lot more than just adjusting a price. But let's see what the sources turn up.   Will Beback  talk  17:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Somehow, the urgency to search for these sources keeps falling to the end of the list of things to do. The fees are relevant to the subject's life, but not so much that they need to be here rather than in another linked article. I've hidden the text for the time being. If I stumble across those sources again I may reopen the question.   Will Beback  talk  09:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• In 2002, the Maharishi Global Financing Research Foundation issued the "RAAM" as a currency "dedicated to financing peace promoting projects".[ref name="Times obituary"]

Relevant to the bio of MMY? We already cover this in other articles, like RAAM and TMM. Do we have any source for MMY's views or involvement?   Will Beback  talk  07:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• • Will you have raised a good point. What is the criteria for an event to be included in this bio? Does the Maharishi have to be personally involved in some way? Is having his name in the title of a University or Organization relevance enough? Or are there some aspects of the events and changes in his 'movement' that we would exclude from this article? I think it would be worthwhile to have an objective criteria.-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
    • It'd take a while to count all of the entities that have "Maharishi" in their names. But if the subject of the article had no direct involvement in an organization, they why would we include it? Many biographies have a "legacy" or "memorials" section to hold items like schools named in their honor. We have an entire article devoted to listing those we should keep that content short here. We also already two sections here on his organizations and programs. If there are important entities that are missing we can add a sentence to list them, something like, "Entities that have been named for the Maharishi, or which were inspired by his teachings, include: ..." But overall, we should try to limit this article to stuff about the Maharishi. Things he did or had done to him, and things said about him. His philosophy, technologies, organizations all have articles of their own, so we can keep that kind of material as short as possible.   Will Beback  talk  20:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
      • At present the criteria you are describing seems to be applied inconsistently. For example some school systems and universities founded by the subject have been described others have been removed. In addition under your criteria it would seem the section on Organizations and Businesses might need to be removed.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
        • We have a source that says the Maharishi Group was founded by the Maharishi, so I'm not sure which organizations and business you're talking about. This seems to be simialr to the discusion we're having in the next thread, so maybe we should discuss them together.   Will Beback  talk  17:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Teachers?

In the text we have the sentence: "Former disciples who became teachers themselves include Deepak Chopra, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, John Gray, and Barbara De Angelis." Is this sentence implying that these folks became teachers of TM? Is Chopra a TM teacher? Are are we saying that these disciples became teachers of other meditation techniques? Please clarify. --BwB (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I've added "spiritual" to "teachers" to clarify.   Will Beback  talk  15:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I think John Gray and Barbara D are psychologists not spiritual teachers.-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Mia/Prudence

Actually I'm pretty sure its Mia who says,"At my level of... " and not Prudence... I can't check this right now, but I will as soon as I get home.(olive (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC))

The text is quoted in the citation:

• I was blinking at his beard when suddenly I became aware of two surprisingly male, hairy arms going around me. I panicked, and shot up the stairs, apologizing all the way. I flew out into the open air, and ran as fast as I could to Prudy’s room... I blurted out something about Maharishi’s cave, and arms, and beard, and she said, It’s an honor to be touched by a holy many after meditation, a tradition. Furthermore, at my level of consciousness, if Jesus Christ Himself had embraced me, I would have misinterpreted it. [emphasis added]

The comment was made by Prudence. We can also add what Ned Wynn reports Mia Farrow told him.   Will Beback  talk  21:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The comment was made in the first person, the narrator of the story, and the book, Mia herself. As well, the the person embraced by the Maharishi was not Prudence, so it doesn't really make sense for her to then to say something about being embraced. I am attempting to be to be accurate, per BLP since both Prudence and Mia are still alive. Source: [51](olive (talk) 02:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC))

If we can't agree on who said it maybe we should leave it out entirely.   Will Beback  talk  02:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Two editors disagreeing about something does not mean we should leave it out .... We two don't own the article. The next obvious step is to ask other editors how they read the source even going to uninvolved editors asking them how they read it. It seems obvious to me that the narrator is commenting here and further reading after that page confirms that for me.... but if other editors read it as you do, I have no problem with that.(olive (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC))

Of course we can do all of that first. Now that we have a more comprehensive article, The Beatles at Rishikesh, we can trim some of the details from the material here. This quote, whoever said it, is probably too much detail here anyway.   Will Beback  talk  04:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, Paul Saltzman, who was at Rishikesh in 1968 for a couple of weeks but left before the end, has given his view:

• . On the Beatles in India Web site, Saltzman recounts the story from Farrow's memoir, "What Falls Away," about the private session in the Maharishi's cave-like meditation room, where the yogi embraced her. "Was it sexual or not?" the photographer writes. "For sure, Mia felt it was. She bolted from the room, hurriedly packed her bags, quickly said goodbye to Prudence, and was out the ashram gate and gone. Sexual or not, the whole issue of the Maharishi's sexuality would later result in John and George (Harrison) leaving the ashram, and the Beatles leaving the Maharishi behind."

• • DATE LINES; News, notes and updates from the Bay Area arts and culture scene Jesse Hamlin. San Francisco Chronicle. San Francisco, Calif.: Dec 17, 2008. pg. E.8

And Wynn's quote of Mia's comment on the matter is even more explicit. I disagree with Saltzman about the exact reason for the departure, but the point is that it's a complicated matter, and it's more than we can cover completely in this article without giving it undue weight. We can summarize this whole matter in a better way.   Will Beback  talk  04:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that Mia said it, not Prudence. TimidGuy (talk) 10:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

To the contrary, it is pretty clear when one reads it carefully that Prudence said it, not Mia. It appears that the statement has been misattributed, making it appear that Mia recanted her account of the incident, when she did no such thing. Fladrif (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Request 3rd opinion

Could another set of uninvolved eyes please read this quote and review its context. Discussion is on whether Mia or Prudence is the speaker. Thanks

Quote:

I was blinking at his beard when suddenly I became aware of two surprisingly male, hairy arms going around me. I panicked, and shot up the stairs, apologizing all the way. I flew out into the open air, and ran as fast as I could to Prudy’s room... I blurted out something about Maharishi’s cave, and arms, and beard, and she said, It’s an honor to be touched by a holy many after meditation, a tradition. Furthermore, at my level of consciousness, if Jesus Christ Himself had embraced me, I would have misinterpreted it.

Source: [52] pg128-129

Just saw this at WP:3O. Is the disagreement over the second portion of this excerpt? Assuming so, the way I read it, the first portion would reasonably be interpreted to be Mia Farrow talking about herself, and the second portion would reasonably be interpreted to be Mia Farrow talking about someone else's response to what Mia said just happened. "She said.... (etc.)" is pretty unambiguously referencing a person other than the narrator and the context suggests another person semi-chiding Mia for not being grateful for an unwanted physical overture. — e. ripley\^talk 17:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I should have been clearer about what part of the quote is under discussion. I think the question is whether this part of the quote is the narrator again speaking about herself, or if its still Mia quoting Prudence. In the next paragraph Mia continues to speak so that may give more information.

"Furthermore, at my level of consciousness, if Jesus Christ Himself had embraced me, I would have misinterpreted it."

Its not a big issue but accuracy is important on BLP material so thanks for your input.(olive (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC))

I took that part as Mia paraphrasing what Prudence said -- basically a recounting of Prudence chiding Mia for not being grateful for an unwanted physical overture. There's an assumed subject in that sentence, which I read like this: "Furthermore, [she said] at my level of consciousness... It's not a very well-written sentence but the context shows what she meant I think. — e. ripley\^talk 18:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree the syntax is poor. As well, there are no quote marks so its hard to know who is saying what. In the next paragraph Mia continues to narrate in the first person, and it sounds like a continuation of the paragraph before using the same "I"....But that may be just my impression. Anyway, thanks for the comments. The "assumed subject" is a good point(olive (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC))

Last question. Just approaching the beating of a dead horse... However, to clarify completely, because I suspect this will come up in discussion. Who does the "my level of consciousness" refer to in your opinion. Is Prudence talking about herself or is she talking about Mia's "level of consciousness"? (olive (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC))

I read that to suggest that was paraphrasing what Prudence told Mia about herself. In other words, it was Prudence discussing Mia's level of consciousness. It was Mia restating that Prudence had told her, basically, beyond the fact that Prudence felt Mia should've been honored to have been touched by a holy man after meditating, that beyond that Prudence felt Mia's consciousness wasn't evolved to properly interpret even the holiest man's gesture (i.e. Jesus Christ). In other words, I think this is a restatement of Prudence's opinion, not Mia's. — e. ripley\^talk 23:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks E. Ripley, for your patience and input.(olive (talk) 23:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC))

Interesting to see how others are reading and understanding whose voice is saying what. At my level of consciousness, it seems that the last sentence of this quote is Mia's voice, not Prudence's. But at my level of consciousness, who knows! --BwB (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Since we have three different readings of this sentence, and since the actual syntax in the source is unclear, making a definitive reading of what is being said unlikely, I will delete this content, per and earlier suggestion by Will Beback.(olive (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC))

OK. No offense to the editor who wrote this material, but this section is not a good summary of the events. One of these days we should re-write it from scratch. But in the meantime, removing an ambiguous quotations is a good idea. I'm not sure why we're keeping the rest of it, but it'll do for now.   Will Beback  talk  22:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

MUM opened in 1995

• In 1995 the Maharishi opened the Maharishi University of Management in Fairfield, Iowa, (previously Maharishi International University).

Is this the best source we can find for the history of the MUM? This date is about 20 year later than most sources.   Will Beback  talk  01:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Context: The full quote. This should be Ok if we reword in the article. I'll do that and if someone else wants a better source fine with me.(olive (talk) 01:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC))

"With the promise of offering ``perfect, invincible management, he opened the Maharishi University of Management in Fairfield, Iowa, in 1995. The school was previously known as Maharishi International University. The Maharishi moved the school there from Santa Barbara, California, in 1974."

Is the fact that the name changed in 1995 important? if so, then please reword it to make clear that's what happened.   Will Beback  talk  01:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I've reworded as much as I can per the source. If more information is needed or wanted then another source is necessary. In terms of history and to avoid confusion, its a good idea to note the founding of the university, its move to Fairfield, then its renaming. I'm not convinced this is the right article for this information.(olive (talk) 02:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC))

I've moved this material, and a couple of sentences on the school system in India run by Varma, to the TMM article. The renaming of the IA university, the creation of the Indian school system, are all important, but it's isn't clear that MMY had any special involvement. Did he even travel to India or Iowa in the 1990s? Anyway, we don't have to fit everything in this article. We have whole articles devoted to the organizations. The subject did enough things that we'll have no trouble filling the article with those.   Will Beback  talk  08:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This is an article about a man's life and his accomplishments during that lifetime. He established a network of schools (Maharishi Vidya Mandir Schools) in 16 Indian states with 100,000 students and that information belongs in this article. Please replace that sourced content which you deleted without discussion. thank you.-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You added it without discussion, so that's not a good argument. I didn't delete it, I moved it to the TMM history. What source do we have that says he founded the MVM?   Will Beback  talk  20:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record I want to note that you have refused to cooperate with my request to replace the sourced text that you removed from the article without discussion or consensus. Regarding the Maharishi: He was the founder of this school system.[53][54][55][56] It's not an honorarium and it is the largest private school system in India. It is one of the significant accomplishments of his lifetime and it occurred in his home country. It's curriculum is based on his technique of TM and Maharishi Vedic Science. [57] If you would like to suggest that the article only contain actual events that include the involvement of the Maharishi's physical body (like world tours and being carried by Chopra through London traffic) then we can discuss that point and decide together. But that kind of decision would mean the removal of the entire Philosophy and Teaching section text. In the meantime, just because a person has accomplished many significant things in his lifetime, is not a reason for any individual editor to decide that there are too many accomplishments in the subject's bio and that the ones of that editor's personal choosing should be moved out of the article especially when the error has been brought to their attention. -- — Kbob • Talk • 16:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

"For the record", I'm not refusing anything. We're discussing it. When you added the info there was no source tying MMY to the founding of MVM. You've now found sources that weren't there before, so it changes the discussion. One of the sources you link to above includes this list of programs founded by MMY:[58]

• Transcendental Meditation (TM), and TM-Sidhi Programme
• Maharishi Vidya Mandir Schools
• Maharishi Ideal Girls Schools
• Maharishi Schools of the Age of Enlightenment
• Maharishi Centre for Educational Excellence
• Maharishi Institute of Vedic & Management Sciences
• Maharishi Universities of Management
• Maharishi Institutes of Management
• Maharishi European University, Holland and Switzerland
• Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalya
• Maharishi University of Management and Technology
• Maharishi Vedic Universities
• Maharishi Ayurvedic Universities
• Maharishi Ved Vigyan Vishwa Vidyapeetham
• Maharishi World Centre for Gandharva Ved Music
• Maharishi Mahavidyalaya
• Maharishi Vedic Vishwa Prashasanam
• Maharishi Vishwa Vyapi Ram Rajya
• Maharishi Global Country of World Peace
• Maharishi World Capital of Peace-Brahmsthan of India

Several of these are already listed elsewhere in the article. For the rest, perhaps we should simply include these in the section "Other initiatives, projects and programs".   Will Beback  talk  17:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

So now that it is clear that Maharishi is the founder, will you please replace the text you deleted? As far as the many schools, organizations and universities that bear the name Maharishi, that is a separate discussion. This thread is about sourced text on MSVS which I placed in the article and you deleted. If you would kindly replace the deleted text then I would be happy to start a new thread with you and discuss this other topic. Thank you so much.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

We have Organizations associated with the Transcendental Meditation movement and Transcendental Meditation movement. Shall we just copy those articles in here? They're all sourced and describe entities founded by MMY which represent parts of his legacy. I don't see why we'd discuss each entity separately. The biography section of this article should be limited to things the subject did, etc. If it's important to say that he founded MVMS in 1995, then let's just say that and leave out the extra details. Do we even know which year he founded it?   Will Beback  talk  05:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Frustrated and Discouraged

I feel that my efforts to expand and improve the article with new text are being sidetracked and obstructed by the selective and biased deletion of sourced text that I recently added to the article. (see above thread) I do not want to edit war and revert the deletion. Nor do I want to fight with the other editor so I'm just going to end my participation in the above discussion and allow the other editor to have his way. Just for the clarity, so others can understand what I am feeling, I am posting the sequence of events that have led me to this point:

• May 3rd Will Beback creates a new section called "Organizations associated with the Transcendental Meditation movement|Maharishi Group" and adds this content: [59]Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is credited with heading charitable organizations, for-profit businesses, and real estate investments whose total value has been estimated at US$ 2 to 5 billion. The real estate alone was valued in 2003 at between $3.6 and $5 billion. Holdings in the United States, estimated at $250 million in 2008, include dozens of hotels, commercial buildings and undeveloped land. The Maharishi Group, an international conglomerate created by the Maharishi in 1959, is controlled by members of the Maharishi's family including his nephew, Anand Shrivastava (also spelled Srivastava). The group was reported in 1999 to be worth $700 million. The Maharishi's personal fortune was estimated by a spokesman to be $1 billion, and he is reported to have an income of £ six million annually.ref name="Times obituary"

• May 5th Kbob adds this content:[60]That same year the Maharishi founded Maharishi Vidya Mandir Schools (MVMS) is an educational system established in 16 Indian states and affiliated with the New Delhi Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE). Maharishi Vidya Mandir Schools has 148 branches in 118 cities with 90,000 to 100,000 students and 5,500 teaching and support staff.

• May 5th Will Beback deletes this content: [61]In 1995, the Maharishi "opened" Maharishi University of Management in Fairfield, Iowa, previously named Maharishi International University. The Maharishi Vidya Mandir Schools (MVMS), an educational system established in 16 Indian states and affiliated with the New Delhi Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), ws founded the same year. Maharishi Vidya Mandir Schools has 148 branches in 118 cities with 90,000 to 100,000 students and 5,500 teaching and support staff.

• May 5th Will Beback adds this content: [62] In the United States, old resorts and hotels, many in city centers, were purchased to be used as TM training centers. Doug Henning and the Maharishi planned a magical Vedic amusement park, Vedaland, and bought large tracts of land near Orlando, Florida and Niagara Falls, Ontario for it. The Maharish commissioned plans from a prominent architect for the world's tallest building, a Vedic-style pyramid to be built in Sao Paulo, Brazil, and to be filled with Yogic Flyers and other TM endeavors. In later years the Maharishi directed the purchase of properties in auspicious locations, such as islands and acreage at the geographic center of the continental United States.

• Kbob ask’s Will Beback to please replace the deleted text on three separate days:
  • May 5th,[63] "Please replace that sourced content which you deleted without discussion. thank you”
  • May7th[64] "I want to note that you have refused to cooperate with my request to replace the sourced text that you removed from the article without discussion or consensus."
  • May 9th [65] "So now that it is clear that Maharishi is the founder, will you please replace the text you deleted?"..... "If you would kindly replace the deleted text…"-- — Kbob • Talk • 23:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Relax. Don't be frustrated. Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill. IIRC, not too long ago I was complaining because you wouldn't restore some text that you'd removed after it had been shown to be correct. And I've never stopped discussing this issue. As a gesture of good faith, I've restored the material on MVMS to the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi#Other initiatives, projects and programs section. Come to think of it, that section and "Organizations and businesses" should probably be merged. Let's keep talking about how to handle this organizational stuff.   Will Beback  talk  23:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Huffington Post

• According to a Huffington Post article by Deepak Chopra he was closely associated with the Maharishi during the early 1990's. Chopra wrote that an attempt on the Maharishi's life was made in Delhi in 1991 when the Maharishi collapsed after being handed a glass of orange juice by "a foreign disciple". He was taken into intensive care with kidney and pancreas failure. Chopra says he tended to Maharishi during a year-long recovery and that the illness was kept a secret and the foreign disciple was never apprehended. While the Maharishi led a reclusive life, Chopra toured on his behalf, spreading TM to Eastern Europe and to a lesser extent to the Muslim world. Chopra writes that in July 1993 the Maharishi accused him of trying to compete for the position of guru and asked Chopra to stop traveling and writing books. This event led to Chopra's decision to leave the movement in January 1994.[67]

This paragraph above is supported only by Chopra himself via his blog in the Huffington Post. Can we find stronger or additional sources for this?-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

We have many sources that say Chopra was close to MMY. I think I even saw one that said he was the de facto successor. We also have sources that say he was speaking on MMY's behalf. The secret illenss was secret, so I don't expect we'd find other sources for it. While the Huffington Post is on the border of reliability, Chopra in many respects is an expert on the topic of MMY, at least for their time together and things about which he had personal knowledge. We're attributing all of this to him, so we're not presenting it as absolute truth. The source seems adequate for the assertions.   Will Beback  talk  22:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree that there are many sources verifying Chopra's involvement with the Maharishi and his organization, hopefully we can post some soon. I also agree with you that Huffington Post is a marginal source. However, the facts about the Maharishi's attempted assassination and mortal illness are dramatic and potentially contentious claims and all we have so far is the first party, writing his own account in a marginal source. That's a bit unsettling and I don't feel that we can justify the lack of strong sources for potentially controversial text based on Chopra's claim that it was a "secret". What do others think?-- — Kbob • Talk • 12:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't exactly say that HP is "marginal". It's reliable in some contexts, depending on the writer. Chopra is a well-known figure and a significant point of view. He is the ultimate source, not HP. If there are other points of view we can include those too.   Will Beback  talk  14:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The piece is also printed on Chopra's personal website.[66] Since he reprinted it, and since HP isn't really the authoritiative source, I'm going to remove HP from the text. It'll still be in the citation, but it's a false appeal to authority otherwise.   Will Beback  talk  16:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, that piece by Chopra is also the only source for the view that the Maharishi ejected the Beatles from Rishikesh due to their drug use.   Will Beback  talk  16:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

My concern is with the source not the content. You said that "the Huffington Post is on the border of reliability". So if I understand you correctly you want to maintain contentious content that can only be verified by a first party account of an event published in a source "on the border of reliability" and furthermore you do not want the reader to know, via the article text, the name of this source "on the border of reliability". Is that correct?-- — Kbob • Talk • 02:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Even Chopra's blog is a sufficient source for this, so this isn't about HP. Chopra was a top assistant to MMY and is a well known guru in his own right. What is contentious? Are there sources that describe MMY as making public appearances when Chopra says he was still in recovery?   Will Beback  talk  03:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

What is contentious is the claim by Chopra that the Maharishi, an international celebrity and household name, was the victim of an assassination attempt and subsequent hospitalization. An event whose only corroboration is a first party account published in a blog which you characterize as "on the border of reliability". Why are there no other accounts of this alleged event and hospitalization? No one has come forward to speak about this but Chopra. No former employees, no medical staff at the hospital, no limousine driver, no ambulance driver. Why is Chopra the only person in the world who knows about this? And how is it encyclopedic or fair to the biographical subject to publish an account of a derogatory event that has no corroboration? -- — Kbob • Talk • 12:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing the memoirs of the limo driver anywhere, or any other similar recollections of any recent events in the Maharishi's life. Since Chopra seems to be saying that a conscious effort was made to minimize the matter, it's not surprising that there is no other corroboration yet. As for "the border", Laredo is on the border of Mexico, yet one side of the border is in the US while the other side is not. Don't read too much into it. Has anyone from the movement ever challenged Chopra's version of events? If so we can include that too.   Will Beback  talk  15:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I am baffled as to why anyone would characterize this as "a derogatory event". Derogatory to who? Certainly not derogatory to MMY, which seems to be the claim. It's hardly derogatory of a bio subject to say, "According to X, subject Y was seriously ill for a time due to Z, but this was concealed from the public." Am I missing something here? Fladrif (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:RSN#Deepak Chopra. BTW, I found that someone had posted a letter in response, purportedly from a senior Indian official in the movement. While it challenged a few details of Chopra's story, it seems to confirm that he had a severe illness.[67]   Will Beback  talk  16:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The issue may not be the quality of the source, although a debatable point, but the fact that this is a minority view notable because of the part the perpetrator of the view played in the events, As such the view should be given at best a very minor part in the article per WP:FRINGE, and since there is only one source should perhaps not be included at all.(olive (talk) 20:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC))

What is the majority view of the Maharishi's health in 1992? Do we have any sources for it at all, other than this one?   Will Beback  talk  20:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point. If there is no information on his health, with the exception of this single one, then probably Wikipedia should make no or very little mention of Maharishi's health:

Per:[WP:Fringe]:

"Since Wikipedia describes significant opinions in its articles, with representation in proportion to their prominence, it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant subjects"

"The discussion of a fringe theory, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals is not a criterion for notability, even if the latter group or individual is itself notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If a fringe theory meets notability requirements, secondary reliable sources would have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it. Otherwise it is not notable enough for Wikipedia."

"Likewise, exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources, and, with clear editorial consensus, unreliable sources for exceptional claims may be rejected due to a lack of quality."

I can't see how this single source and piece of information can be included in the article. If there are no sources about Maharihsi's health, then one can assume that his health was not noteworthy or news worthy, so why would a Wikipedia article given the fringe guideline include such information. I don't care about including the information one way or the other. I don't see it as negative or positive, however I do like to be clear about policy and guideline.

Could a compromise be reached here by reducing what is in place to one sentence on this point. Maybe that won't satisfy either side(olive (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC))

There are many things in this article that have only one source. Are you proposing that we delete all of them?   Will Beback  talk  21:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

As for the general issue, there are other sources that talk about his health, though maybe not for the year in question. For example, his 1968 tour with the Beach Boys was cancelled ostensibly due to his ill health. I can add something about that.   Will Beback  talk  22:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

And there's at least one source that says he became reclusive in his later years out of concern for his health. It's not that unusual a topic.   Will Beback  talk  22:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I made only one proposal and that was an attempt to see if the parties discussing this were interested in a compromise. Do you support the inclusion of a minority view point per [[WP: Fringe] supported by one source that another editor questions. Both you and Kbob seem to have a strong position on this content... In don't care about the content, nor do I see it as being in any way non neutral, but I do care that we make decisions on these articles supported by policy and guideline. Why should this content be included given the fringe guideline?(olive (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC))

I just don't see how WP:FRINGE applies here. We can take it to that noticeboard if that'll help. Almost every article on Wikipedia has assertions with only one source. That doesn't automatically mean they are fringe views. So, again, are you proposing that everything in this article with only one source represent a fringe view and should be removed? If not then please explain how this is different.   Will Beback  talk  22:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

We have one source in all of the literature and press on MMY and the assertion that he was poisoned. Does that constitute a minority or majority view on the issue that he was poisoned. Is that view significant given the single mention of it. If a minority view how do you and Kbob want to deal with it.(olive (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC))

If I'm the only person in a room, and I want to listen to the radio, is that a minority or majority view? I'd argue the latter. Chopra doesn't say it was poisoning - he passes along what he was told by the folks in India.   Will Beback  talk  00:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia its insignificant. :o) "It is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant subjects.," and per Jimbo Wales (WP:Undue), "if a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." (olive (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC))

For someone who doesn't care about this material you seem to be arguing quite strenuously about it. So, let me ask you again - are you proposing that we delete all assertions in the article that only have a single source?   Will Beback  talk  01:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I care about the policies and guidelines and making sure this article complies. If you have concerns about other sources please bring the concerns here, where they can be discussed.(olive (talk) 03:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC))

In the meantime. Lets stick with the content we were dealing with. Are there objections to reducing the length as a compromised position acceptable to Kbob and Will. If so the change can be made, if not what other solutions are there to the dispute.(olive (talk) 03:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC))

What's the dispute? You said you don't care about the content. If we want to delete or reduce all of the material with single sources, we could start by assembling a list of such material. Just glancing over the article, I'd guess that accounts for perhaps 9/10 of it, including the large amount of information Kbob just added today.   Will Beback  talk  03:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

As you can see, I've edited the short text on this to make it more true to the source, and to trim it. Since Chopra is an established expert no the subject, feel free to add more (within reason). He wrote a complimentary book.   Will Beback  talk  09:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

My concern is not with the number of sources but with the quality of it. As I have stated before it is a first party account of controversial events, published in a blog. I do not feel it is an appropriate source for the text. It does not seem credible to me that all of the aspects of this story which took place in hospitals, airports and ambulances across two continents could possibly be kept secret by family members. No one saw Chopra carrying a world famous bearded monk "through London traffic"? Since we have already had a long discussion about this why don't we post it on RSN and see what others have to say?-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I have placed the following post at RSN [68] so we can get some input from a few uninvolved editors. Thank you to everyone who has participated in the discussion.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You apparently missed it, but I already started a thread at RSN on this topic days ago. WP:RSN#Deepak Chopra.   Will Beback  talk  17:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you started the RSN without informing the involved parties here at this thread. Why?-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Dude, chill out. I did notify "the involved parties here at this thread". [69] Please assume good faith.   Will Beback  talk  18:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

My mistake.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible Sources

Some possible sources for further development of the article

• Sydney Morning Herald[70]
• Fox News[71]
• Times Online [72]
• Sydney Morning Herald part 2 [73]
• USA Today [74]
• Ent Weekly[75]
• NPR [76]
• BBC News [77]
• Earthtimes [78]
• One India [79]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Coplin

I went ahead and tagged the citations, just so it'd be clear. Reminder: we still have verification request for the Coplin dissertation. I've got it on order but if that falls through then it's unverifiable.   Will Beback  talk  06:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I can get Coplin if that falls through. Sorry you had to order it. TimidGuy (talk) 10:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

More talk on 30 Years Around the World

If Paul Mason's biography is a reliable source then it should probably be our main source, rather than the self-published memoir we're using so extensively now.   Will Beback  talk  17:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thirty Years Around The World is self published but its an historical account of the Maharishi's activities from 1957 and 1964. It is self published but I think its a valid source on a BLP for info like, places he traveled etc.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 11:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Anytime we're using an intermediate source to report what a second source is saying we should include both sources. So we should say, "According to the Maharishi, on December 31, 1958, the Honolulu Star Bulletin reported about him saying..." However I suggest we limit the use of the Maharishi's memoirs to simple travel info, and avoid anything about what others did or said, or any self-serving claims.   Will Beback  talk  18:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I should clarify that the book is about Maharishi and his trips around the world. Maharishi is not the author, so better to reference the book title. Sentences that reference news articles we can research are not contentious or unduly self serving and could also be researched for corroboration.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh? Worldcat lists the Maharishi as the author.[80] Amazon does too.[81] If not he, then whom?   Will Beback  talk  00:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Even the MUM library lists the Maharishi as the author.[82] Why would you contradict those three sources and say that he didn't write it?   Will Beback  talk  00:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

OK good to know. Practically speaking it is clear that Maharishi is not the author, although he probably had editing oversight (but that's just my opinion). In any case if he is universally listed as the author by reliable sources then we should go with that. Thanks for checking on that point.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be the only one who believes that.

• In 1939, he became a disciple of Swami Brahmananda Sarawati, who was based in the Indian Himalayas, and decided to be a monk. 'The first sight of his personality was enough to make me surrender at his feet,' the Maharishi wrote in his 1986 book "Thirty Years Around the World: The Dawn of the Age of Enlightenment."[83]
• "Right from the beginning the whole purpose was to breathe in his breath," the Maharishi wrote in his "Thirty Years Around the World: Dawn of the Age of Enlightenment," published in 1986.[84]

I hope we won't be making any more edits based solely on our own theories.   Will Beback  talk  22:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Melton Citation

I removed the Melton ref because it didn't seem to support the sentence it followed.[85]

• On December 31, 1958, the Honolulu Star Bulletin reported about him saying: "He has no money, he asks for nothing. His worldly possessions can be carried in one hand. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is on a world odyssey. He carries a message that he says will rid the world of all unhappiness and discontent."
  • Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America, J. Gordon Melton, Garland Publishing, 1986 [86]

Maybe it got moved from another sentence, or was left over after material was moved or deleted.   Will Beback  talk  00:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• • • I agree, that citation seemed oddly placed. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Rethinking the Lead

I have created a subpage for this talk page where editors can list reliable sources for this article.Talk:Maharishi Mahesh Yogi/Sources To begin I have assembled the subject's obituary's that were published in 20 of the most prestigious newspapers and news services from around the world along with 2 regional US newspapers. In doing this I have noticed a significant discrepancy between how the major news services characterize MMY and how he is characterized in the lead of this article.

• Wiki Lead, first sentence: "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (Hindi: महर्षि महेश योगी) (born Mahesh Prasad Varma, January 12, 1914, died February 5, 2008 in Vlodrop, Netherlands) was the leader or "guru" of a new religious movement, often called "Transcendental Meditation movement".
• News Service leads: Out of the 22 sources listed hereTalk:Maharishi Mahesh Yogi/Sources 20 of them make no characterization of MMY as leader of a religious movement or TM movement. Only one regional paper uses the term "religious movement" and one national paper uses the term "TM movement".

Instead, almost all of these national and international news services describe him as "guru to The Beatles" and "the man who founded and/or introduced Transcendental Meditation to the West". I suggest, that we edit the lead to more accurately reflect these sources.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Want to pitch us a version, Keith and then we can tear it to shreds? Just kidding!! Want to propose a draft for discussion? --BwB (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Garbage in, garbage out. Many of those "22 sources" are just reprints of the same reports. Writing our article based on the first lines of selected obits is not the best process. Basing our article on the entire obits, and then basing our intro on our article, is a better way to proceed.   Will Beback  talk  03:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, a couple of them are the announcements of his death, rather than the actual obits. I'd fix them, but I don't think this is a sensible way to proceed. We're writing an encyclopedia article, not a newspaper article. Do editors here really want the first line of this article to say that MMY was the Beatles' guru?   Will Beback  talk  06:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your statement "Basing our article on the entire obits, and then basing our intro on our article, is a better way to proceed." We should then look and see, how many of these widely respected and internationally known news sources, who give an overview of the subject's life in their articles, characterize him, anywhere in their articles, as:

• the leader of a 'new religious movement'
• the leader of the TM Movement
• giggling guru
• His Holiness
• disciple of Brahmanand Saraswati, Shankaracharya, Jyotir Math
• discuss honorifics ie Yogi, Maharishi etc.
• refer to him as Varma

All of the above info is mentioned prominently in the first two paragraphs of the current lead. They seem to be points of trivia rather than summarizing the article as a whole. I would like be sure we are conforming to Wiki policies and TM RFAR item #4 which discusses, neutrality, verifiability and weight.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

By that logic, we should also check to see how many obits use footnotes and include scholarly references. If most don't then should we remove those from this article? No. We're not writing a newspaper obit. We should certainly make sure that we include all of the important events and themes in the subject's life, but we don't stop there. In particular, the way we organize encyclopedia articles is different from the way newspaper articles are organized. On Wikipedia, we discuss the names first.   Will Beback  talk  20:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, if we're going to use "widely respected and internationally known news sources" as the basis for this article, instead of scholarly sources (!?), then let's at least make sure we're using respected and known news sources. The "Cleveland Leader" and "Entertainment Weekly" probably don't qualify. However, I think we'd be better off basing the article on the best biographies we can find. Mason's is the only full-length, independent bio available, though I presume that Coplin's dissertation, if it was actually available for anyone to read, would also qualify as a high quality source.   Will Beback  talk  20:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure we can remove the Cleveland and Seattle newspapers from the list.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the Seattle bit - It's just another copy of the Corder article.   Will Beback  talk  04:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's be careful about deleting sources from that list. It's there as a resource and reference tool. Also please note that while many of the articles listed have similar content, many of them have content that is unique and distinct from other articles in the categories you have placed them in ie. UPI/AP etc. So let's preserve them and not delete further. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that a hundred papers used that Corder article. Let's not add any more copies of it without a reason. I still don't see the value of collecting the first lines of newspaper death notices and obits.   Will Beback  talk  19:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The lead of each news article has some significance which I brought out earlier. In addition the links next to each lead sentence serve as a reference list of valuable sources for the article. If you don't like them you don't have to use them but please leave them for others to take advantage of. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 11:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Cave

I've read or heard about how the subject spent a long period in a cave following the death of his guru. I presumed that the references was to a natural rock cave. However, according to this page,[87], the "cave" was actually the brick-lined basement of a nice-looking house or ashram. We don't mention the cave in this article at the moment, but if we ever do we should be careful that we don't give the wrong impression.   Will Beback  talk  05:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Dear fellow editors, please be on the lookout for instances of plagiarsim in this article. Today I found four instances where whole sentences had been copied word for word from books. I located theses in just the first few sections of the article. If you find any other examples please correct them. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that plagiarism can work both ways. "Faith & philosophy of Hinduism By Rajeev Verma" (2009) may have borrowed text from Wikipedia. For example, he writes, "Although Maharishi was a close disciple, he could not be the Shankaracharya's spiritual successor since he was not of the Brahmin caste." That's identical to the text that's been in this article since 2007.[88]   Will Beback  talk  20:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Since there's a likelihood that we have a circular reference problem, I suggest that we don't use this reference.   Will Beback  talk  20:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Keith, could you please indicate what source you think was plagiarized? It's a serious issue so we should review it carefully.   Will Beback  talk  22:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

On further investigation, I see that the author of Faith & philosophy of Hinduism copied many articles from Wikipedia, giving no attribution. For another example, compare his text to Lake Manasarovar. In his preface he brags about how the extensive bibliography gives credence to his book! If this is the book that Kbob thought was plagiarized then his efforts to correct the "problem" were wasted and should be reverted. I'll wait a day to see if he meant some other source.   Will Beback  talk  08:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You can check my edit history from yesterday, I have indicated plagiarism in the edit summaries.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 11:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that reply, but I must not have asked clearly. My question is what source do you suspect was being plagiarized?   Will Beback  talk  12:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, absent a direct answer I must assume that the book in question is Faith & philosophy, and that Kbob was wrong about the plagiarism. Therefore I'm going to revert his anti-plagiarism edits. I agree with him on the principle, but in this case more research was needed before jumping to a conclusion.   Will Beback  talk  21:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thirty Years Around the World

• Mahesh Yogi, Maharishi. Thirty Years Around the World, Dawn of the Age of Enlightenment [or MVU], 1986, ISBN 9071750027

This book is used as a reference 27 times, far more than any other single source. According to Worldcat, it is only found in 5 libraries in the whole world.[89][90] It's not available for viewing in either Google or Amazon. It qualifies as what some would all "relatively un-verifiable". I don't want to mark call 27 citations for verification, could if anyone has access to the volume could they please post the relevant excerpts? If no one has access to it maybe we should remove those cites.   Will Beback  talk  03:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll give it a month.   Will Beback  talk  05:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll see if I can get a hold of a copy.-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• I've started the process of adding citation quotes-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for adding those. I know how tedious it is to transcribe material from a book. "Summary 1958: The first countries he visited on his first wold tour were Burma, Thailand, Malaya, Singapore, Hong Kong and the USA (Hawaii)." Is that how it's written? In the secondthird person?   Will Beback  talk  00:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
    • The page heading is Summary 1958 and the rest is an exact quote from the page. Nothing in the book is written in the first person (except some quotes from the Maharishi's lectures here and there). I will slowly add all the quotes.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Are we still doing this?   Will Beback  talk  23:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure that wasn't fun.   Will Beback  talk  03:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this right?

• During his tour of cities in Europe, Asia, North America and India in 1963, the Maharishi addressed ministers of the Indian Parliament.
• Ref: Thirty Years Around the World, MVU Press, 1986, pp. 544-545, "Twenty one members of parliament, representing each of the Indian states, issued a statement entitled a 'timely Call to the Leaders of Today and Tomorrow' for the speedy introduction of the system [of TM] into the daily routine of national life." NOTE: the text of the 3 page statement from the parliament is also included in the book on pages 504-507

The article text doesn't seem to match the cited text.   Will Beback  talk  04:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes he addressed the Parliament and then inspired by his presentation they created a statement supporting his endeavor.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 11:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Where do we get "During his tour of cities in Europe, Asia, North America ..." from? Were they ministers or just members of parliament?   Will Beback  talk  22:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If this is the source, and everything relevant from the source, then I'm going to re-write it to summarize what the source says.   Will Beback  talk  04:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• His Canadian tour generated news articles in the magazine Enjoy and in the Daily Colonist, Calgary Herald and The Albertan.

Is this fact really significant? The subject received considerable press - why mention these?   Will Beback  talk  04:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

During the early 1960's (pre-Beatles) he was unkown and press coverage was sparse, so yes these are significant in that context.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 11:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Significant to whom? This is an autobiography. Mentioning this without other information for his other tours implies that he received an unusual amount of coverage in Canada. I suggest we delete this as trivia. We should be using the autobiography as little as possible.  Will Beback  talk  22:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the list of provincial news coverage.   Will Beback  talk  04:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• There are still three quote requests for citations.   Will Beback  talk  06:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• • I"ll take a look when I have time, thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Photos

It's good that we are adding photos to this article as they illustrate the text and are pleasing to the reader. However, at present we have three photos of the same building ie. Maharishi's headquarters/residence. We have: 1) far away view, 2) close up of entrance, 3)close up of the back of the building. I think we need to remove one or two of these. I think #2 and #3 are the best ones. Would anyone object if I remove photo #1?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd object. Though the photo isn't of high quality, it alone shows the entire building. Photo #3, yours I think, just shows a few windows and the roof. It's a very nice photo, but it's only a small portion of the building.   Will Beback  talk  19:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Peace Palace - Vlodrop Station.jpg

This photo also show most of the building and its setting, and it's a little sharper and better exposed. But I think the flagpoles make it harder to see the building.   Will Beback  talk  22:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to have three photos of the same building? Do we discuss details of the architecture in the article? It doesn't make any sense to me.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 11:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It isn't necessary. What does photo #3 show that the others don't?   Will Beback  talk  22:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to update the conversation, picture #2 was deleted automatically when the uploader forgot to give a proper license.   Will Beback  talk  09:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It's just as well, the photo is not pleasing to the eye and the building is blocked by the flags etc. The two photos we have now are better. Two is more than enough in my opinion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Early life and family

It is very sad that it is being published mistakenly that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi was born Jabalpur. In fact he was born in Panduka village near Rajim Kumbh of Chhattisgarh. Related websites and publication should make necessary correction.

Maharshi Mahesh Yogi was born on Jan 12, 1917in a mud house of Panduka village situated at Gariaband road of capital city Raipur of Chhattisgarh. That mud house of few rooms is still in the Panduka without any change. Even today daily worship and other religious acts are being conducted in that house.

His actual name was Shri Mahesh Verma. His father Shri Ram Prasad Srivastava was there revenue inspector. Though, in his childhood Maharshi Mahesh Yogi went to Jabalpur. Panduk is the birth place of Maharshiji, so he established his Ashram spread in 50 acres in Panduka village.

Present incharge of the Panduka Ashram is Atul Srivastav. He said that Maharshi ji had much affection to Chhattisgarh especially his birth place Panduka. Maharishi had talked for 3 hours to the Acharyas and 150 students studying there, through a video and telephonic conference in Dec 2007.

Maharshi Mahesh Yogi’s elder brother is now residing in Netherland. Maharshi had two sisters who are now no more in the world. One sister married in Mahasamund near Rajim of Chhattisgarh and another sister married in Nagpur of Maharashtra.

*Mahesh Yogi sun of Chhattisgarh shined in West, by Premendra Agrawal www.newsanalysisindia.com [91]

This website appears to be a blog, so we can't use it as a source. However I assume the writer had some reason for making these assertions. We should keep alert for better sources for this period of the subject's life and for references to his family.   Will Beback  talk  23:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Intersting stuff Will. Where do you find the time to dig up these treasures. Of course we will need RS that support these blog comments. --BwB (talk) 13:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Beatles, again

• Yoko Ono said in 2008 that if Lennon were alive now, he would have reconciled with the Maharishi, whom he accused of having "made a fool of everyone."
• In their obituary of the Maharishi, Rolling Stone states that the rumor of impropriety was never proved.

Both of these recent additions promote a certain view of the situation. There are many views of it. I suggest we don't just start adding a bunchs of them to the article or it'll become just about the contact with Beatles. The coverage was already unbalanced, what was the need for adding these POVs? Further, the reference to "made a fool of everyone" is redundant, as that lyric is already quoted two lines above.   Will Beback  talk  09:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This type of argument could be made for the recent addition to the TM article in the cult section. There are many views on whether or not TM is a cult. The coverage is already unbalanced. I suggest we don't just start adding a bunch of them to the TM article or it'll become just about TM as cult. --BwB (talk) 11:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Reworded "made a fool" text per Will's suggestion above. --BwB (talk) 11:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh? You seem to be talking mostly about another article. I'm suggesting reverting both edits, unless there's particular reason for these additions. is there any?   Will Beback  talk  12:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course there is a specific reason - to add material that presents a POV supported by a reliable source. --BwB (talk) 13:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The source cited (page 191 of the book All we are Saying) makes no mention of the lyrics in the Song Sexie Sadie. It simply says Lennon wrote the song Sexy Sadie and it was inspired by Maharishi. [92]I have therefore removed the editorial comment on specific lyrics from that sentence and placed lyrical reference in the Yoko sentence where they are clearly referenced by the source.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Lennon wrote the song Sexy Said, which was inspired by the "Maharishi".

That really wasn't much of an improvement.[93] I don't think the source mentions "Sexy Said" either. I'll find a better source and restore it. The whole section ought to be re-written- it's a mess.   Will Beback  talk  21:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)