Talk:Maharishi Mahesh Yogi/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

"unrelated to religion" continued

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

The highlighted text was added with the edit summary "adjusted language for NPOV".[2] The footnote includes these citations:

• The Herald Scotland, April 21, 2007 Meditation-for-old-hippies-or-a-better-way-of-life? [3]
• Johnston, William. . Silent Music: The Science of Meditation. Harper SanFrancisco, a division of Harper Collins, (1974); p15.[4]

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

I've found the complete Rawson article here:[5]. Rawson repeats the standard[6] "mantra", "TM is not a religion and requires no change in belief or lifestyle." However it is not clear that he is referring to the movement. While practicing the technique does not require changes in lifestyle, belonging to the movement does. I think we shouldn't make the highlighted assertion unless we can find a source which supports it directly.   Will Beback  talk  00:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Varma

The name Varma has very high impact at the top of the page: it occurs twice in the first paragraph of the lead, and also at the top of the infobox, directly above the photo of MMY. It then occurs a fourth time a little further down the lead. This gives two strong impressions. The first is that it is notably important that MMY's birthname was Varma, and the second that his birthname indisputably was Varma.

In fact there is no element of notability to MMY's life before he became known to the world as Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and MOS:LEAD does not justify the current prominence and reiteration of Varma.

Comparable cases in good quality, high-profile WP articles may be helpful when considering this. Indira Gandhi's birthname is given, arguably important given her father's status as prime minister and her own notable role in a political dynasty. It is mentioned once in the lead and not in the infobox.

Muhammad Ali was highly notable as Cassius Clay, and this is reflected in the lead of his article, though it has not been given a place in the infobox.

Adolf Hitler was born Adolf Schicklgruber, an interesting and reliable fact, but without notability. In the very full and detailed lead to his article it does not merit a mention. Nor is it in the infobox. This article is amongst the most scrutinized on Wikipedia.

The second issue is the doubtfulness of Varma. From the discussion lower down the article, it seems Varma may not be MMY's birthname. The phrasing is explicit: "The birth name, birth date, and caste of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi are not known with certainty". The case for Varma seems to rest not with quality of source, but with quantity. Given that none of the sources for Varma offers documentation, there is a strong possibility that among these sources there are some that are merely derivative, and so without weight.

OTOH there appears to be a high-quality source for Srivastava—the university record of distinguished alumni. The possiblity of a scholarly institution so mistaking the name of one of its distinguished graduates seems small, and implausibly coincidental given that there is a background source for there being a significant chance of MMY's birthname being Srivastava, from the surname of his nephews and cousins.

Given the issues of non-notability and uncertainty, assertions of MMY's birthname belong in a later section. MOS:LEAD requires notability and careful sourcing. Spicemix (talk) 04:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You raise some good points here. I specifically agree with the one that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi was not "notable" until he became the Maharishi, so the use of Varma seems overdone in the lead. --BweeB (talk) 08:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I have gone through the text and cleaned up the text based on these valid points. --BweeB (talk) 08:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the trouble, BweeB. I think you've improved the article, per MOS:LEAD. Spicemix (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There are no lack of sources for "Varma" being the subject's birthname, though there are also a few sources which refer to "Srivastava". That's not a factor in this decision.   Will Beback  talk  03:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue is not quantity of sources, but judging the best documented source. It seems there is no documentation for Varma, only hearsay, and in such a circumstance a textual scholar would strongly suspect a mere reiteration of the first claim. Srivastava OTOH has one very good credential and is supported by the name of male relations. I think the changes made by BweeB are acceptable and responsible as they reflect MOS:LEAD requirement for notability and careful sourcing. Spicemix (talk) 07:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you demanding that MMY release his long-form birth certificate? ;) I thought the issue was at least partly with sources, due to comments like this: "The case for Varma seems to rest not with quality of source, but with quantity." I don't know that there are accessible documents for the birthnames of 99.9999% of biography subjects on Wikipedia, so that seems like an unhelpful standard. With have many quality sources that say his name was Varma, and a couple which say it was Srivastava. While we should include Srivastava in the body of the text, it appears that the preponderance of sources which comment agree his name was Varma. However, since there's a lack of consensus on this issue I've gone with using Mahesh as the subject's name for the early part of his life. All sources agree on that name.   Will Beback  talk  10:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

We do want consistency, as the edit summary says. Clearly there is consensus for the Maharishi beyond a certain date. The only solution consistent with that is to refer to him as the Brahmachari from 1941 to "around the year 1960".

A problem with using Mahesh within that period is that the article now reads as aggressively disrespectful of the cultural context in which MMY was living, and is open to the charge of being skewed to a skeptical or secular point of view. Given that the Brahmacharya tradition of India is authentic and recognized, the unconventional naming here is controversial, and arguably reductive to the point of being non-factual.

If MMY is to be referred to as Mahesh after becoming a monk, then consistently the article must continue to name him Mahesh post-1960, because he is no less a monk then. Consistently the article will have to be moved to Mahesh. In case this seems outlandish or absurd, I draw attention to the article Nirmala Srivastava, where the subject has been secularized to such an extent that she lives and dies as Nirmala Srivastava, spiritual notability being suppressed.

All editors should have confidence that if changes are proposed for discussion first, then a better and more consistent outcome will result than if unilateral changes are made. I am posting a note concerning this at User talk:Will Beback. Spicemix (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The subject apparently started using the sobriquet "Maharishi" about the same time as he founded the SRM, circa 1958. It'd be an anachronism to call him that in the sections on his early life. Normally, we'd use this last name, but since that's unclear then his first name is the next best option. Since he was known as "Mahesh" to the end of his days, that seems to minimize confusion as well. It's not clear that he was ever known as "the Brahmachari". What's the source for that?   Will Beback  talk  04:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's a handy source:

• In 1955, after isolating himself for two years in the Himalayan foothills, Mahesh took the title of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and began to teach a relaxation and meditation technique which was a simplified form of the Vedic science, organized by him into a complete system, and based on a literalist interpretation of yogic concepts and the use of mantras. He dubbed this technique transcendental meditation. In 1957, he founded the Spiritual Regeneration Movement, the first of several organizations collectively known as the Transcendental Meditation Movement, whose aim he said was to save the world through meditation.
  • Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (1911–). (2007). In Chambers Dictionary of the Unexplained. Retrieved from http://www.credoreference.com/entry/chambun/maharishi_mahesh_yogi_1911

It calls the subject "Mahesh" prior to using the full name we know him by, and dates that name to 1955, two years before the founding of the SRM. The year when he adopted his commonly know monastic name seems significant. I'll add it to the article with this source if there's no objection.   Will Beback  talk  08:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

We have it well sourced that MMY's monastic name prior to becoming Maharishi Mahesh Yogi was Bala Brahmachari Mahesh. Brahmachari is a rank of monk: once that is established no further sourcing is required to refer to him as the Brahmachari. Because at that time MMY was still unknown to the world reliable sources will be very few, and we must go with what we have. What we cannot do is anachronistically revert Bala Brahmachari Mahesh to his pre-monastic status; this is the established policy in the article as evidenced by the use of the Maharishi, when the subject is simply at a higher monastic status. It is untenable to assert that Mahesh can mean Mahesh Varma/Srivastava in one paragraph and Bala Brahmachari Mahesh in the next.

In fact the solution is very simple. For his pre-monastic life Mahesh can be used, and for the first phase of his monastic life Bala Brahmachari Mahesh or Brahamachari Mahesh. It will not be unwieldy, as it has such a short treatment in the article.

The article should not disguise or gloss over or deny the importance of the change of status from a non-monastic to a monastic life. The source Coplin says "his title, "bala brahmachari" identified him as a fully dedicated student of spiritual knowledge and life-long celibate ascetic". It identified him: we are obliged to project that identity in the article, and this phrase in itself can be taken as sufficient sourcing to disallow a bald Mahesh.

We should be very careful in the article not to appear at best casual and at worst dismissive in relation to the legitimacy of the brahmachari status. Coplin goes on to say, "brahmachari... has signified from Vedic times one who has taken the vow of chastity".

The Chambers source is merely "handy" and should not be added. We should keep in mind WP:SOURCES which says "The appropriateness of any source depends on the context". A Scottish dictionary of the unexplained sounds quite inappropriate and I do object to it. It seems that, per Coplin, using Mahesh for a monk is, as WP:V puts it, "contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community", and that is WP:REDFLAG, an exceptional claim requiring exceptional sources. Spicemix (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

What's the source for his name being "Bala Brahmachari Mahesh"? Coplin just says it was a title. We're not denying that he was a brahmachari by leaving off that title.

The assertion that the subject's name was "Mahesh" is not an exceptional claim, nor is the assertion that he started using "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi" in 1995. Chambers is a respectable publisher.[7]   Will Beback  talk  22:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI, the same assertion is found in Chindia Rising By Jagdish N. Sheth.[8] "...by 1955 [he] was ready to assume the title 'Maharishi' (or great sage)."   Will Beback  talk  02:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

By baldly using Mahesh we are not explicitly denying his Brahmachari status, but we are suppressing it, quite needlessly, and we are creating an atmosphere in the text that his status had not changed in a way important enough for the article to recognize. Repeatedly using a reductive and anachronistic term of reference to the subject will inevitably create an impression that his monastic status—the central element of his life and the core of his notability—is not valued or is merely optional, and then we are in the field of POV, specifically a Western, skeptical, secular POV.

A source for his identity, to use Coplin's word, being Bal Brahmachari Mahesh is the subject's signature on a handwritten letter. Titles are not signed. Spicemix (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any source which denies or even questions that the subject's given name was "Mahesh". Except one, the signature on the letter you cite-"Bal Brahmachari Mahsh". Was he really "Mahsh"? I don't think so. Probably just a mistake in handwriting. Also, people routinely add their titles to their signature. "Dr. John Smith" is a frequent case in which "Dr." is not part of the name. Anyway, leaving off a title is not disrespectful and is standard on Wikipedia. We don't need to say "President Obama" every time we refer to him. "Obama" is sufficient. If the subject's family name were known for sure and if it were used more frequently that would be our more common reference. We never refer to people simply by their titles except in the most unusual circumstances. Using a self-given title, "Maharishi", is not exactly neutral but we have little choice. But we shouldn't use that title to refer to the period before its adoption, just like we don't refer to Cassius Clay as "Ali" during his youth, or Ratzinger as "Benedict" prior to his elevation.   Will Beback  talk  21:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Consistency: we have sources for Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and we do not refer to him as Mahesh; we have sources for Bala Brahmachari Mahesh and we should not refer to him as Mahesh. His given name was Mahesh throughout his life but we cannot take it upon ourselves to extract the subject from his cultural context and refer to him in a Western secular manner. To do so is internally inconsistent in the article. If we are proposing to do that then we need sources to show that Mahesh was how he was known as a monk, and as we have sources to the contrary, that seems at present unlikely. According to excellent evidence, Bala Brahmachari Mahesh was how he presented himself to the world, and we should follow the sources. Spicemix (talk) 04:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

We have sources which call him "Mahesh" and "Varma" too, sources that have more weight than a doctoral dissertation by a follower. We have only one source for the complete title and name you're proposing, his own signature on one page that says "Bal Brahmachari Mahsh". Are you saying we should call him "Bal Brahmachari Mahsh"? The subject spent much of his life, including his final decades, in the West, so we're not dealing with someone who is known exclusively in an Indian context. As I wrote before, we have sources that say Barack Obama is a US President, but that does not require us to only refer to him as "President Barack Obama". The subject may have been Indian, may have been a monk, but he was still a person. We don't need to use special rules for this article, and we don't need to always refer to him using the formula used by his followers. That would not be neutral either.   Will Beback  talk  05:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Quotes

I'm going to remove the quotation marks around guru, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and His Holiness in the lead. None of these terms should be marked as an opinion or an unusual usage. 210.251.14.161 (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

My comment above. Spicemix (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Quotation marks are used when referring to a word, rather than using it. For example, 'Jones is called a "guru" because of his wisdom', or 'The word "organize" is spelled as "organise" in the UK'. That's why there are quotation marks around those terms in the intro.   Will Beback  talk  03:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

<He began to be known as "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi"> isn't consistent with relevant WP:FAs: George Orwell bibliography reads <British writer Eric Arthur Blair, pen name George Orwell>; Hilda Doolittle, which leaves <H.D> as it is; or Joanne Rowling, <better known as J. K. Rowling>. There may be many more. In the last example the syntax is highly comparable to this article's. It'll be good to follow consistent WP:FA usage here; it's sure to improve the article.

<His Holiness> can be argued to illustrate the use–mention distinction as the previous comment said, and MOS gives preference to italics in such cases. See MOS:WORDSASWORDS: "Use italics when writing about words as words, or letters as letters (to indicate the use–mention distinction)."

While MOS does allow quotes for mention, it prioritizes italics, and additionally MOS:BADEMPHASIS discourages scare quotes, which are "often similar to prepending a skeptical modifier such as so-called or alleged to label the quoted word or phrase, to indicate scorn, sarcasm, or irony." We should be very careful to disallow the possibility of such a reading "in impartial works, such as in encyclopedia articles", because "The scare quote is the perfect device for making an insinuation without proving it, or even necessarily making clear what you're insinuating." So let's remove the quotes as contraindicated in both cases, and have italics in the second case. Spicemix (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

While it may be notable for Jones to be called a "guru" in a specific setting or instance, it's an obvious and routine adjective for the Maharishi. Having it in quotes creates unnecessary and undue emphasis. Like wise with the words Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. This was the name the subject was known by for 50+ years and was referenced in thousands of press articles. There is no need for it be be highlighted or given special emphasis with quotations. In general, having a word in quotes, creates innuendo. I would suggest we avoid these kinds of quotes in the article and WP policy seems to support that. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Most of Spicemix's examples are inapt, as they are simply variants on a name or pen names. The closer examples would be Cassius Clay, who changed his name mid-career, or other religious figure who adopt new names.

It's grammatically accurate, but I'm fine with removing the quotes around "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi" if it makes this article more consistent with others.   Will Beback  talk  21:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Note that in the Muhammad Ali article he is referred to as "Clay" until he changes his name. I propose we do the same for this article, to make it more consistent.   Will Beback  talk  21:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding <His Holiness>, quotes for mention do create innuendo. Irrespective of the intention of the editor the possibility of a skeptical point of view is introduced. MOS:BADEMPHASIS directs us not "to indicate scorn, sarcasm, or irony", and warns that quotes can be "the perfect device for making an insinuation without proving it". To ensure neutrality the quotes should be removed. Spicemix (talk) 08:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• MOS:BADEMPHASIS : Quotation marks are to show that you are using the correct word as quoted from the original source. For example: His tombstone was inscribed with the name "Aaron" instead of the spelling he used during his life.

That's how we use them in this article. We're not emphasizing the phrase, we're referring to it. Here's how it appears in the source:

• Maharishi's devotees, who refer to Maharishi as "His Holiness," say this is no cult.

I think it's best to follow the sources.   Will Beback  talk  08:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The source is under no obligation to WP:MOS; we however are, and the case has been made both for WP:MOS's preference for italics for mention, and for the danger of introducing editorial innuendo with use of quotes. In the case of an honorific as here this danger is particularly acute. Follow the sources: it should be pointed out that WP:CONSISTENCY is the "overriding principle", and "that style and formatting choices should be consistent within a Wikipedia article". These choices have been made in the opening paragraph of the article. Spicemix (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I put them into italics instead of quotation marks. Same thing, semantically.   Will Beback  talk  21:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Passport magazine

What kind of source is Passport magazine, and why are we citing an article by their restaurant critic? [9]   Will Beback  talk  21:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Why not a restaurant critic? Are his views and opinions not valid? Are all the journalists that have written about the Maharishi over the last 50 years experts on the topic? And I believe Passport magazine is a print journal? What do you think is unsuitable about it? --BweeB (talk) 04:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

We don't use every source. For example, student newspapers are considered questionable by some. So again, what kind of source is this? Does it have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking? Is this the standard Keithbob and Bigweeboy are suggesting for the article?   Will Beback  talk  04:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, it appears that Passport is a free "lifestyle" weekly published and distributed in Moscow for English-speaking travelers and residents. As such, it probably rates somewhere below the better free alternative newspapers seen in large U.S. cities, like the Phoenix New Times. It's important to remember that this is making an assertion about the personal actions of MMY, and it's not clear how the writer would have that information if it didn't involve the Moscow restaurant scene.

I've corrected the material which mis-summarized the source, such as it is.   Will Beback  talk  07:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Non-religious

I have just added a new version of the sentence WBB had removed, which he said we would reinstate with a better source. The source for the new sentence is is Chryssides George D. Defining the New Spirituality http://www.cesnur.org/conferences/riga2000/chryssides.htm George Chryssides is Senior Lecturer in religious studies at the University of Wolverhampton, England, an Honorary Research Fellow in Contemporary Religion at the University of Birmingham, UK., and former Senior Lecturer and head of Religious Studies at the School of Humanities, Languages and Social Sciences of the University of Wolverhampton. Therefore, he can safely be considered an expert on the subject. I hope this resolves the issue to everyone’s satisfaction.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 03:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• ...and sometimes, as non religious, being devoid of features typically associated with religions.
  • Chryssides George D. Defining the New Spirituality http://www.cesnur.org/conferences/riga2000/chryssides.htm One possible suggestion is that religion demands exclusive allegiance: this would ipso facto exclude Scientology, TM and the Soka Gakkai simply on the grounds that they claim compatibility with whatever other religion the practitioner has been following. For example, TM is simply – as they state – a technique. Although it enables one to cope with life, it offers no goal beyond human existence (such as moksha), nor does it offer rites or passage or an ethic. Unlike certain other Hindu-derived movements, TM does not prescribe a dharma to its followers – that is to say a set of spiritual obligations deriving from one’s essential nature.

The source is too weak to support the material, given the context. We could cite literally dozens of academic sources which characterize the TM movement as an NRM. On the other side, we have one paper delivered at a conference held by CESNUR, a group which has a mixed reputation. A better source for Chryssides' view would be Exploring New Religions [10] However even that is just one POV, so giving it that much space in the lead seems disproportionate and gets us further away from the topic of the article. Further, there may be a false equivalence by using the same "sometimes" to describe both characterizations. If a thing is called X 19 times and Y one time, then it's misleading to say it's "sometimes called X and sometimes called Y". We should mention Y but make it clear that it is not the prevailing description. Another problem with Chryssides is that he seems to have been poorly informed about the movement's beliefs and practices. For example, it is now fairly well-known that the movement does insist on "exclusive allegiance".   Will Beback  talk  03:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we move the whole discussion of the movement's nature to the next paragraph. Something more like

• ... was the leader and guru of the TM movement. (Lead)
• Beginning in 1955, the Maharishi began to introduce the Transcendental Meditation (TM) technique and other related programmes and initiatives to the world. He also created the Spiritual Regeneration Movement, later renamed the Transcendental Meditation movement, which it is usually characterised as a new religious movement though denies being a one. (Middle of the second paragraph)

How about that?   Will Beback  talk  03:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the proposed move: I am not against it, but I am not sure that moving this to the paragraph below would make much of a difference, at least not in terms of what sources or language should be used. Regarding Chryssides: As his extensive resume and numerous scholarly publications demonstrate, he is a renowned expert on religions. The opinion from an expert in the field carries a great deal of authority and is considered reliable. Similarly, as the source is from an established expert widely published by respected third party publications, it is also reliable. As for Chryssides being misinformed, it is speculation. The reliability of an author is based on qualifications, which in the present case are excellent, not on second guessing research methodology. It would be hard to find someone more qualified to determine what is and isn't a religion than George Chryssides, who has successfully made this his life’s work. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, Chryssides has great credentials, but so do many of the scholars who plainly call TM an NRM. Second, he doesn't come out and say, in the text you cite, that TM isn't an NRM. He says that it's possible to define religions as requiring allegiance and if so, then TM would not qualify because it "claims" to not require it. He further attributes the idea that TM is just a technique to the movement. In addition to overlooking the fact that TM does require exclusive allegiance, he also seems unaware that the TM movement has an ethic, the 18-point SCI. Since those are two elements of his proposed definition of religion, it's a very murky assertion. It'd be much more straightforward and relevant to say that the movement or MMY himself denied that TM is a religion.   Will Beback  talk  04:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The fundamental issue is that the TM movement cannot be defined definitively using any one term; Luke seems to be attempting to deal with that concern. Chryssides for example, also uses the term "human potential movement " when discussing it. Further, the issue is much larger than squeezing the academic discussions of NRMs, TM and religion into one academically coined word or phrase, for the lead of this article. Rather than select one phrase to define an entire area of academic discussion (NRMS), we should be summarizing the discussions and views that are laid out in these discussions, as well as the views and discussions offered by other reliable sources. Chryssides was aware of SCI which he mentions and briefly discusses. SCI is strictly speaking not an ethic which is generally meant to mean a required behaviour, but is a theoretical underpinning for a technique.(olive (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC))

Another problem with Chryssides is that he seems to have been poorly informed about the movement's beliefs and practices. For example, it is now fairly well-known that the movement does insist on "exclusive allegiance". No doubt a lot of testimonials from religious figures can be found to show that TM requires no religious allegiance. In anticipation of a claim that the TM movement is somehow different and does require exclusive allegiance, here is a piece about religious Jewish faculty at Maharishi University of Management. If MUM faculty may be considered movement, then this makes clear that founding faculty were also the foundation of the local Jewish religious congregation, and that this religious group organized on the MIU/MUM campus: "Parsons College had now become Maharishi International University (MIU) where a group of Jewish meditating faculty and students became the foundation for the Fairfield Jewish congregation — Congregation Beth Shalom ... during the 1970’s the Fairfield congregation was a nomadic group on the MIU campus". Here is a webpage quoting a concessionary price for MUM faculty and staff to attend 2011 Passover at the Beth Shalom Synagogue.

There is also evidence to show that Father Gabriel Mejia is both a Catholic priest [11] and a high-profile TM teacher [12], who recently was the main speaker and hosted a conference at a prominent MUM event. [13]

At issue is the difference between a documented reality and the opinions of a grouping of academics. Given the contrast between the real-world reports and this point of view, we should classify the latter as WP:FRINGE, and as such it may not merit mention in the article; in any event it should not be given undue weight, [14] per WP:WEIGHT. The reader who follows the new religious movement link will find TM in an alphabetical list with, for example, The Family, Charles Manson and Aum Shinrikyo. Such associations are highly distorting and controversial and merit a WP:FRINGE classification. The last article begins 'Aum Shinrikyo is a Japanese "new religious movement"'—a not dissimilar opening to this article's. Spicemix (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

To echo some of what Spicemix has expressed, in addition to the many religious personalities who are also TM teachers and practitioners , there are others in the academic world that have expressed concepts similar to Chryssides ‘. Douglas Cowan writes in Cults and New Religions that TM lacked many if the features of a religion, having no designated scripture, no set of doctrinal requirements no ongoing worship activity, no discernable community of believers, and that Maharishi didn't claim any special divine revelation or supernatural personal qualities. In The Subtle Body: The Story of Yoga in America, Stefanie Syman laments that modern yoga, among which she includes TM, has been “yanked…from the bosom of religion and its inexplicable mysteries and delivered…to science”. About TM itself she says: “There was no color, no filigree, no story, no symbol, nor much ritual of any sort”.

There is a further consideration, I am not sure the topic merits being in the lead at all. This article is about MMY, not the TM Movement, yet the lead discusses the TMM. To quote from WP:MOSBEGIN " The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific”. I think this is exactly the case of a lead sentence being overly specific, indeed it is not even about the article’s topic. Additionally, (and this addresses both the issue of neutrality and weight), it makes little sense that so much emphasis is given to the view of a few academics about the purported religious aspect of the TMM, while absolutely no mention is made of its therapeutic elements, which is how TM, and the TM movement are more universally known. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 02:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

(undent) This sentence in the lead is getting way too convoluted, IMHO. Perhaps we can just simply say the Maharishi founded a "Movement" and either give more detail about it int he body of the article, or just let an interested reader follow the Transcendental Meditation movement link to get the scoop. --BweeB (talk) 08:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with LWw and BweeB, and draw attention to a comment[15] about this lead made a while ago by Earlymorningperson:

every word should be devoted to explaining who the subject is and why he/she is notable. Weighing the lead down with pedantic terms does not help entice the reader to read on. In general, this whole long lead section is a real snore, lacking focus on the subject’s claim to fame. For ex., we only get to know that the subject introduced meditation to the world on a rather large scale at the end of five paragraphs. As I’ve said before, let’s get more reader-friendly around here!

There seems to be consensus that MMY is primarily notable for offering a technique which proved hugely popular. I propose that we bring a slimmed-down mention of 5m+ people to the top paragraph, which could then read: Maharishi Mahesh Yogi ... developed the Transcendental Meditation technique, which has been learned by more than 5 million people[refs]. That in a nutshell is his notability. There is no need to clutter the 5m with quotes as it is reliably referenced, and "studied his methods" is an arcane phrase clearly intended to paraphrase "learned".

The founding of a movement is a distant second for notability, and the lead is not a forum for a discussion of little-known terms of reference. The lead should summarize, and as has already been noted[16] nrm is a specific. LWw is correct to point out that this is a biographical article, and its lead should not contain non-notable and doubtful specifics about a secondary topic. Given what has been said on this thread and other recent and related threads I judge that we now have a full consensus to move the treatment of nrm out of the lead.

When this subject is covered in the body of the article and elsewhere, the treatment should reflect the primary evidence that the TMM does not fulfill necessary criteria for nrm status: the current phrasing implies that nrm status is a starting-point or prevailing point of view. Spicemix (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you're saying Spicemix but do disagree with, "the treatment should reflect the primary evidence that the TMM does not fulfill necessary criteria for NRM status: " TM has been cited in sources as an NRM. I don't see that we can debate that point because it is sourced. What has been discussed in sources seems to be whether TM is actually religious or a religion and whether it should be considered an NRM. So an inclusionist view in this article should include content on NRM per its weight, as well the other arguments/opinions on the TM as religion views. An 'inclusionist' way of dealing with these multiple views while considering weight will give a sense of the totality of information in this area. An 'exclusionist' view and content that includes any one side would be non neutral, in my opinion. (olive (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC))

On rereading your comment we may be saying the same thing. I would however see this information as layered: TM movement has been considered an NRM and then branching off of that, that TM movement as a religious org has been debated. Further, I agree that NRM is not necessarily the primary view but is a 'category' coined by academics to favour academic discussion, and is only one of many views.(olive (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC))

• I look forward to seeing how editors will resolve this. I'll leave it to you all to sort out, and take a look again when you've done your best work.   Will Beback  talk  01:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Are editors still working on this or have they given up?   Will Beback  talk  02:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd thought that Luke Warmwater might want to take it on as he started the thread, but I'll have a go myself. Spicemix (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see here for my suggestion for the lead, per this thread, but with some additional changes for everyone to consider. All sourced material taken from the lead will be placed in the body of the article. This amounts to two passages, the nrm discussion and "studied his methods" quote.

Additional changes are

• He began to be known as Maharishi Mahesh Yogi around the year 1958. Will Beback suggested this in the Varma thread.
• Maharishi and Yogi are honorifics now follows this sentence. His given name was Mahesh is deleted as it is effectively already said twice in the top para.
• he achieved fame now reads he became well known. The former implies a striving for fame which I took to be WP:WEASEL. The wording now is NPOV.
• Tens of thousands are reported to have learned his advanced meditation techniques. TM websites report has gone, to comply with need for summary. While it's true the original made clear the source was primary, the figure is not controversial I think.

I'll post the relocated passages soon. Comments appreciated. Spicemix (talk) 13:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Spice. Do you want comments here or below the draft on --BweeB (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)the other Wiki page?

Hadn't thought about it! Maybe on the subpage would be practical; on the other hand here is up-front.... You decide. Thanks. Spicemix (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I've now posted most of the page on the subpage. The elements moved from the lead are in Philosophy and teaching and Transcendental Meditation. There are a few other small changes: please have a look at the diffs. Spicemix (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I was content to let editors work on the intro without my comments, but not to rewrite the whole article. I suggest you first finish the intro work, which does not look complete to my eye, then proceed. (And what diffs do you mean?)   Will Beback  talk  19:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that changes had been made throughout the article: the only changes are in the lead, and in section 3 as above, where the sourced material previously in the lead has been relocated along with a few words of text and some sources quoted previously in the talk thread.

Other than the 2 sourced passages moved down, the changes to the lead are as follows:

• five million moved to top para
• honorifics moved down the lead to be with treatment of name
• year first known as MMY now sourced from Mason as 1955
• achieved fame now reads became widely known for NPOV
• The previously unsourced TM websites report tens of thousands having learned his advanced meditation techniques. is now sourced (primary source) as Reportedly more than 100,000 people have learnt his advanced meditation techniques. Spicemix (talk) 10:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's deal with the intro before moving on to the rest of the article. What happened to "new religious movement"?   Will Beback  talk  19:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Nrm is here, as pointed out in each of my last two posts. This talk thread contains the full narrative and explicit conclusions about why it has been moved down. But the details of where it goes and the new wording are there to be discussed, which is why it's been placed in the context of the whole article on the subpage. Spicemix (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is the description of the subject's movement being removed from the intro? Why is the quantity of people in that movement ("5 million") moved up in the intro?   Will Beback  talk  00:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

(undent) Why, why, why? --BweeB (talk) 07:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully refer Will Beback to the entirety of the thread, and point out that his recent posts appear to be exhibiting WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Spicemix (talk) 11:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any logical reason for the deletion, and so I disagree with it. The movement is an important aspect of the subject's life and legacy, and it should be properly described in the intro. If you refuse to discuss the matter then that's unfortunate.   Will Beback  talk  18:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's just let people follow the Wiki link to the TMM article and not stuff the lead of this article with too much info on the movement. --BweeB (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

If that's the preference then let's do the same for the TMT material too.   Will Beback  talk  19:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary page break

I don't understand what's going on here. Is there a suggestion to remove content from the lead? I can't see why content on the TM movement would be removed. If there is too much detail in the lead, that may be a consideration but needs to be discussed and agreement arrived at. That has been a contentious area and it should be discussed. Am I missing something here... these threads seem to be tangled. and what is going on is unclear(olive (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC))

Ok. I see the subpage. I'm concerned about the changes being made with out discussion and agreement. Spice we have one editor, a major editor on these articles who does not agree with the changes. We need to deal with his concerns. It would be easy to swamp one editor. I'd suggest more discussion and if a compromise can't be reached we bring in another opinion - someone who is neutral to these articles. I can't support what amounts to unilateral changes, and I can't support ignoring the concerns of a major editor on the article.(olive (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC))

I've struck out part of my comment above, to help with a harmonious thread. There's no suggestion of unilateral changes: a subpage has been created specially for the purpose of generating discussion. But let's all keep in mind what's already been said and then the discussion will be maximally progressive. Spicemix (talk) 09:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC).

Thanks SpiceMix for clarifying that. The comments from both you and Will were unclear to me(olive (talk) 15:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC))

@Spicemix: It might be helpful to create a section either on this page or on the subpage for discussion, maybe designating we move a paragraph at a time. Editors who have concerns should be expected to comment about/summarize those concerns. Then within a specified period if there are no concerns or agreement has been reached changes could be made. Right now the threads are not easy to wade through.(olive (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC))

In fact what I've been doing is diffidently [17] taking up Will Beback's twice-issued [18] [19] invitation for someone to make suggestions for the lead along the lines of this thread. The subpage was created first with just the lead in it, then a couple of days later with the body of the article too, to show editors a suggested new location for the material moved down from the lead, per the talk thread. It seems to have caused confusion though, so I'm going to delete the subpage, and we can use this thread to clarify and refine the suggestions I made, based on what I perceived as talk page consensus. Spicemix (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments per Natural Law Party

Think this sentence could be removed from the lead - it is not directly about Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. "His followers started the Natural Law Party in 1992, which ran campaigns in dozens of countries." --BweeB (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I also question the validity of that sentence in the lead. Any comments from others?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought there was an effort to re-write the intro. What happened to that?

The Maharishi did not teach TM to 5 million people either, so if we delete the one activity of his followers then it'd be logical to delete others as well.   Will Beback  talk  20:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• The smell of incense and cinnamon hangs in the air during a reception for Dennis J. Kucinich at a country mansion outside this "meditation community," a town of 9,500 and the home base of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's Natural Law Party.
  • Kucinich's own crusade ; Longshot candidacy reprises magical mystery tour Steve Miller, THE WASHINGTON TIMES. Washington Times. Washington, D.C.: Jan 15, 2004. pg. A.01
• A year later, he launched Telegroup, which sold discounted long- distance service. After catapulting to $400 million in annual sales, it crashed into bankruptcy in 1999. Along the way, Gratzon also ran for the U.S. Senate, racking up a whopping 4,248 votes (out of 1.2 million) on the maharishi's Natural Law Party ticket.
  • Do-nothing attitude can make you rich:; [Final Edition] Roy Rivenburg. The Vancouver Sun. Vancouver, B.C.: Jul 7, 2003. pg. E.8
• Roth insists the Natural Law Party isn't linked to the Maharishi's Natural Law parties in various foreign countries, though party members have participated in international conferences and the U.S. party shares some platform planks with the Maharishi's international party. The Maharishi issued a directive in 1992 to form parties around the world.
  • The Reform Party, Feelin' Guru-vy; Anti-Buchanan Forces Meditate On Merger With Maharishi's Camp; [FINAL Edition] Dana Milbank. The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Sep 2, 2000. pg. C.01
• Henning was concurrently involved in the Maharishi's Natural Law Party, unsuccessfully standing for office in Canada and Britain.
  • Doug Henning; [1F Edition] The Times. London (UK): Feb 18, 2000. pg. 27
• In further support of the maharishi, Henning also ran (unsuccessfully) for political office in England and Canada as a member of the maharishi's Natural Law Party.
  • Magician Doug Henning Dies of Liver Cancer at 52; Entertainment: He is credited with reviving large-scale performances with a series of shows on TV and Broadway.; [Home Edition] MYRNA OLIVER. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Feb 9, 2000. pg. B.1
• He sold many of his illusions to competitor David Copperfield and ran for office, unsuccessfully, in England in 1992 and Canada in the mid-1990s, as a member of the Natural Law party founded by the Maharishi.
  • Doug Henning, 52, dies; Emmy-winning magician; [All Edition] Providence Journal. Providence, R.I.: Feb 9, 2000. pg. C.06
• He gave his only post-Beatles solo concert in Britain as a gesture of support for the Maharishi's Natural Law party, and was even asked to stand as one of its parliamentary candidates in the 1992 general election.
  • It was never fab for haunted George; [1GR Edition] Philip Norman. Sunday Times. London (UK): Jan 2, 2000. pg. 7
• The special squadrons, which will focus on generating peace and harmony around the globe, were approved yesterday at the third annual congress of the Maharishi Council of Natural Law Parties in Brussels. [..] Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the founder of the Natural Law Party, lent his support to the idea via a satellite link to the congress.
  • Maharishi's yogic flyers claim they can put the world to rights JEREMY LOVELL IN BRUSSELS. The Guardian (pre-1997 Fulltext). Manchester (UK): Jul 30, 1996. pg. 010

And so on.   Will Beback  talk  20:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any sources that say "his followers started the NLP". The language used in the sources you've cited says he was the founder and they call it "Maharishi's Natural Law Party". We should accurately reflect the sources.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

fixed.   Will Beback  talk  05:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the bit about the Maharishi being founder, but you have not addressed my point that all of the sources call it Maharishi's Natural Law Party and none of the sources mention "his followers". This "followers" bit is editorializing and creates POV and should be removed. I suggest we say: ["The Maharishi's Natural Law Party was founded in 1992, and ran campaigns in dozens of countries."] This wording is neutral and accurate to the sources you've listed above.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 11:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The listed sources all connect the NPL to the Maharishi because that was the question they were researched to address. I searched for ["maharishi" within 3 words of "natural law party"]. There are sources which say that it was founded by his followers, too. But that's largely a distinction without a difference. I'd agree to Keithbob's suggestion as a sufficiently accurate, yet properly brief, account for the article intro.   Will Beback  talk  18:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Varma (cont.)

Since we were encouraged [20] to find sources for Bal Brahmachari Mahesh being a name, rather than a title, two sources have come up. One is Mason, p. 17: "In undertaking to serve as a disciple, together with the usual vows of service and celibacy he took a new name, that of Bal Brahmacharya Mahesh." The second is Rajeev Verma, Faith and philosophy of Hinduism (2009), pp 344, 978-8178357188: "In 1941 he became a secretary to Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, who gave him the name Bal Brahmachari Mahesh." This means we have the assertions of his principal biographer, and an Indian expert. Currently the article is using Coplin, but these new, and published, references may be seen as another case of "sources that have more weight than a doctoral dissertation by a follower" [21].

Doubts have been expressed about the variations of spelling in this case, but standard textual scholarship doesn't recognize a problem. As this summary [22] explains, minor variations of spelling are termed accidental, and the editor may choose which to go with for his version of the text. For example, six specimens of Shakespeare's signature have survived, and they are all spelled differently. The terminal silent Hindi a found here on Brahmacharya, and the missing e in the signature Bal Brahmachari Mahsh are both accidentals. I propose that in this article we go with Bal Brahmachari Mahesh.

The article will be improved if the subject is properly named, and I'll make the changes and add the new sources. Currently we have an inconsistent situation with the subject having three phases of name, but being referred to in the same way for two of them. Spicemix (talk) 02:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It's still a title, not a name. We don't call people by their titles, with very few exceptions. Even after he was bestowed the title, he was still Mahesh.

The Verma book clearly depends of Coplin for the material, so it's not a strong second source.

Are we regarding Mason as a fully reliable source?

We already mention the title "Bala Brahmachari Mahesh". If Spicemix wants to change that to "Bal Brahmachari Mahesh" that's fine with me, but I don't see where other changes are necessary.   Will Beback  talk  03:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The Verma book is out as a source. It's just copied from this article. [23][24]   Will Beback  talk  05:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Mason, as the subject's leading biographical scholar, is a very serious source, and in this case is the strongest we have. We should remember that we have recently given Mason's view precedence even over the records of the subject's university when deciding how to present the controversy over his birthname. Coplin by contrast is an unpublished doctoral thesis, and we have one editor who doubts his neutrality. Spicemix (talk) 23:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, the 1994 first edition is regarded as usable, but the later editions were self-published and can't be used (unless we consider Mason to be an expert on MMY). I'd like the to see the article based more on Mason and less on MMY's own memoirs. Doctoral dissertations are published, in a manner of speaking, and have been usually deemed reliable (though master's theses have not).   Will Beback  talk  23:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The source in this case is the 1994 edition and is the strongest we have. As the relative strength of Mason is not denied here, I shall incorporate his definition in the article. Mason repeatedly (pp. 17-28) refers to MMY in this phase of his life as Brahmachari Mahesh, and we can safely follow his usage.

It will be remembered that Coplin's scholarship on the subject of Indian names has recently been called into question [25] as "flimsy logic", "unhelpful speculation" and "nonsense", and his opinion deleted [26] from the article. However, as he refers [27] to bala brahmachari as both a title and a name, he may be considered inconclusive here. Spicemix (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Grescoe quote

Canadian author and journalist Paul Grescoe reported in 1968 that "A British magazine said his teacher was Jagad Guru Shankaracharya Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, ... or Guru Dev for short. The Maharishi ... was his pupil for 13 years. When the Guru Dev died, the Maharishi was so disappointed at not being named successor, that he launched an unsuccessful lawsuit."

This is a tendentious allegation, and poorly-sourced almost to the point of being unsourced. The author presents himself as a novice on the subject, having "read here and there", and the source is not specified. A lawsuit is a matter of public record, and none has ever been made known. Several scholars have been active in the field of the Shankaracharya succession, and the lawsuits brought by other parties are documented. Mason makes no mention of this allegation against MMY, either in the 1994 edition of his biography or in subsequent internet writings.

We should also bear in mind that while the two ellipses in the quote as presented in the article make it appear that a "British magazine" is the source, when the passage is read in full [28] this is far from clear.

As the quote is misleading and unsupported, I propose we delete it. Spicemix (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• This source and related text was placed in the article in 2010 as "Canadian author and journalist Paul Grescoe reported in 1968 that Mahesh was "so disappointed at not being named [Saraswati's] successor" that he filed a lawsuit, which was unsuccessful." However, I felt that if the text was going to be in the article that the reader should see the entire quote and judge for themselves what the author was trying to say and should know that the information was third hand. [29] Later, another editor (I believe it was WBB, but I may be mistaken) pared the full quote down to its current form. However Spicemix has now brought out some additional points that are worthy of consideration. Do we have any additional sources for this claim about a lawsuit?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It's incorrect that the assertion is "unsupported". It has a clear citation to a source generally considered reliable. The view is attributed to the reporter, so readers won't mistakenly get the impression that it's a widely held view. We include many assertions from single sources.   Will Beback  talk  03:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

We are moving towards consensus, and I think it's inevitable in this case. "The view is attributed to the reporter" is a new slant though, and given that we are dealing with the reporting of a matter of fact, it further reduces the reliability of the fact. However the reporting is already so unreliable from being referred to some unspecified reading "here and there", that it can hardly be diminished further. Are we are really to rely on the view of the journalist for such a far-reaching and isolated assertion?

We should note that the claim is for an unsuccessful lawsuit. That means the suit was given due process of law and was finally rejected. To suggest that this event—Secretary in court to dispute will of spiritual advisor to first president of India—left a documentary footprint so faint that no scholar or investigative journalist in almost 60 years has been able to trace it is beyond credibility. I fully concur with the recent statement, "Things exist whether or not they are covered on Wikipedia." [30] This evidently did not exist, and the quotation should be removed from the article. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources: WP:REDFLAG. Spicemix (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems that Grescoe himself admits that the facts he is reporting are heresay and have not been verified. He states that his sources are-- reading he has done "here and there" and "a British magazine". He conveys that the sources of his information are vague and/or anonymous. For this reason the citation would appear to be insufficient for an allegation that clearly slanders the article subject. It could be a true fact but without solid sources its presence in the article is jeopardized, I think. I have looked for a corroborating source in Google Books and Google News Archive, but came up empty handed. It's been 40+ years since the cited sourced was published, if the lawsuit really happened there must be documentation. Can anyone else find something to support the lawsuit text?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless we can find the local courthouse, determine that they have records dating back that far, figuring out which names the lawsuits would have been filed under, and then searching through the relevant period to see if the lawsuit can be found, then we can't say that it didn't happen. Mason, while he may be a good researcher, is not generally categorized as a "scholar". I'm not aware of any scholar besides Coplin, a member of the movement, who has researched the subject's life.

Spicemix suggests that the issue of succession touches on exceptional claims. The question of whether the subject sought to succeed his teacher has been mentioned in other sources, hasn't it? What does Mason say on the topic? Coplin doesn't mention anything about the period between Saraswati's death and the onset of the subject's ministry.   Will Beback  talk  20:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless we can find the local courthouse, determine that they have records dating back that far, figuring out which names the lawsuits would have been filed under, and then searching through the relevant period to see if the lawsuit can be found, then we can't say that it didn't happen. Which WP policy does this exemplify? It is the direct opposite of WP:BURDEN.

So far in this thread Will Beback has asserted that the unsubstantiated "view" of a journalist can be considered admissible as a fact, that this new fact should stand because "we can't say it didn't happen". Does he still stand by these assertions?

In a nutshell the article currently contains an unverified and remarkable claim by a journalist who has explained he is a novice on the subject. No corroboration of this claim can be found in any reliable source, or for that matter so far in any source at all. The subject's biographer and obituarists attach so little credibility to the claim that they do not mention it. Were the claim to be true, it is so sensational as to have generated the interest of news media, both at the time and thereafter, and the attention of academic researchers, yet there is complete silence. Further, the claim entirely relates to a public issue and to official records, no trace of which has been exposed. It is a surprising or apparently important claim not covered by mainstream sources and is contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community. These are WP:REDFLAG definitions. WP:REDFLAG states that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. In this case we have no sources whatsoever.

What does Mason say on the topic? His account in full, pp.23-24:

It will be observed that one of the preconditions of entitlement to this post is being born a Brahmin. Brahamachari Mahesh, being of the kshetriya caste, was not eligible to hold this venerated office. So, on Friday 12 June, 1953, at the wish of Swami Brahmananda, his close disciple Sri Swami Shantanand Sarawati Maharaj was installed as successor to the throne of Shankaracharya,

With his master's passing and his fellow disciple Swami Shantanand the new Shankaracharya, Brahmachari Mahesh took leave of the monastery and 'retired to the caves of the "Valley of the Saints" in Uttar Kashi, high in the Himalayas'.

Shall we now delete the quotation? Spicemix (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC).

Thanks for finding and transcribing that. It's certainly good enough to support the addition of text that Mason doesn't mention the purported lawsuit.   Will Beback  talk  23:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Since non of the editors involved in this thread are able to locate reliable sources to support the rather inadequate source which is currently provided, I would vote for deletion. If supporting sources can be found in the future, then it can be added back into the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Did we decide that the Montreal Gazette is an unreliable source? Have we decided that multiple sources are required for each assertion?   Will Beback  talk  23:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd be very reluctant to delete an ostensibly reliable secondary source at the same time as we're arguing over the inclusion of an even less reliable self-published source at the TMM talk page. If folks want to use only the best sources then I'd expect that practice to be followed consistently, not just when convenient.   Will Beback  talk  23:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Did we decide that the Montreal Gazette is an unreliable source? In fact the only discussion of the MG has been Will Beback's argument that "The view is attributed to the reporter", and not to any editorial position of the paper. He also says the MG is "a source generally considered reliable", a statement that accords with WP policy that reliability is not an absolute. If we go to WP:SOURCES we find

Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source.

The reliability of the MG on a great many subjects, primarily local and regional, but to a great extent national too, will not be questioned, but its competence for checking or analyzing this particular legal issue, evidence, and argument may be estimated at close to zero. It seems to be a smallish newspaper, currently the 3rd largest regional daily in Quebec, and its target audience is 13% of the population of the province.

This would not much matter if the journalist were reporting something commonplace or trivial—he makes many acceptable claims in the piece—but this claim is extraordinary and defamatory, and has no support whatever in reliable sources elsewhere. As such, Wikipedia policy requires substantiation elsewhere as it is is a surprising or apparently important claim not covered by mainstream sources.

To retain the quote as suggested above but in a new context that would need to make clear its tendentiousness and poor status per verifiability, I think is not a practical option. Do we have consensus for its deletion until good mainstream sources can be found? Spicemix (talk) 12:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think the text could be removed until other sources are available. --BweeB (talk) 08:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

What is its "tenedntiousness" and how would we make that clear?   Will Beback  talk  19:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

We should have to make clear that though the claim was included in the article, there was a severe imbalance of probabilities to indicate it was erroneous. What is its "tenedntiousness": I refer the editor to the entirety of the thread, and remind him of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Spicemix (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

In the interests of harmony I've struck part of my comment above. Grescoe's claim is tendentious because it is a weakly sourced allegation, unsupported by all other sources, and on a matter of public record. Spicemix (talk) 09:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the general consensus is to remove the text in question(Canadian author and journalist Paul Grescoe reported in 1968 that "A British magazine said his teacher was Jagad Guru Shankaracharya Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, ... or Guru Dev for short. The Maharishi ... was his pupil for 13 years. When the Guru Dev died, the Maharishi was so disappointed at not being named successor, that he launched an unsuccessful lawsuit.") on the basis of:

• 1) The source is questionable per WP:V. IE the source author's self admission that he has not exhibited due diligence in "checking the facts" and that the author relies "heavily on rumor and personal opinion" and that according to WP:V such sources are "generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties".
• 2) The claim of a lawsuit is forty years old and yet none of [the] editors involved in this discussion can find another source any other reliable source or other public records that supports the text.
• 3) Exceptional claims require exceptional sources per WP:REDFLAG which says: "Exceptional claims require high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources".
• 4) The source not meeting the standards of WP:SOURCE which says "Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source."

If reliable sources can be found in the future then information on this topic can be added to the article but at present the text is not properly supported and I propose that the text be deleted now, based on Wikipedia policy and consensus of the above discussion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

KB has provided good Wiki rational for the deletion of this material and I support the deletion. --BweeB (talk) 07:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 11:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

There was no consensus for this deletion.

I just came across this discussion of Brahmanand Saraswati's will or final instructions.[31] In the footnotes it quotes "Swami Swaroopanand" on the issue of a lawsuit over the succession in which MMY was involved.   Will Beback  talk  23:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

There was clear consensus and the consensus was not enacted until 10 days after you dropped out of the discussion. You had ample time to raise objections. Your claim of non-consensus is baseless.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 10:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

So do I need to continuously register objections for them to count?   Will Beback  talk  23:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Swami Swaroopananda

Regarding this source[32] that Will Beback just came across-- comments from Swami Swaroopananda and his interview with David Sievking are already cited in the section Years In Vlodrop so I have added this quote from Swaroopananda "Mahesh Yogi instigated Shantanand to fight the court case" to that sentence. You can see my edit here.[33]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. However since this material relates to the period described in the "Early life" section I'm not sure why it's covered in the "Years in Vlodrop" section. It'd make more sense to cover the succession-related issues in one place, in chronological order.   Will Beback  talk  00:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Deepak Chopra "The Vlodrop Years"

I feel some editing is needed on Deepak Chopra Huffington Post reference. Just read some of the comments in the archives regarding Chopra and Maharishi's illness in 1991. I am slightly confused with the year. In August 1990 I was in America when I was told that Maharishi was in Vlodrop and he had meetings with various people. At the beginning of December I was in 2 meetings with Maharishi in Vlodrop, with about 40 other people. In January 1991 there was a large gathering in Maastricht, Holland. In April, July, August & Nov 1991, I was again in meetings attended by Maharishi and with a number of leading musicians from India. It is a similar story in 1992. I am sure that there are many people who can also confirm regular meetings during this time - even though such "first hand" accounts may fall outside of Wiki rules for inclusion. My point, however, is that there should be more research on the actual year of Chopra's claim, since in 1991/1992 there was no period when Maharishi "disappeared" for 1 year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul davis108 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

So, just a little more observation on the Deepak Chopra comment in "Vlodrop Years". In the referenced Huffington Post Blog ((February 13, 2008) Deepak Chopra timelines it August 1st 1991 and states this was when his book "Perfect Health" was first published. Bantam Books, however, gives a published year of 1990. Let us accept that 1991 was a typing error and he meant 1990. Even this would not fit his story since Maharishi appeared at a large gathering in January 1991. So let us say he was confused about his book and meant to timeline the story August 1989. In the blog he states that Maharishi was out of circulation for almost a year, that they spent months at a country house in south west England and then, "After he was fully recovered we flew him via helicopter back to his chosen residence, which wasn't in either India or the U.S. but the obscure village of Vlodrop in Holland". This would fit in with the timescale of Maharishi arriving in Vlodrop in August 1990 as I mentioned in my above post. However, there remains the mystery of how Maharishi appeared in a global satellite broadcast from India on 12th January 1990, where Deepak Chopra was one of the speakers and talked about "a great alliance that Maharishi Ayur-Veda Association is going to form with the established associations, such as the American Medical Association and all the associations of medicine throughout the world". For me this makes the story at the least uncertain. Paul davis108 (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is no public record for most of MMY's activities in this period. We do have an independent source which says his last public appearance in the town of Vlodrop was in 1991. At some point, it's not clear when, he stopped seeing people in person and communicated exclusively through video. In your recollections you say that some of his appearances were by video, but it's not clear if the others were in person. FWIW, someone responded to Chopra's letter on his own website, and said he had a number of key details wrong.[34] However we can't use that as a reference either. I'm afraid this may continue to be a mystery.   Will Beback  talk  20:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Will, Thanks for the response. I recently rejoined wiki after many years absence and was just returning to some old "friends" - this page being one of them. I personally feel Chopra has embellished a story that probably has some truth in it - just the dates don't add up, which is what I was questioning. I will look for some newspaper/radio/TV references when I have time and come back. Thanks for the friendly welcome. Paul davis108 (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if a blog on the Huffington Post is a reliable source in this instance, especially given the discrepancies that Paul Davis has noted. We can't use first-hand knowledge, but it's fair (and indeed the purpose of the Talk page) to evaluate sources. If Chopra is confused about the dates, that suggests there's a problem. If this is an exceptional claim, then it seems like we should have corroboration from a mainstream published source. TimidGuy (talk) 11:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

This material has been discussed rather extensively before. Talk:Maharishi Mahesh Yogi/Archive 5#Huffington Post and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 64#Deepak Chopra. There are no published sources that dispute Chopra's account, so far as I know, just comments like the one above.   Will Beback  talk  05:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

But do we have any RS's to support Chopra's account? --BweeB (talk) 03:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Chopra is a reliable source for his own comments, which are notable. Let's not just rehash the previous discussion.   Will Beback  talk  03:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

DOB

I've changed the infobox date of birth from 1914, for which I can find no support, to 1917, his biographers' preferred date as given lower in the article. Consequently his age on passing becomes 91, as in the BBC and The Times obituaries. Spicemix (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The text says,

• The birth name, birth date, and caste of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi are not known with certainty... Various accounts give the year of his birth as 1911, 1917 or 1918. Biographies by Paul Mason and William Jefferson say that he was born January 12, 1917 in Jabalpur, Central Provinces. The place of birth given in his passport is "Pounalulla", India and his birth date as 12 January 1918.

I'm not sure that we should be picking a date and saying that it's correct, given that sources say the date is unknown. Perhaps we should say something like "circa 1917".   Will Beback  talk  21:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, I'm just not sure how we should do it. Circa 12 January, 1917 is not right, and 12 January, circa 1917 looks a little odd. And the template won't allow latitude in the age at death; that would have to be cut.

The more I consider it, the more I think that most of the infobox is unsatisfactory. 1917 is an uncle's memory and contradicts the passport; Jabalpur I cannot find in Mason, and again it contradicts the passport; and Mason is doubtful about the father's name, and does not mention the version given here.

I suggest we delete the infobox altogether: it should be a list of crisp certainties, and we just can't provide them. Spicemix (talk) 23:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That may be the best solution. One possibility would be "12 January, year uncertain", but that's unprecedented so far as I know. We should avoid using a single number in the lede, too.   Will Beback  talk  23:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

If there are no objections, then let's delete the infobox. Yes, I'd missed the DOB in the lead. I've changed it to 12 January, 1917 or 1918. The 1911 possibility, mentioned in a footnote in Mason and in the Birth section here, is 18 October, 1911, and I don't think it merits being in the lead. Among other objections it would make the subject older than usual as a student.

As things stand we are valuing the information on the passport, but shrinking from giving it a reference. Any suggestions? Spicemix (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I assume you mean delete the date from the infobox, not the entire infobox. I don't think we can dismiss 1911 as a possible date. That is the preferred date of Current Biography Yearbook, 1972, a high quality encyclopedia of biography. It lists his DBO as "1911(?)". In the text it quotes MMY as saying that "some things should be left to guessing". It goes on to say that "A majority of journalists have guessed that he was born about 1911, but the relatively youthful face behind all that graying hair suggests a later date, and some reporters have speculated that the date was closer to, or even beyond, 1915."

I should also mention that Wikipedia has other biography subjects with disputed DOBs. Alexander Hamilton's DOB is one of two years. I can't recall who, but I recall there are some film actresses whose true DOB is not known with certainty.   Will Beback  talk  21:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

More sources:

• The movement and its various affiliated organizations were founded by a native of India known as the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, whose birth name is reported to be either J. N. Srivastava or Mahesh Prasad Varma (born on October 18 in either 1911 or 1918).
  • Beit-Hallahmi, Benjamin (1997). The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Active New Religions, Sects, and Cults. New York Rosen Publishing Group. pp. 357–340. ISBN 9780823925865.
• Much of his early life, including his birthdate, is in dispute, and the Maharishi declined to discuss his youth. Some sources say he was born in 1911, which would have made him 96 or 97, but a spokesman for the transcendental meditation movement said he was 91.
  • "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
• Mahesh Prasad Varma (or Mahesh Srivastava, depending on your source) was born in the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh, sometime between 1911 and 1918.
  • "2BN PROPHET" [3 STAR Edition] NICK WEBSTER. The Daily Mirror. London (UK): Feb 7, 2008. pg. 23
• Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, who was born Mahesh Prasad Varma on October 18, 1911 in Uttar Kashi, India,...
  • ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION, SECOND EDITION (entry by CARL OLSON (2005)) Lindsay Jones, editor. Macmillan Reference USA, 2005
• His date of birth is variously given as 1911 or 1917 and little is known of his early life,...
  • "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi", February 7, 2008, The Times
• The Maharishi's exact age is somewhat mysterious - published sources give his date of birth as 1911, 1917 or 1918.
  • 'Peace palace' project launched by Maharishi's followers: Devotees of transcendental meditation plan new centre somewhere in West Island, The Gazette (Montreal, Quebec) MARK ABLEY May 2, 2003
• The yogi was born Mahesh Prasad Varma in Jabalpur (some sources say Chichli) in central India somewhere between 1911 and 1918 (although there is some agreement that it was in January 1917).
  • "Riches of devotion to mystical pondering" The Daily Telegraph (Australia) February 8, 2008

And so on. The 1911 choice seems to be common enough to include.   Will Beback  talk  21:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please add the earlier date if you wish, but in Mason's account it is confined to a footnote and I think the lead is too prominent a placement for it.

I think there can be little doubt that the citations above derive from the Current Biography Yearbook, and don't add weight. And the CBY's rationale is openly flimsy: "A majority of journalists have guessed". Again it seems likely that these guesses all derive from the first published guess. And how can it be 18 Oct, when the family and the passport say quite otherwise? He apparently took his degree in 1942. When he was 31...?

I suggest a wording for the lead such as Probably 12 January, 1917 or 1918. Spicemix (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It's just speculation that the other sources derive from CBY. Even if they do, the assertion does gain weight by repetition. The 12 January part is pretty consistent, so I think putting "probably" in front of it would be incorrect. I think we should include the outside boundaries. "Born 12 January, between 1911 and 1918" would be inclusive. In the text we can say that Mason prefers 1917, but that MMY himself said it's better to leave people guessing.   Will Beback  talk  23:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

We could even do, "Born 12 January, between 1911 and 1918, probably 1917". While the movement never made a definitive declaration of the DOB, they were pretty consistent about saying he was 91 when he died shortly after his birthday in 2008.   Will Beback  talk  23:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the latest suggestion, Born 12 January, between 1911 and 1918, probably 1917, is that Mason says 1911 is 18 October, and this reads as though 12 Jan, 1911.

It's clear that Mason has a different and more exact source than the CBY for 1911, but even so he doesn't give it any mileage. I don't think one needs to resurrect early speculation which has been rejected by more modern expert opinion. Consider Shakespeare, a QA, where a vast amount of biographical speculation has been suppressed, and only the latest and best opinion given an airing. Spicemix (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we can discount so many sources. We can say in the text that Mason prefers one date, but that's still just one source.   Will Beback  talk  06:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

So many sources: yes there are a lot, but most are very poor, and of those listed above most are tertiary, either encyclopedias or obituaries, and if I understand RS policy, we shouldn't use them to vie with two biographers. The CBY, which we are putting most faith in, is itself tertiary, and candidly doubts the quality of its information, with 1911(?) and A majority of journalists have guessed. This guesswork, in 1972, didn't have the advantage of Jefferson's and Mason's researches. I think the CBY editors themselves would be surprised to find that their speculation and acknowledged poor sources had survived being corrected by specialist researchers and found their way into an encyclopedia of 2011.

We should also guard against being fact laundering victims. In this essay we read that iteration in responsible sources can conceal an unreliable past. This seems to harden into policy at WP:USEBYOTHERS which says, If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims. Spicemix (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

If we're so confident in the two biographies, maybe we should just give the 1917 date, with a mention in the body that the exact date isn't known, etc.   Will Beback  talk  06:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

What's the consensus here?   Will Beback  talk  20:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Mason gives 1917 as the DOB, though mentions other dates. OTOH, he only gives one birth name: Mahesh Prasad Varma. Since we're going with the simplified info on DOB, I propose we also just give one birth name. We can still mention the other possible name in the body. Thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  18:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Seeing no other views, I'll edit the intro to just give the most common name. The body of the article gives the other conjectured name.   Will Beback  talk  09:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Becoming MMY

The statement in the lead He began to be known as Maharishi Mahesh Yogi around the year 1960 I don't think will find any support, being very late, and in line with Mason I've changed it to 1955. It is from this point that Mason, in his chapter "The Maharishi emerges" begins to refer to his subject as the Maharishi, rather than Brahmachari Mahesh. But some latitude in the phrasing is still appropriate, because Mason's thought seems to be that as Beacon Light of the Himalayas, 1956, was published in the name of Maharishi Bala Brahmachari Mahesh Yogi Maharaj, so the original lectures would have been delivered under this name the previous year. Spicemix (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Ashram

I'm wondering how best to deal with the Alex Mardas allegation of luxury in the ashram in Interaction with The Beatles. It currently stands unchallenged, whereas in The Beatles in India the ashram is also described as "seedy", and there is an apparently matter-of-fact description of the accommodation: "The stone bungalows were equipped with electric heaters, running water, toilets, and English-style furniture."

Ringo compared the ashram to "a kind of spiritual Butlins", a chain of holiday camps designed to appeal to working British families, with very basic accommodation.

There is a long list of denunciations of Mardas's unreliability and animus towards MMY, both from those present in Rishikesh and from those who have studied the field since. The NYT[35] calls him a charlatan, and Mason says, "Quite why his presence was tolerated is hard to imagine", and comments on "the intensity of Mardas's desire to break the Maharishi's influence on the Beatles". (pp.137-8)

If editors agree that the Mardas description is likely to be exaggerated and is inappropriate, then it can be removed and his views dealt with at his own article. If it is retained, it will have to be put in context. Spicemix (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Mason makes a comment that sheds light on this point. I've been meaning to add some of it. (olive (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC))

First, the majority of descriptions of the ashram point to how luxurious it was compared to other ashrams, and several say that it was specially designed to cater to Western tastes. A swimming pool was even being built, though it wasn't ready in time for the Beatles.

Second, Mardas is just a small figure, and we shouldn't dwell on him too much. We already do, probably. Also, remember that he is a living person and we have to be careful about following BLP.

Third, the main article is The Beatles in India. Let's avoid too much duplication, per [[WP:SUMMARY.   Will Beback  talk  20:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for these points. I agree about Mardas. He has a widespread reputation now as an unreliable witness, and I think many readers will be surprised that we are lending authority to his views here. If we could substitute other more sober or reliable material along the lines suggested above (several say that it was specially designed to cater to Western tastes), that would be an improvement. We should avoid baldly and misleadingly giving the impression of luxury when all that is involved is simple western-style furniture. Spicemix (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead qualifier

In the lead we have the text "....characterised as a new religious movement and also as non-religious." Since we have a link to the TMM, why do we need these characterizations here? They are also discussed in the body of the article. --BwB (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

We've been over this sentence many times before. I don't see much benefit in rehashing it again. The intro should summarize the text, so the fact that it is in the text is not a reason for deletion.   Will Beback  talk  20:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, we’ve been through this before, and we had achieved consensus, so let’s just leave it as it is. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 00:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we can add a word or two to say that it is also characterized as a "non-religious" and secular organization? --BwB (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It already says "non-religious". I don't know what the difference is between "non-religious" and "secular", and I don't think making it yet longer would improve it.   Will Beback  talk  00:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Works either way for me, but adding 'secular' won't change anything much --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

No reason to keep rehashing this issue, the lead should stay the same. It is a good summary of the article.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion

An anon editor, user:212.178.127.51, presumably user: Vijayante, deleted a paragraph of sourced material with the edit summary: "made a delete of inappropriate statements that are not in keeping with Wikipedia's standards".[36] Vijayante has a history of deleting negative material under the mistaken assertion that it violates unnamed Wikipedia policies. Unless an actual policy issue can be found it should be restored.   Will Beback  talk  22:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

How do you know who this is? At any rate deletion of sourced content per TM arbitration would disallow a peremptory deletion. I'm happy to restore, and if there is discussion needed on the content later we can deal with that.(olive (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC))

I see its already been restored.(olive (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC))

The IP is registered to Stichting Maharishi Foundation International. Vijayante has signed other posts or edits from that organization or IP range. Whoever made the edit is welcome to discuss it here.   Will Beback  talk  18:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok fine. I'll just let this editor deal with this discussion. I don't see a concern with removing the IP's edit and restoring the content, at this point anyway. (olive (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC))

Removed unsouced text

Today, I removed the following unsourced controversial material.

"That is what is was referred by Vishnudevananda Saraswat, a pro-Mahesh self-proclaimed Shankaracharya of Jyotir who died in 1990 withour ever being recognized as such by the other three Shancaracharya. The real Shankaracharya of Jyotir, Swaroopananda Saraswati, who is both the Shankarachrya of Dwarka an Jyotir and is fully reognized as such by the Shankaracharya of Sringeri and Puri, treat to so-called "Maharishi" Mahesh Prasad as an impostor who has no authority to transmit mantras and no connection with the tradition of Adi Shankar."

If others feel it should stay in the article until a source can be found, then please discuss it here. Thanks. --BwB (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

We already have content in the article on this topic, so this seems a legitimate removal of repetitive and unsourced content.(olive (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC))

Swami Swaroopananda Saraswati, Shankaracharya of Dwarka and one of three claimants to Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math told a German filmmaker in 2010 that "Mahesh Yogi instigated [Swami] Shantanand [Saraswati] to fight the court case" and that as a member of the trader class and Saraswati's bookkeeper, the Maharishi had no right to teach meditation or to give mantras, and that "Gurus don't sell their knowledge, they share it." Other sources say that Maharishi worked closely with the Shankaracharya and was considered a "great disciple" and his "right (hand) man". According to biographer Paul Mason, Swami Shantanand Saraswati (whom Brahmananda Saraswati had named as his successor) "publicly commended the practice of the Maharishi's meditation," referring to it as a 'master key to the knowledge of Vedanta.' Sociologist J.R Coplin, who conducted interviews in India as part of his research on the TM organisation, says that Swami Shantanand's successor as Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math, Swami Vishnudevanand, "speaks highly of Maharishi and sees his teaching as a reflection of their master's (Brahmananda Saraswati)".

Finances

There are discrepancies between what the TM organization says the organization is worth and what sources say its worth. I'd like to see all of this content, because it is contentious, inline attributed per Wikipedia on contentious material. I'll be looking at the TM movement article first since it is the main article. Any thoughts on this.(olive (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC))

It seems like the Wiki TM Project page would be a more appropriate place for this post, since it involves multiple articles.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, good idea. I'll post tomorrow. The more uninvolved editor input the better(olive (talk) 02:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC))

Citation Needed

Is it necessary to have the legend in the lead of this article where it says The honorifics Maharishi and Yogi were added to his given name Mahesh?I don't think there's any doubt that that was the name he went by. Also, not sure if this is helpful, but it is also unclear from sources whether the title was conferred to him by others, or whether he herself adopted it, as shown for instance, in these sources: After the death of his mentor in 1953, the Maharishi spent more than 18 months alone in a Himalayan cave. In 1955, he travelled to the southern Indian state of Kerala, where he was asked to deliver a series of public talks on spirituality and a new form of meditation. He changed his name to Maharishi, meaning Great Seer in Sanskrit. , and here: Two years after the death of Guru Deva in 1955, he travelled south to Kerala, where he began to broadcast his message. On January 1 1958, at a conference in Madras, Mahesh, now Maharishi, "the great seer", announced the formation of a worldwide Spiritual Regeneration Movement --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, for 2 reasons - (1) this topic is not discussed in the body of the article, and, (2) we need to support the text of the article with reliable sources. Where the "honorifics" added by someone else, or did the Maharishi just take them upon himself? Whatever the situation, it need to be supported by reliable sources. So the tag should stay for now. --BwB (talk) 19:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay well, according to the sources I have found thus far, he gave himself the title. I'll dig around further and see what turns up. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest adding some content to the article on this topic, then adding more of a summary in the lead than is there now. The citation tag could then be removed.(olive (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC))

Good idea. It makes sense otherwise we have something in the lead that was never picked up by the article.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Teachings

I have been looking at other Wiki articles on "gurus" who have had a large influence in the world and who have made a significant contribution to society. These articles usually contain a large section dedicated to that person's "Teachings" and "Influence". For example, the follow article,

• Ram Dass
• Anandamayi Ma
• Ammaji
• Ekhart Tolle
• Yogananda
• Krishnamurti
  

all have sentions titled "Teachings", and/or "influence", and/or "Legacy".

So I am proposing that we expand the "Teaching" sections of the Maharishi's article to cover more of his teachings in the area of Vedic Science, his influence to philosophical thinking and his contribution in the area of knowledge. What do other editors think of this suggestion? --BwB (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Today, I added some further text and references from the Maharishi's commentary on the Gita, and his book the "Science of Being" to expand the "Publications" section. --BwB (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

J. R. Coplin

J. R. Coplin is cited and quoted almost a dozen times in the article but none of the cites give the name of the book that is being referenced. And... a search of Amazon, Google Books and World Cat does not yield any books by an author with that name. Can anyone help solve this mystery? Thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe the cite is to a PhD thesis. Added Note:Generally PhD students write a "dissertation" in the US and Canada, but I see "thesis" is used in the reflist. (olive (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC))

Parking uncited text

The text below has been removed per TM ArbCom as it is uncited and has been tagged as for some months. If any one can find sources for any of the text below it can be re-added to the article.

• Over a thirty-year period, the Maharishi held many advanced, in-residence courses and assemblies in North America, India and Europe for practitioners of the Transcendental Meditation technique.--citation needed|date=June 2012
• These courses consisted of long meditation sessions, lectures by Maharishi, discussions based on personal experiences of meditation, questions from course participants, and organisational meetings.--citation needed|date=June 2012
• During the wave of publicity surrounding the Beatles' attendance, an unsympathetic press lampooned the guru and the band--citation needed|date=June 2012
• After his death, Indian spiritual guru and former disciple Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, said "Maharishi laid the foundation for a new world based on the knowledge of Vedas and spirituality" and that "there was none like him and none shall ever be again."--citation needed|date=May 2012-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable source removed

I removed this source: Gilpin, G. 1999. The Maharishi Effect: A Personal Journey Through the Movement That Transformed American Spirituality. J.P. Tarcher/Penguin. from the article as there were two other citations for the same text and this source in my opinion is unreliable. No page number was cited and as the title states it is a memoir of sorts; a "personal journey" and not reliable. It is self described, in its liner notes, as being a "work of creative nonfiction".-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced claim

I believe it's a matter of fact that Maharishi used his helicopter to quickly move among his various teacher training sites being held at off-season hotels in the Swiss mountains. But we need a source that says this. The recent addition to the article, below, appears to be the personal experience of the IP who added it:

Andrew Mallon, trained as a TM teacher in 1972, clarifies this: "The helicopter was not an 'indulgence.' It was used for a few years when TM-related courses were held in Switzerland because it saved Maharishi hours of driving time around the circuitous mountain roads in that country getting to the various Swiss towns where the participants were."

I'm putting it here for now until we can find a source. TimidGuy (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Maharishi Group

I have removed the text below and am parking it here for further consideration as it is off topic and original research. It is also not reliably sourced according to discussions at the Maharishi Group talk page and at AfD which has determined that there are no secondary sources that clearly establish the Maharishi Group's definition, identity or existence. But rather the term Maharishi group appears to be used loosely in different ways at different times to mean the business dealings of the TM movement.

• 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, which includes schools, solar power factories, health supplements, organic farms, software, jewelry, and many other businesses, was reported in 1999 to be worth $700 million.
• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that following the discussion you pointed to, the above sentence does not belong in the MMY article. There is a strong consensus that there are no good sources regarding the existence of such an organization so the sentence is really OR.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 22:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Interaction with the Beatles

The section on the Beatles, [37] which deals with a short period in which the Beatles were in Rishikesh, seems to me a bit too long. It is 705 words, and spans only a period of a few months. The section preceding it spans a period of 10 years in Maharishi's life, and is 1200 words. The section following it, uses about 1070 words to describe the next 22 year of MMY's life. In light of the above, it seems to me that in relation to the entire article, "Interaction with the Beatles" is too prominently featured, possibly creating a problem with undue weight. Also, a lot of what is said in that section is not directly related to MMY but to others, such as Alex Mardas, for instance. Finally, all of it is already reported at great length in the article The Beatles in India. I think this paragraph could be made more succinct and readers could be redirected to the full article if they want more specific details on the Beatles. How do others feel? --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

From the perspective of a Beatles fan its great reading because there are lots of details about all the things they and their entourage did while in Rishikesh but this is not a Beatles article. The section title is: Interactions with the Beatles. Yet only the first sentence begins with the word Maharishi. After that every sentence begins with Lennon, Harrison, Ringo or the members of their entrouage like Magic Alex, Mia Farrow, Nancy Cooke de Herrera etc. So right now its a section about what the Beatles did in Rishikesh, not about anything that the Maharishi did. It should be clearly noted that the Maharishi became more famous as a result of meeting the Beatles and that their presence drew lots of reporters and media. It should also be mentioned that the Maharishi was accused of making a pass at Mia Farrow but she later said XYZ. But thats it, just those items that appear in many of the press articles about the Maharishi. One paragraph is all that is needed I think. We have to remember that this article is about things the Maharishi did not what others did while they were at his ashram.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The section is like a item from People magazine, and one that mostly doesn't pertain to Maharishi. Article would be tighter with a much shorter vsn. Give it a haircut! EMP (talk) 00:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree also that this section violates undue weight, and could be cut down as long as we maintain neutrality as content is cut.(olive (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC))

I will start working on a revised version very good suggestions, everyone and thanks. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 06:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I have created a proposed revised section in the sandbox here[38]. I have tried to limit the paragraph to what concerns Maharishi and the Beatles directly. Everything else is already depicted in The Beatles in India which the section redirects readers to. Please comment either here or at the sandbox link--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Good job Luke, I have made my own suggested version based on yours. Its in your sandbox here. I hope that's OK. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Kbob, I like the version, seems to have all the salient points. I made one little change to it and if we canget consensus on it I would like to proceed with this more balanced (weight-wise) paragraph.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 16:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I would suggest posting the final draft here and getting consensus on the talk page rather than in your sandbox. Thanks,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Sandbox discussion

Interaction with the Beatles

In 1967, the Maharishi's fame increased and his movement "really took off" when he became the "spiritual advisor to The Beatles". The Beatles met him for the first time in London in August 1967, and studied with him in Bangor, Wales, before travelling to the Maharishi's Academy of Meditation in Rishikesh, India in February 1968 to "devote themselves fully to his instruction". Starr and his wife Maureen left after ten days McCartney and Jane Asher stayed for two months. Both Beatles said later that they enjoyed the ashram experience and planned to continue with their meditation.Lennon and Harrison departed two weeks later after hearing a rumour that the Maharishi had made sexual advances towards Mia Farrow, ] a rumor which was later retracted in Mia’s memoirs and by the Beatles. The New York Times and The Independent reported that the influence of the Maharishi, and the journey to Rishikesh to meditate, weaned The Beatles from LSD and inspired them to write many new songs. In a press conference on April 3, 2009, prior to his performance at the David Lynch Foundation benefit concert "Change Begins Within", Paul McCartney commented that Transcendental Meditation was a gift The Beatles had received from Maharishi at a time when they were looking for something to stabilise them.

Keithbob's more Maharishi centric version

In 1967, the Maharishi's fame increased and his movement gained greater notoriety when he became the "spiritual advisor to The Beatles".[1][2] The Maharishi met The Beatles in London in August 1967, and they went to study with him in Bangor, Wales, before travelling to Rishikesh, India[3] in February 1968 to "devote themselves fully to his instruction".[4] Starr and his wife left after ten days, McCartney and Jane Asher after two months and Lennon and Harrison departed later due to their belief that the Maharishi had made sexual advances towards Mia Farrow. Harrison commented years later, "Now, historically, there's the story that something went on that shouldn't have done — but nothing did".[115] The New York Times and The Independent reported that the Maharishi's influence was instrumental in weaning The Beatles from LSD and inspiring them to write many new songs[10][4] including Lennon's condemnation of the Maharishi in a song called Sexy Sadie. In 2009, McCartney commented that Transcendental Meditation was a gift The Beatles had received from the Maharishi at a time when they were looking for something to stabilise them.[11]

Thanks for these rewrites. They are both improvements. I'd agree with Kbob's version more since I tend to get a sense of the controversy surrounding the Beattles and the Maharishi with that version. I have to say I really dislike that "really took off" phrase sourced or not. Colloquialisms don't seem to be particularly encyclopedic?(olive (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC))

Agree that the colloquialism doesn't sound appropriate. TimidGuy (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree, there is no need for a quote there. We could just summarize what the source says. PS you'll note I added Sexy Sadie to my draft. Because its one of the items you always read when the press reports on MMY and The Beatles.

Potential Sources:

• (Feb 15, 2006) When Maharishi threw Beatles out Times of India -- 17:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)--
• The Beatles trip to India "attracted international attention to the Maharishi and TM"--Partridge, Christopher (2004) Oxford University Press, New Religions: A guide to New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities, pp 182-187

• When The Beatles and Mia Farrow came to the Maharishi it gave "tremendous publicity" to the TM technique. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I have changed the words "really took off" to "gained greater notoriety", how does that sound? --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Final Draft

In 1967, the Maharishi's fame increased and his movement gained greater notoriety when he became the "spiritual advisor to The Beatles" The Maharishi met The Beatles in London in August 1967, and they went to study with him in Bangor, Wales, before travelling to Rishikesh, India in February 1968 to "devote themselves fully to his instruction". Starr and his wife Maureen left after ten days McCartney and Jane Asher after two months, and Lennon and Harrison departed later due to their belief that the Maharishi had made sexual advances towards Mia Farrow ] Harrison commented years later, "Now, historically, there's the story that something went on that shouldn't have done — but nothing did" The New York Times and The Independent reported that the influence of the Maharishi, and the journey to Rishikesh to meditate, weaned The Beatles from LSD and inspired them to write many new songs, including Lennon's condemnation of the Maharishi in a song called Sexy Sadie. In 2009, McCartney commented that Transcendental Meditation was a gift The Beatles had received from the Maharishi at a time when they were looking for something to stabilise them.

Moved from the sandbox. Is this the version that should be included? --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 11:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the impact of the Beatles is understated in the first sentence. I suggest the following substitution:

In 1967, the Maharishi and his meditation received international notoriety and media attention after he became the "spiritual advisor to The Beatles". --The Beatles trip to India "attracted international attention to the Maharishi and TM"--Partridge, Christopher (2004) Oxford University Press, New Religions: A guide to New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities, pp 182-187

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good, does anyone else have any comments ?--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I have reported the entire Sandbox discussion above [39]. If no one has any additional comments, based on the above I think we could use the final version with Kbob's suggested change --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 06:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done

Correction

When I originally added the consensus version reported above, I did so piecemeal. I somehow left out an the consensus version regarding Mia Farrow, and also the reference to the Song Sexy Sadie. The correct version has now been put in the article [40]. Apologies for the confusion --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Raid on Maharishi's offices in India

The paragraph below is about the 1988 raid on MMY’s India office is only 9% of the entire section. [41] Still, the section spans a 22 year period and thisis a single event, however important. Do you feel it could be made a little more concise, would you look at the proposed version and see if it reads more easily? I started a sandbox discussion and proposed changes. Please tell me what you think: [42]

And here is the original paragraph:

In January 1988, the Maharishi's offices in India were raided by Indian police, who reportedly confiscated cash, securities and jewels. News reports varied widely as to the dollar value of the goods seized. One source said $500,000, while two others put the figure at $60,000 and $30,000, respectively. A fourth newspaper article, quoting Maharishi's Age of Enlightenment News Service reported that nothing at all of value was confiscated. The raid occurred amidst a conflict with authorities over taxes and the movement was accused of lying about expenses. The Maharishi moved out of India following the tax audit. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 05:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I think your sandbox condensed version is more in keeping with the level of conciseness that is characteristic of the rest of this section. Nice work. EMP (talk 20:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, would anyone else like to comment? --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Your summary is good, but a few comments and questions:

This is a bio about the Maharishi, so stuff about the organization should be in the TM movement article. Was the Maharishi personally audited? Was the Maharishi present during the raid? The text says "the Maharishi's offices in India" were these his personal offices or in a building where he worked? Were there meetings between the Maharishi and the police or govt officials etc.? Does the source specifically say that the Maharishi left India because of the tax audit? If the answer to these questions is no, then it doesn't belong in this bio IMO. I have not looked at the sources yet but maybe Luke has, and can shed some light on this issue in the meantime, if he has access to all the sources. One could make the case that this content is related to the Maharishi because the offices belonged to his organization but using that rationale the entire TM movement article should be here in his bio. I just want to make sure this one item is not being cherry picked out of a hundred organizational incidents for some special effect here is his bio.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

You raise a good point, the sources that I have seen, do seem to point to an investigation of the organization, rather than the person, but this was not totally clear cut, so I will keep checking sources.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 07:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I am going to set up in the sandbox the relevant quotes from the sources I could find. I also wasted to point out that there is what appears to be an orphaned source in one of the sentences; the sentence portion stating "A fourth newspaper article, quoting Maharishi's Age of Enlightenment News Service[132]" is attributed to the Houston Chronicle. There is a Houston Chronicle about TM, but it is not about the tax investigation. Since the citation is in mid sentence, this appears to be a mistake. The proper citation does appear at the end of the quote, and I plan to remove the incorrect one.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 05:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you post the Houston Chronical source/link here after you remove it? And let us know when you have posted the sandbox with all the sources about the tax invasion one place? Thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, I had posted the notice and link to the sources days ago, or so I thought, but I must have forgotten to save the change! So here it is now: [43] --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for assembling the sources. I am placing them here (with a hat) for posterity so you can reuse your sandbox when this discussion is over.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Sources re: Maharishi tax raid

(Ref #129) Canadians urged to help build guru's heavenly housing BY SHAUN WATERS The Globe and Mail A guru at the centre of a tax investigation in his native India is asking Canadian businessmen to help him finance and build a $100-trillion heaven on earth. Two months ago, Indian police seized cash, jewels, stocks and fixed- deposit notes worth more than $500,000 from his palace and accused him of lying about his expenses. INDIA 'Buried' holy man fosters skepticism BRYAN JOHNSON The Globe and Mail DATELINE: New Delhi INDIA The Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is still determined to bring peace to the world. But that quality has not yet descended upon Maharishinagar, his huge complex outside New Delhi. The father of transcendental meditation is caught in an unholy wrangle with federal tax authorities. In January, agents seized cash, jewels, shares and fixed-deposit notes worth about $500,000) from the guru, and accused his organization of falsifying expenses. "They are men of God,' noted one tax agent, wryly. "But they are also men of money.' A leap of faith MARK RICHARDSON; CITIZEN SECTION: NEWS; The Ottawa Citizen October 12, 1993, Tuesday, FINAL EDITION Pg. A1 "The Maharishi Yogi now lives in The Netherlands, leaving India a few years ago after the Indian government accused him of tax fraud." Von Bulow lawsuit is settled W. Speers, Inquirer Staff Writer Source: Philadelphia Inquirer, The (PA); 896 words CONTEMPLATE THIS Indian tax authorities in New Delhi raided four offices of the Beatles' old guru, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Tuesday and confiscated $30,000 in currency and jewelry worth about as much that had not been reported to the government. The maharishi, 77, is headquartered in Switzerland, but as an Indian citizen he is subject to the nation's strict controls on imported and exported wealth, and he faces possible further legal action. Earlier this year, a U.S. court ordered the guru to pay $138,000 damages to a former devotee who said he had spent 11 years learning the maharishi's Transcendental Meditation and denounced the guru as a fraud.

One source says: "The maharishi, 77, is headquartered in Switzerland, but as an Indian citizen he is subject to the nation's strict controls on imported and exported wealth" So it doesn't appear these were the Maharishi personal offices or that he was he present during the raid . Another source says "and accused him of lying about his expenses" while another source says: "accused his organization of falsifying expenses". Another sources says the raid was conducted by "Indian police" another source say it was "federal tax authorities" (one says federal the other two just say "tax authorities"). One sources says "offices" were raided another sources says "Maharishinagar, his huge complex outside New Delhi" was raided while the other two sources don't specify the location of the raid. So there are a number of discrepancies here. If we could find sources that gave more detail on the background of this incident, rather than these passing mentions in articles about other things, we might find that the Maharishi was not personally involved. However, we have to go with what we have so far and these sources have personalized the event and made it about the Maharishi. So based on these sources I think it could be viewed as an appropriate topic for this article. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is the total content from all four sources about the incident:

1) A guru at the centre of a tax investigation in his native India …..Two months ago, Indian police seized cash, jewels, stocks and fixed- deposit notes worth more than $500,000 from his palace and accused him of lying about his expenses. --Globe and Mail #1

2)The Maharishi Mahesh ……Maharishinagar, his huge complex outside New Delhi…… caught in an unholy wrangle with federal tax authorities. In January, agents seized cash, jewels, shares and fixed-deposit notes worth about $500,000) from the guru, and accused his organization of falsifying expenses--Globe and Mail #2

3) The Maharishi Yogi now lives in The Netherlands, leaving India a few years ago after the Indian government accused him of tax fraud."--Ottawa Citizen

4) Indian tax authorities in New Delhi raided four offices of the Beatles' old guru, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Tuesday and confiscated $30,000 in currency and jewelry worth about as much that had not been reported to the government. The maharishi, 77, is headquartered in Switzerland, but as an Indian citizen he is subject to the nation's strict controls on imported and exported wealth, and he faces possible further legal action. --Philadelphia Inquirer

My suggestion would be to summarize like this (sources in bold)

In January 1988, offices at the Maharishinagar complex in New Delhi were “raided” by Indian tax authorities who reportedly confiscated between $30,000 and $500,000 worth of stocks, fixed-deposit notes, cash and jewels (Globe and Mail #1)(Philadelphia Inquirer) and the Maharishi and his organization were accused of “falsifying expenses”. (Globe and Mail #2) The Maharishi, who was” headquartered in Switzerland” at the time, reportedly moved to the Netherlands “after the Indian government accused him of tax fraud." (Ottawa Citizen)

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

5) Back in December, we repeated a wire service's assertion that offices in India of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi had been raided and that $60,000 in undeclared cash and jewelry were confiscated. Recently, we heard from the Age of Enlightenment News Service in Livingston Manor, which asserted that, according to "official documents from the Indian government," nothing of value was confiscated in the raids.---The Post-Standard, May 5 1998, We'll Transcend Our Mistake by James Ehmann -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I like the post, but I am wondering why the quotation mark around raided? I think it might look better without unless you have a strong reason for leaving it--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, quotes are not needed, my mistake. I know you also had a suggested version. Please feel free to combine etc so we can get consensus for the change. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

After reviewing both versions, I feel yours better summarizes the sources and is therefore the one that should be used. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 09:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

IMO this is a good summary but there should also be mention of the report that nothing of value was taken, per the Houston Chronicle, 1/14/1989. From the perspective of style, I suggest making two sentences out of the first sentence by ending the first sentence after the inline citation. The second sentence could read: Reports state that the Maharishi and his organization were accused of “falsifying expenses”.Coaster92 (talk) 06:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. If the Houston Chronicle felt there was enough credence to the assertion that they would quote it, seems like that claim could be retained. TimidGuy (talk) 12:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the Chronicle reported that it was self reported by the TMM but in light of the preponderance of reports by secondary sources I think its a moot point and doesn't need to be in the article. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Final Version

Here is a proposed final version. As suggested this one mentions that one source stated nothing of value was taken during the raid. Note that the source in question is not the Houston Chronicle. That was an error in the article: the Houston Chronicle did not mention the tax raid and was an orphaned source I have since removed. The notation about nothing of value being taken was printed by the Post-Standard from Syracuse, NY in a note, presumably by the editors, mentioning the press release. It was not part of an article, and I wonder whether that should affect our decision whether to include the source.

In January 1988, offices at the Maharishinagar complex in New Delhi were “raided” by Indian tax authorities who reportedly confiscated amounts varying from nothing at all to $500,000 worth of stocks, fixed-deposit notes, cash and jewels and the Maharishi and his organization were accused of “falsifying expenses”. The Maharishi, who was” headquartered in Switzerland” at the time, reportedly moved to the Netherlands “after the Indian government accused him of tax fraud )

Should we include the Post-Standard notation? --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 06:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

To be clear I want to make sure we would consider this a proper source, it is a secondary source quoting a press release, i.e. a primary source in the context of publishing a corrective note. It is still published by a secondary source so it may be fine but i am curious to know what the feeling is on this one. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the Post-Standard cite should be included but I don't think it needs to be included in the text. We are trying to summarize here and there are 4-5 sources all with some contradictory information. If we try to give all the details we will not have a summary anymore :-)Also what about Coaster's suggestions to break up the sentence and your suggestion to remove the quote marks from "raided"? Shouldn't those suggestions be incorporated into your new draft?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Good points, what about this version, then? It does better incorporate the above comments, I think.

In January 1988, offices at the Maharishinagar complex in New Delhi were raided by Indian tax authorities and the Maharishi and his organization were accused of falsifying expenses”. Reports on the amount of stocks, fixed-deposit notes, cash and jewels confiscated, varies from source to source The Maharishi, who was” headquartered in Switzerland” at the time, reportedly moved to the Netherlands “after the Indian government accused him of tax fraud" ) --Luke Warmwater101 (talk 06:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for sticking with this. I think we could go with this version for now. The last sentence contains a confusing contradiction, reflecting the contradictory statements in the press, but I don't see an alternative at this point. Keep in mind the above news reports were based on allegations. The ideal situation would be to find out what the outcome was. Was there a tax violation or not? If the courts eventually found that there wasn't a violation, then it's questionable whether this material should be in the article. TimidGuy (talk) 11:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I will definitely look around, I agree that all we have at the moment is a gathering of unsubstantiated and contradictory allegations with no resolution. It would indeed be good to know what actually happened. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd say go ahead and put in this new version while continuing to look for information on the outcome. TimidGuy (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

IMO this latest version is a good summary. One idea I have would be to substitute "value" for "amount" in the second sentence: "Reports on the value of stocks..." Otherwise, the sentence seems to suggest referral to the number of stock certificates, jewelry, etc. Also, I don't think there needs to be a comma after confiscated. These are small items in a good summary imo. What do others think?Coaster92 (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, those are good edits. TimidGuy (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Very good suggestions, I have added the new version with the word change as proposed by Coaster which gives it a more accurate description [44]. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Infobox photo change

I've upgraded the photo in the infobox. If anyone disagrees they may revert and we can discuss here. The photo was discussed previouslyhere with some editors saying that the photo was too cropped (top of head cut off and three odd fingers in the lower corner etc.) However, some editors objected to a change because the only other photos available were from the Maharishi's later life. I have solved this problem by finding a photo that was taken in 1978 vs. 1973. Comments? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this look fine, it is a fair substitution and corrects the problems you mentioned. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 05:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Good,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Swami Swaroopananda Saraswati controversy

I do not see that the below paragraph belongs in MMY's death section as it ha nothing to do with his death. I also wonder whether it is again in proportion ot he rest of the article. Worth mentioning somewhere, but how significant a controversy was it? All we have are this one person's account.

In the 2010 documentary David Wants to Fly, Swami Swaroopananda Saraswati, Shankaracharya of Dvaraka Pitha and one of three claimants to title of the Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math, accused the Maharishi of instigating the Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math, Swami Shantanand Saraswati, to dispute of the court case which had challenged Shantanand's inheritance of the Shankaracharya title. According to Swarupananda, the Maharishi had no right to teach meditation or to give mantras, as a member of the trader class and Brahmananda Saraswati's bookkeeper, and that "Gurus don't sell their knowledge, they share it."[32][183] According to religious scholar Cynthia Humes, enlightened individuals of any caste may "teach brahmavidya" and she cites Sri Aurobindo and Paramahansa Yogananda as examples.[184] Author Patricia Drake writes: "when Guru Dev was about to die he charged Maharishi with teaching\ laymen, including the Western World, a simple means to meditate".[185]

I would like to know if anyone can think of a more appropriate place or any thoughts on whether we should shorten it a little.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The sources should be checked, and then it could be summarized. The reason its so long is because of the back and forth. The entire section consists of this:

In the 2010 documentary David Wants to Fly, Swami Swaroopananda Saraswati, Shankaracharya of Dvaraka Pitha and one of three claimants to title of the Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math, accused the Maharishi of instigating the Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math, Swami Shantanand Saraswati, to dispute of the court case which had challenged Shantanand's inheritance of the Shankaracharya title. According to Swarupananda, the Maharishi had no right to teach meditation or to give mantras, as a member of the trader class and Brahmananda Saraswati's bookkeeper, and that "Gurus don't sell their knowledge, they share it."[32][183] According to religious scholar Cynthia Humes, enlightened individuals of any caste may "teach brahmavidya" and she cites Sri Aurobindo and Paramahansa Yogananda as examples.[184] Author Patricia Drake writes: "when Guru Dev was about to die he charged Maharishi with teaching laymen, including the Western World, a simple means to meditate".[185]

Other sources say that Maharishi worked closely with the Shankaracharya and was considered a "great disciple" and his "right (hand) man".[25][186] According to biographer Paul Mason, Swami Shantanand Saraswati (whom Brahmananda Saraswati had named as his successor) "publicly commended the practice of the Maharishi's meditation," referring to it as a 'master key to the knowledge of Vedanta.'[187] Sociologist J.R Coplin, who conducted interviews in India as part of his research on the TM organisation, says that Swami Shantanand's successor as Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math, Swami Vishnudevanand, "speaks highly of Maharishi and sees his teaching as a reflection of their master's (Brahmananda Saraswati)".

In any case it does not belong in the Death section and should be moved to the Characterization section IMO.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

That is probably the best place, I would also like to summarize it a little. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 14:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

There are a number of errors in the current text such as the mis-spelling of Swaroopananda's name and a misapplication of sources etc. So I've rewritten and summarized the section and am proposing it here for placement in the Characterizations section:

• Biographer Paul Mason's web site says that Swami Swaroopananda, one of three claimants to the title Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math, is "an outspoken critic" of the Maharishi. According to Swaroopananda, the Maharishi "was responsible for the controversy over Shankaracharya's" because he gave Shankarcharya Swami Shantanad encouragement and assistance in fighting the court case which challenged Shantanand's inheritance of the title. In a review of the documentary film David Wants to Fly, Variety magazine reported Swaroopananda's assertion that "as a member of the trader class" the Maharishi "has no right to give mantras or teach meditation". According to religious scholar Cynthia Humes, enlightened individuals of any caste may "teach brahmavidya" and author Patricia Drake writes that "when Guru Dev was about to die he charged Maharishi with teaching laymen... to meditate". Mason says Shantanand "publicly commended the practice of the Maharishi's meditation" and sociologist J.R Copli, says that Shantanand's successor Swami Vishnudevanand, also "speaks highly of the Maharishi".
• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this is quite fair in terms of summarizing what every source said and also correctly attributing information to sources. It shortened the original, but left in the relevant facts. Proportionally also, it is a good length for the general Characterization section, currently around 435 words. I am satisfied with this version, personally--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Good job. Let's do this. I noticed a couple typos. TimidGuy (talk) 11:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok I will do it.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

McCartney in India

The article says he stayed for two months, but most of the sources, including McCartney himself in the Beatles Anthology, say one month. Should we maybe change this and cite the Beatles Anthology? TimidGuy (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

We should be accurate per the mainstream sources seems to me. So one of those mainstream sources should be acceptable.(olive (talk) 19:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC))

Here's what McCartney himself says in The Beatles Anthology:

Being fairly practical, I had a set period for staying in Rishikesh. To start with I thought, 'Whoa, this could be it, man. I could never come back if this works.' Then I thought, 'Wait a minute, I'll go for a month. Even if it's incredible, I'll still come back after a month.' If it had turned out to be something we really had to go back for, I would have gone back. But at the end of my month I was quite happy to leave. Nobody got any blinding enlightenment. I thought: 'This will do me. If I want to get into it heavily, I can do it anywhere.' That's one of the nice things about meditation — you don't have to go to church to do it.

By saying I was only going to be there a month, I had to risk that the others would say that I wasn't into it. And George did; he was quite strict. I remember talking about the next album and he would say: 'We're not here to talk music — we're here to meditate/' Oh yeah, all right Georgie Boy. Calm down, man. Sense of humour needed here, you know. In fact, I loved it there."

Given this, the article is also incorrect in saying that John and George stayed two weeks after Paul left. They were there for at least another month. TimidGuy (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I've resolved this and updated the article. No discussion needed. The 2007 book by Barry Miles gives an exact chronology of the Beatles' lives. TimidGuy (talk) 11:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Beatles reasons for leaving India

The article says that Lennon and Harrison left India amidst allegations that Maharishi had made sexual advances toward a participant. But Harrison himself says very clearly in The Beatles Anthology that he had always only planned to stay for the first part of the course in Rishikesh and that he had never had any intention to travel with the course to Kashmir for the second part. He says hIs reason for leaving was to travel to the south of India was that he had planned to do some filming with Ravi Shankar. Harrison also says that he thinks Lennon left so that he could get back to Yoko Ono, that the allegations were a pretext. It seems that there was a proximate cause (the allegations) and ultimate causes (Harrison's intention and Lennon's desire for Yoko). Is there any way we can modify the article so that it reflects this? Would it be going to far to say that they left for various reasons? TimidGuy (talk) 11:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion:

Current text: Starr and his wife Maureen left after ten days [100][101][102] McCartney and Jane Asher left after five weeks,[103][104][105] and Lennon and Harrison departed 16 days later [103] due to their belief that the Maharishi had made sexual advances towards Mia Farrow [106] Harrison commented years later, "Now, historically, there's the story that something went on that shouldn't have done — but nothing did"[107]

Suggested revision: Starr and his wife Maureen left after ten days, [100][101][102] McCartney and Jane Asher left after five weeks,[103][104][105] and Lennon and Harrison departed 16 days later. [103] During their stay The Beatles heard that the Maharishi had made sexual advances towards Mia Farrow [106] and Harrison commented years later, "Now, historically, there's the story that something went on that shouldn't have done — but nothing did"[107]

How's that? We don't want to get too much into the details of this thing as there is an entire article for that The Beatles in India.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Good. Thanks. Should I go ahead and make the change? TimidGuy (talk) 11:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why not. We are not removing any content or sources, just restructuring the sentences to remove the unsupported implication that the sole reason they left was the Mia Farrow thing. I would say go ahead and change it.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Sources contradict assertions regarding leaving India due to tax fraud

It concerns me that there are allegations of tax fraud in the article, but no sources have ever said Maharishi or his organization was found guilty of tax fraud. This could well be an instance in which the press reports sensational allegations but then neglects to report that no tax fraud was found. Otherwise why wouldn't that have reported that he was found guilty? Further, in two places in the article it says that he moved his headquarters from India after being investigated for tax fraud. In once instance it says he moved his headquarters in in the 1970s and in the other that he moved in 1988. Here's what the article says:

"In 1970 after having "a little trouble with Indian tax authorities" he moved his headquarters to Italy and then to Austria and later on Holland.[114]"

"In January 1988, offices at the Maharishinagar complex in New Delhi were raided by Indian tax authorities and the Maharishi and his organization were accused of falsifying expenses”. [135]Reports on the value of stocks, fixed-deposit notes, cash and jewels confiscated, varies from source to source[136] [137][138] [139] The Maharishi, who was” headquartered in Switzerland” at the time, reportedly moved to the Netherlands “after the Indian government accused him of tax fraud". [140])"

Yet many other sources contradict the assertions that he moved his headquarters in the 1970s or in 1988 in response to allegations of tax fraud. Below is a timeline based on these sources. They show that he lived and was headquartered in India and also Switzerland throughout the 1980s -- and that he was headquartered in India AFTER the allegations of tax fraud.

1983--Miami Herald, The (FL) - August 21, 1983---BATTERIES NOT INCLUDED     

In India this weekend, Mr. Mahesh Yogi bought front-page ads in all the newspapers offering to fix things for anybody who's looking for a Maharishi For Hire.

  1987--THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE - August 14, 1987---Unhappy Doug Henning Plans Disappearing Act      

Out of India - where the magician is deep into transcendental meditation with the Beatles' guru, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi - he sent word to fire his staff. Henning blames them, along with former management, for the dismal direction his career has taken; he wants nothing more to do with them or, for that matter, with show biz.

1988--The Boston Globe (Boston, MA), July 19, 1988

Q. What is the current whereabouts of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the Hindu who brought transcendental meditation to the United States?

A. The Maharishi now resides at the international headquarters of his movement, Maharishi Nagar, in Noida, India

  1990--Austin American-Statesman - October 12, 1990--TM leader seeks mass meditation Maharishi proposes peace train of thought

In a popular song of protest, John Lennon urged the world to "give peace a chance."On Thursday, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi presented a plan he says takes the chance out of peace making. Maharishi, the man who introduced meditation to the West in the '60s through the Beatles and other celebrities, spoke by phone in a teleconference from his European headquarters in Vlodrop, Holland.

  1990--THE SEATTLE TIMES - October 23, 1990--SEEN, HEARD, SAID PEOPLE    

FEEL THE VIBES: It's time to get metaphysical. Transcendental.Contemplative of your navel. Remember '60s pop apostle Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, ex-guru to the Beatles and now seventysomething? According to Life magazine, the mellow one is back with cosmic plans for the '90s.  After spending the last decade in seclusion in India, he's tanned, rested and ready to be a tycoon of mass-marketable nirvana.On video, the father of...

  1990--Akron Beacon Journal (OH) - October 24, 1990--OLD MYSTICS NEVER DIE,  THEY TAKE ON DISNEY

Return with us now to those navel-contemplating days of yesteryear.That `60s pop apostle, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, ex-guru to The Beatles and now seventysomething, is back with cosmic plans for the `90s, the November issue of Life magazine reports. After spending the last decade in seclusion in India, he's tanned, rested and ready to take on the planet as a tycoon of mass-marketable nirvana.On video, the father of Transcendental Meditation...

  1991--Rocky Mountain News (CO) - March 17, 1991--MAHARISHI OFFERS TO MAKE PEACE BY LAUNCHING HOPPING VEDIC FLIERS

Maharishi's the name, and world peace is still the game. More than 30 years after the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi left India to spread the word that transcendental meditation can lead humanity to a higher plane, he has developed a plan to help President Bush achieve world peace.  Fundamental to his program is Vedic flying, in which advanced practitioners of transcendental meditation hop about on mats. This, he said in a telephone interview from his base in Vlodrop, the...

  1993--MARK RICHARDSON; CITIZEN SECTION: NEWS;The Ottawa Citizen October 12, 1993, Tuesday, FINAL EDITION Pg. A1

"The Maharishi Yogi  now lives in The Netherlands, leaving India a few years ago after the Indian government accused him of tax fraud."

  2008--The Telegraph—Feb 7, 2008 –Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

In 1970, after a little trouble with the Indian tax authorities, the Maharishi moved his headquarters to the Italian resort of Fuggi Fonte. Later it relocated to Austria and finally, in 1990, to Vlodorp, Holland

Britannica Encyclopedia-- (born 1917?, Jabalpur, India  died Feb. 5, 2008, Vlodrop, Neth.) Indian religious leader, founder of Transcendental Meditation (TM). He took a degree in physics before going to the Himalayas to study the Advaita school of Vedanta religious thought with the yogi Guru Dev for 13 years. He arrived in the U.S. in 1959, preaching the virtues of TM; in the 1960s the Beatles were perhaps his most celebrated followers. The Maharishi (the title means Great Sage) returned to India in the late 1970s and moved to the Netherlands in 1990. His organization, which includes real estate holdings, schools, and clinics, was worth more than $3 billion in the late 1990s.

The sources indicate that he was headquartered in India throughout the 1980s, including AFTER the tax allegations in January of 1988, and that he moved to Holland in 1990. Further, Deepak Chopra, who was close to Maharishi at the time, wrote that Maharishi moved to Holland in 1990 for health reasons. I believe the source that says Maharishi moved his headquarters from India after tax allegations in the 1970s is incorrect. It seems like we should simply say something like this: "Maharishi had headquarters in various locations, including India, in the 1970s and 1980s, and moved to Holland in 1990. He or his organization was investigated for tax fraud in India in 1988." TimidGuy (talk) 12:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking at all material and sources above I would summarize like this:

After "a little trouble with tax authorities" in the 1970s the Maharishi left India and moved to Europe. --Only one source states that, but I don't see any sources that contradict it.

He spent the 1980's living in seclusion in India.--We have three reliable sources that support that.

In January 1988, offices at the Maharishinagar complex in New Delhi were raided by Indian tax authorities and the Maharishi and his organization were accused of falsifying expenses”. Reports on the value of stocks, fixed-deposit notes, cash and jewels confiscated, varies from source to source.--This is sourced and was discussed previously

The Maharishi moved to Holland in 1990 where he lived until his death in 2008.----We have multiple sources to support this. The Ottawa Citizen implies a link between the tax investigation and the Maharishi's departure two years later but none of the other sources make this connection or even imply it, so I suggest we not include this circumstantial implication unless other sources can be found.

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

That seems like a good step. But I also question the sentence regarding 1970. The problem with the Telegraph source is that it's incomplete: it ignores the fact that he was headquartered in India AFTER 1970. And it gives the wrong impression: t makes it sound like he fled India after trouble with tax authorities and never returned. I'd be inclined not to use it as a source because it's essentially factually incorrect, per many other sources. TimidGuy (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

These additional sources seem to indicate that the Maharishi went to Italy to teach TM but then was back in India by 1977 and other sources say he spent the 1980's in India in seclusion.

• “Morrow went to Spain and Italy in 1972 to learn TM from Maharishi.”-- Peace Palace' planned, Columbia Daily Tribune (Columbia, MO), August 18, 2005
• “In 1977, when the Maharishi went to India with his disciples, an Indian skeptics group offered him 10,000 rupees (about $1,000) to fly from Old to New Delhi, a distance of about two miles.”-- ASAHARA'S FLYING CIRCUS? THANK HEAVEN FOR THE LAWS OF PHYSICS, The Boston Globe (Boston, MA), May 15, 1995 | Chet Raymo

Not sure how to handle this, any comments from others? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's what the source says regarding his leaving India in 1970: "In 1970, after a little trouble with the Indian tax authorities, the Maharishi moved his headquarters to the Italian resort of Fuggi Fonte. Later it relocated to Austria and finally, in 1990, to Vlodorp, Holland." At the least, the latter two points don't fit the context, which is talking about what he was doing in the 1970s. It's not clear why his being in Austria in the 1980s and in Vlodrop in 1990 is relevant to the paragraph about what he was doing in 1970. We could probably find a source that says he went to Fuggi to train teachers. TimidGuy (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I definitely agree with TimidGuy that references to Maharishi's actions in the 80s and 90s are out of context in that paragraph--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 06:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• • Yes that source also leaves out the fact that the Maharishi spent the 1980s in India in seclusion which is reported by numerous other sources. So that sources accuracy is questionable as is the other source which says he left India in 1988 after a tax raid. So I suggest we leave out the stuff about why he came and went from India and just report his comings and goings and the tax raid itself which is well documented. Here is my proposed text:
• The Maharishi left India and moved to Europe in the 1970s.
• He returned to India during the 1980's lived in seclusion.
• In January 1988, the offices at his Maharishinagar complex in New Delhi were raided by Indian tax authorities and the Maharishi and his organization were accused of falsifying expenses”. Reports on the value of stocks, fixed-deposit notes, cash and jewels confiscated, varies from source to source.
• The Maharishi moved to Holland in 1990 where he lived until his death in 2008

Furthermore I think these sentences could be placed in their proper chronological sections. Comments? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

That's great. Thanks for following up with this. Note that we have two sources, including Britannica online, that say he returned to India in the late 1970s. So the first two points could read "The Maharishi left India and moved to Europe in the early 1970s, returning in the late 1970s. He continued to live in India in the 1980s." Yes, put in the proper chronological sections. TimidGuy (talk) 11:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's another one: “The Maharishi returned to India in the late 1970’s and moved to the Netherlands in 1990.”-- Encyclopedia of Hinduism (2007) Facts On File, Inc.By James D. Ryan, Constance JonesPage 273 -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we can proceed with the changes, there are enough sources to indicate coherently that Maharishi was in India in the 1970's then again in the 1980s and lved in the Netherlands either from the late 80's or the 90's, until his death.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 02:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion to the Bhagavadgita Gita section

The subsection Bhagavad-Gita: A New Translation and Commentary [45] subsection of the "Philosophy and teaching" section is in my opinion too long and cites far too much from the book itself, creating a problem with [WP:UNDUE]. I think the first paragraph, which details Maharishi's vision of the book's meaning, is appropriate, and I added a second one which illustrates another important concept in the book. The rest, in my opinion could go. I would propose that the text below, be removed from the article, unless you feel that more than two paragraphs are needed.

In 1964, the Maharishi attended the All-India Yogic Conference held in Calcutta, India, where he said that the teachings contained in the Bhagavad Gita were misunderstood in the current age, and "the practice of yoga was misunderstood, misinterpreted, and misapplied", resulting in "weakness in the fields of thought and action".[231] The Maharishi said that the source of his commentary was his master: "We are just an innocent means for the spontaneous flow of that knowledge—that's all."[232] A list of the masters of the "Holy Tradition" is printed in the appendix of the Maharishi's translation and commentary of the Bhagavad-Gita.[233] The Appendix of the Maharishi's Gita also contains a detailed discussion of the "Six Systems of Indian Philosophy", namely, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Sankhya, Yoga, Karma Mimansa, and Vedanta.[228] The Maharishi teaches that any knowledge is "true" only when it is acceptable in the light of all these six systems, and that the truth of the Bhagavad-Gita can be proven this way. He then illustrates this principal by showing how Chapter 1, Verse 2 gives "expression to each of the six systems in detail." [228] In the "Introduction", the Maharishi states that his commentary is "supplementary to the unique vision and profound wisdom of the great Shankara, as set forth in his Gita-Bhashya." He invites every man to use the "practical wisdom" in Chapter 2, Verse 45 to "gain eternal freedom in divine consciousness;"[234] which reads: The vedas' concern is with the three gunas. Be without the three gunas, O Arjuna, free from duality, ever firm in purity, independent of possessions, possessed of the Self.[228] The Maharishi comments that in this verse Lord Krishna gives Arjuna the technique for "instant realization" - be without activity, be your Self. Also in his commentary on this verse, the Maharishi adds that the Self is within and that Krishna has revealed the "secret of arriving at the state of pure consciousness."[235] A footnote directs the reader to see the section in the Appendix on Transcendental Meditation.

Opinions?--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 06:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree it should be removed. The entire section is supported only by the book itself and consists of arbitrary points subjectively selected by a WP editor. Better to take it out and find secondary sources if more content is needed. — Keithbob • Talk • 17:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the Gita commentary is a RS for content about itself, and it was a major aspect of the Maharishi's written work so some detail is acceptable. However ,there may be too much detail and probably as is the section violates Undue Weight, so trimming it would be fin , in my opinion.(olive (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC))

I understand what Olive is saying but as I read the text above I find it confusing or, a least I am confused by the fact that I do not find a logical reason for it being there. Why were those specific verses chosen, and not others? Aside from the commentary having been written by Maharishi, what is the relevance of these passages in relation to this article? --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The main focus of the section should be how the book relates to the Maharishi's life. For example, how/when/why did he write it? what was its impact on him and/or his movement. And although the book itself is an acceptable source in some contexts the bulk of the section should be supported by secondary sources IMO.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. In that case though, most, likely all, of what I transcribed above should go. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the text we are discussing from the article, and placed it in my sandbox [46]. I think it will be easier to decide, looking at it this way, which of these sentences, if any, belongs in the Maharishi article. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 05:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Here are some secondary sources that could be used in the section"

• In 1963, he wrote his first major book, "The Science of Being and Art of Living", a comprehensive introduction to his thought. Two years later, he completed a commentary on the Bhagavad-Gita, one of the principle Vedic texts.-- Spotlight : Maharishi Mahesh Yogi., The Star (Amman, Jordan), February 12, 2008
• To bring his Vedic knowledge, backed by science, to all areas of society, Maharishi founded thousands of schools, colleges and universities as well as medical centres and health clinics throughout the world. He also wrote a series of books on Vedic approaches to education, health, government, management and defence, as well as an acclaimed commentary on the Bhagavad Gita.-- His work "complete", Mahesh Yogi passes away at 91--Hindustan Times (New Delhi, India)--February 6, 2008
• The beauty of Maharishi’s translation of the Gita is another example of a master carpenter in that he can see the complete value of knowledge and express it. There are 165 translations of the Gita in my library and none of them come close to Maharishi’s insights and revival of the real teaching that has ultimate usefulness for all human beings. -----A Symphony of Silence: An Enlightened Vision (2012) By George A. Ellis, page 68
• [Maharishi] goes into this cycle of loss and revival [of this knowledge] in some depth in his introduction to the Bhagavad Gita—The TM Technique, Peter Russell, (1976) Routledge and Kegan Paul, page 134
• In the preface to his work on the Bhagavad Gita Maharishi claimed Shankara was misunderstood; people mistakenly thought him to be non-devotional, but Shankara’s principle of devotion is founded on transcendental consciousness. Indeed, both knowledge and devotion find their fulfillment on the “fertile field of transcendental consciousness” or Samadhi.—Gurus in America, Forsthoefel and Humes, (2005) State Univ of NY Press, page 67
• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I was just about to use some of these sources and add a few things to the text we currently have in the article, when I realized that your first source says the commentary to the Gita was published in 1965. The book itself clearly shows the first edition was published in 1967 [47]. I am wondering how to deal with this source which although secondary is quite provably inaccurate. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Another source:

• "I favor direct, first-person writing, and I have been profoundly influenced by authors who have written in this style. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is one such writer. His book, The Science of Being and the Art of Living, and his interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita come to mind. I like the intimacy of this style of writing. When I have read Maharishi's books, I have felt in a privileged position, like I was in on a great secret or truth of how life and the universe work. I like the personal connection associated with this style of writing.---Gale Group Publishing (2005) Contemporary Authors: A Bio-Bibliographical Guide to Current Writers in Fiction, General Nonfiction, Poetry, Journalism, Drama, Motion Pictures, Television, Chapter: O'Connell, David F. 1953-
• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)