Talk:Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nzd (talk | contribs) at 14:20, 31 October 2017 (Place of Birth: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Latest comment: 6 years ago by Nzd in topic Place of Birth

Error: The code letter tm for the topic area in this contentious topics talk notice is not recognised or declared. Please check the documentation.

Untitled

bgcolor=transparent type=fulltext prefix=Talk:Maharishi Mahesh Yogi break=yes width=60 searchbuttonlabel=Search Maharishi Mahesh Yogi talk archives </inputbox>


Other Sub Pages:

References

Removal of text

I've removed [1] this text which was cited to a personal blog:

  • "Maharishi had heard that according to "Beatles lore," when the band made their first appearance on American TV, on the Ed Sullivan show, there was said to have been no crime in the US for that one hour. 'When I heard this,' Maharishi said to Harrison during this visit, 'I knew the Beatles were angels on earth. It doesn't matter what John said or did, I could never be upset with angels.' On hearing that, George broke down and wept."

If reliable secondary sources can be found it could be added to the The Beatles in India article but I think it is gives undue weight to a minor event to have it here in this BLP.--KeithbobTalk 22:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

p o v

If you want to write pages of your own opinion upon any subject or person - write a book. But stop claiming ANY encyclopedic interests or intensions for your "work". This very article is a waste of bytes and time, it is no b-class quality it's z-class, at most!

Instead of relying on a ridiculously small number of sources (partially Maharishi's own writings, my dear, whom do you want to kiddy?) you could at least point out that it's by far not that easy to find some more neutral and objective depictions and works about this man.

I don't have to mention the complete and obvious lack of any critical section, do I? And it wasn't hard to overlook that one little phrase - referring to a critical documentary about TM - as you wished all possibly annoying thoughts away and kept praising Maharishi within the very same sentence. That's a professional way how to deal with multiple views and judgements on a person, congratulations.

Most entertainingly, you've ignored the fact that the former head of TM was the origin of most of the ideas how to generate money out of nothing, out of the wish to meditate and become a better human. The first thing you would have to do to begin a first course is: paying the bill. When you climb up the ladder of self-improvement, you'll continously pay the bill. And, highly surprisingly, your efforts and progress are promising and you can lose your money, I mean climb up further - there are just no boundaries... Of course, open criticism, free speech, own thoughts, a plurality of opinions, individuality and personal independence would be so.... redundant... Just spend your funds and henceforth improve the world, the interior world of Maharishi's briefcase, namely. The greedy, manipulative cult-charactre of TM that made the organisation comparable to scientology traces back to this very man, Maharishi. To pretend frugal ways of living - to the point of ascetism - while earning countless mountains of money and rejoicing at any promiscious opportunity could be worthy to be mentioned, I assume...

I wish I could have acknowledged anything non-onesided, any further knowledge, at least a very little rest of honesty in his living, any philosphically or spiritually noticable thoughts of his, any small details I could have not yet known - but no, in vain. It remains a commercial for Maharishi and TM. Criticism is impure, methinks, as well as thinking.

Erasing the whole of this article would be the first act of true encyclopedic work.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.66.18.26 (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply


Self identification

I don't believe MMY self identifies as Hindu so have removed all of the Hindu categories. Please discuss if interested in re adding them.

Note: Removed them while I had been automatically logged out.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC))Reply

Probably should adjust the info box too. (Littleolive oil (talk) 03:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC))Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Michel Corbold disciple of Maharishi

Michael Freedman a Spiritual Teacher is a noted person in New Zealand and disciple of Maharishi. He is recognized in NZ for his contribution to alternative spirituality and also to TM. Where he continued Maharishi's work and was instrumental to teaching/providing TM (from 1976 to 1996) to over 70,000 people in NZ/Australia. The NZ correspondence TM course being recommended by the Australian Heart Disease Manual. One should not judge nor compare to pop stars like the Beatles etc.. of international fame. Rather should include persons whom were disciples of Maharishi whom continued the TM meditation and spiritual work. Corbold was a major figure in New Zealand alternative spirituality. He died in 1996. Unlike the Beatles who did things for publicly stunts, he worked quietly and it is difficult to find out information. That he was a disciple of Yogi, can be Australian newspaper links (previously provided but removed by censorship of wiki editor). Corbold has a section of Prof Ellwood research book Islands of the Dawn, alternative spirituality in NZ; and is also within Prof Donovan's Beliefs practices in New Zealand (Massey University study) and also Michael Howards' Modern Wicca and is mentioned in other publications such as New Zealand Listener etc. He founded the TM Research Foundation and TM Society in NZ (see Companies Office of NZ records), these with the cooperation of Professors from the University of Auckland School of Medicine' was well known among medical practitioners in this country for the TM course which helped over 10,000 person in this small country. Can the same be said for the Beatles ! All this information is available publicly. Persons included on this page, should not have to compare with pops tars like the Beatles or the Beach Boys but be measured by there contribution to TM. It is like saying someone famous in Fiji won't get a mention, because they are not super pop music stars. That is not what encylopedic content is about. What should be the measure is, what verifiable disciples of Yogi have made an international or national influence in terms of Yogi teachings and meditation methods. Notable characters are those that continued Maharishi's work nationally should be included in this page, so long as it can be verified. Very few persons can compare to the Beatles pop group and they are not even spiritual teachers. Other than Ravi Shankar who can you tell has any real spiritual legacy to Yogi and continued his work as a true master to disciple. Michael Corbold is one such person. I ask the authorities here at Wiki to include Michel Corbold in this page. Faithfully Lenny (jeandecabalis@aim.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.208.248 (talk) 02:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Society of the Guardians#Michael Freedman. Rothorpe (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Place of Birth

Please do not erase the term "British India" from the infobox. Like it or not, Britain once ruled India. Even Gandhi's page listed him as being born in British India. Erasing history here on Wikipedia won't address the injustices in the world. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 17:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

The content must be sourced and I don't see a source for "British India". If its not sourced it should be removed. Perhaps try to find a source I may be missing it.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC))Reply
The obit written by New York Times (cited in the article) shows he was born in Jabalpur. Other relevant Wikipedia articles have cited the area, at the time, as the Central Province of British India. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 18:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
You must source specifically "British India". Its not really worth fighting about is it? At any rate you are being challenged by another editor so the path to resolution is to source the specific information which I don't see so far.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC))Reply
This 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica article states specifically that Jubalpur (back then called Jubbulpore) is a part of the Central Province, which, according to the source, is "a province of British India, which was formed in October 1903". Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 18:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Good. Add the source. (I don't see it right now.)
Added! Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 19:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • KiteinthewindSomething to consider. While your addition is sourced there is no definitive position one way or the other as to whether British India should be used in the article. However, if the term is not used in most of the sources you might consider that per WP:WEIGHT the term is not necessary. To be honest, if it were me I'd remove the term since whether it is used or not is a matter of agreement among editors with a slight leaning towards the weight of sources that don't use the term. Sometimes its better in cases like this where there is so much pain attached to the words and where there is no definitive position to just make it easy on everyone and remove the content.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC))Reply
@Littleolive oil: I can't say I agree with that at all. No matter how totally ashamed of Britains colonial past I might feel (speaking as a Brit), the fact of the matter is that the country was, at that point, known as British India. The whole point of Wikipedia is to present the facts. If we're not doing that, and we allow personal feelings to prejudice our edits or omit information, then our encyclopedia becomes tarnished. That's why we have NPOV policies. Nzd (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Littleolive oil: And the "editors" you mentioned, Littleolive oil, consist of one registered user, and other IP accounts, which could be construed as canvassing on their part, and highly inappropriate. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 01:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. The point of Wikipedia is to present what is in the sources. Only one source so far calls this area British India. What this means is that sources point, per Wikipedia weight, to content that does not necessarily include the term British India. However, Wikpedia also depends on editor agreement, on consensus. This means that in the case where content is not necessarily definitive we have the option to choose and to go with editor agreement and choice. This content is not critical in this article. The content has created disharmony up to the point where the article has been locked. No, we don't change content to please the editors. We can consider going with editor agreement only because and after, all of the other points are in place.
We always omit information. It is the job of an editor to select the content that will be included or excluded in an article. NPOV supports content that will create a neutral article. As I said above we may be per weight dealing with content that should not be included. Editors determine this based on all of the factors I have mentioned.(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC))Reply
And to be honest I don't think this content is critical or will change the tone of this article. For me its not worth all of the effort both on the part of the editors and an admin who had to lock the article. In a collaborative situation, a situation where we want to create an easy-to-work-in environment, unless the content is critical its always best in my opinion to let it go and just walk away.(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC))Reply
@Littleolive oil: While I agree, the other editors who kept reverting the article has demonstrated an agenda (anti-colonialism), and are determined to turn a small, trivial point into one where seemingly, an entire nation's existence, as well as the dignity of billions of people hangs in the balance (I'm not exaggerating). Facts remain facts, even if they don't sound good. For example, I don't like Donald Trump as President, but he's still the President. We are Wikipedia, and we present facts, unadulterated. That's that. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 03:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
(Addendum) At the end of the day, only two things matter in this debate: Are there sources that say Yogi was born in Jabalpur, and are there sources that show Jabalpur was a part of an area called British India at the time of Yogi's birth? Both answers are "Yes", based on sources (one of which I provided), and that should be that. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 03:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Littleolive oil: The page was locked because of abuse of process rather than content ("use of multiple IP's and new accounts to edit war"). I don't think any of the regular editors would disagree that consensus is a vital part of Wikipedia. I absolutely understand your position (and admire your attempt at neutrality), but I'm afraid I don't see it that way. Your point seems to be that we should omit this because it might offend certain people, but I haven't heard any proposal as to what would be listed instead. If we just put India, than we'd be putting something we all know isn't true. We might have the one source at present that ties this specific person to British India, but we have a wealth of information about this part of history on Wikipedia. I don't think anyone would suggest we whitewash this too. I also disagree that the inclusion isn't important. We might omit other information for any number of reasons based on consensus (without examples I couldn't say whether I'd agree with such omissions or not), but I wouldn't have thought something like where someone was born should ever be omitted, particularly when this information is part of the narrative of the article. To do so would deny the reader that historical context. Nzd (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)Reply