Talk:Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
previous discussion (ended 2006-06-25)
the "Criticism of TM" section
Re allegations re sexual advances etc.
The source is given as scholalry but a look at the source shows that what is presented at best deserves to be described as second, third, fourth (or n) hand rumours mentioned in passing. Kent's book is not a clinical study. It is not even devoted to critizing TM - it is the author's own walk down memory lane of the counter culture 1960s.
Who in their right mind calls this fact?
Re an anonymous anti-TM site that keeps forgetting it has been declared dead (behind-the-tm-facade.org).
A lie does not become truer just because it is repeated ad nauseum.
Find a clinical study demonstrating that practice of TM results in depersonalization, derealization, anxiety, suicide attempts, assaults, homicidal ideation, other serious psychotic episodes - and what else.
Get real - if this was what TM is about, it would have been abandoned/stopped many, many years ago.
Peterklutz 17:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
SFacets and the V word
Haven't you read the response posted to you on your talk page?
Do you really think wikipedia admins will allow themselves to hoodwinked again by unfounded lies of what's going on?
Why are you here..?
What is the purpose of your existence?
Who are you?
Peterklutz 05:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
confessions of ignorance (copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sethie)
Ran a check to list the top editors[1]
Toward the top of the list I found i.a. Sethie, here's what SFacets and he - one of the article's other TM-critical editors have to say with reference to his own knowledge regarding a subject CFacets persistenly defames:
- SFacets: I agree that there is alot of pro-TM biased editing, however it is important to let them contribute to the article for it to grow (after all followers are logically the ones who would know the most about the organisation). Of course the edits made should be monitored..
- Sethie: I concur 100%. Since Peterklutz, 186. has been around, I believe the articles have improved, a lot... I am definatley opposed to totally censuring anyone, unless every edit is absurd...
Peterklutz 08:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
My point here - please take note of this wikipedia admins - is that the top "contributors" to the TM and MMY articles by their own admIssion don't know what the subject-matters they are editing.
My guess is that unless wikipedia adapts its policy to the facts on the ground in Cyberspace; it will in time stagnate (as admins choosen by popular vote) pull wikipedia down into the gutter - as this new elite entrench itself and proves to become an immovable layer of article-subject ignorance
Bon chance!