Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:50, 1 November 2009

Great start and a bit of undue weight

Thanks Kbob. This is a great start to the article . My sense right now is that the two lawsuits are pretty heavily featured . A single lawsuit shouldn't outweigh information on the organization I wouldn't think. Hopefully more content on the organizations themsleves can be added to create balance in those areas.(olive (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC))

In don't see a source for the info in the lede. Am I missing something.(olive (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC))

Good point, I fixed that.-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That first ref seems to be non working.(olive (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC))

OK, fixed it.-- — Kbob • Talk • 03:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Very nice new article Kbob. I would move the "Lawsuit" section below "Prior organizations" the other paragraphs are more descriptive of the organizations and its activities and they belong together sequentially. By the way, can we expect a more exhaustive description of the programs offered by MVED?--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Luke. The lawsuit section refers to MVED while the civil suit refers to GCWP, which is why they are in sections pertinent to the headings and subheadings. (olive (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC))

Removed topic "Civil Suit"

I have remove the following section as it is not about MVED.

In a civil suit against the World Plan Executive Council filed in 1985, Robert Kropinski claimed fraud, psychological, physical, and emotional harm as a result of the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi programs. The district court dismissed Kropinski's claims concerning intentional tort and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and referred the claims of fraud and negligent infliction of physical and psychological injuries to a jury trial. The jury awarded Robert Kropinski $137,890 in the fraud and negligence claims. The appellate court overturned the award and dismissed Kropinski's claim alleging psychological damage. It also dismissed testimony related to the fraud claim. The claim of fraud and the claim of a physical injury related to his practice of the TM-Sidhi program were remanded to the lower court for retrial, and the parties then settled these remaining claims out of court.

For now I reverted your deletion since the civil suit is in a historical section on GCWP, and specifically is a historical point. Any other opinions?(olive (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC))

I would take a middle road. It has some relevance because WPEC was the precursor of MVED. However, in its current state it gives undue weight to an off topic aspect of the article. So maybe it could be cut back and placed in the section on WPEC instead of having a special LawSuit section.-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say if it has relevance at all it is in ref to WPEC .I did move it there. Now if it needs to be cut back I would be fine with that.(olive (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC))

Yes, your move is good. I'm suggesting that we cut back the info on that topic and remove the separate heading "Civil Suit".-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Kbob and Olive, I do not agree that the Civil Suit should be in the article. The events of the suit happened long before MVED was formed and it has no baring on the operations of MVED and, therefore, should not be a topic for the Wiki article on MVED. --BwB (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The civil suit was part of the history of WPEC. WPEC is part of the article as part of the history of MVED.(olive (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC))

"Your head bone connected from your neck bone,
Your neck bone connected from your shoulder bone,
Your shoulder bone connected from your back bone,
Your back bone connected from your hip bone,
Your hip bone connected from your thigh bone,
Your thigh bone connected from your knee bone,
Your knee bone connected from your leg bone,
Your leg bone connected from your ankle bone,
Your ankle bone connected from your foot bone,
Your foot bone connected from your toe bone,
I hear the word of the Lord!" --BwB (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The Civil Suit is given too much weight relative to the history of MVED. --BwB (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

What is the correct weight? If you look through 3rd-party sources, which issues receive the greatest weight?   Will Beback  talk  19:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Revision to the MUM/MVED Law Suit

Since all allegations were dismissed I recommend we summarize the section as follows:

• A lawsuit was filed as a result of a murder at Maharishi University of Management (M.U.M.) in Fairfield, Iowa on March 1, 2004. The suit alleged that MVED was guilty of negligent representation and that MVED had direct liability for the death of the student. In 2008 all charges against MVED were dismissed by Judge James E. Griztner of the U.S. District Court and the law suit was dropped. -- — Kbob • Talk • 19:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Since there doesn't seem to be any objections. I have made the revision as outline above.-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Good edit, Kbobb. --BwB (talk) 00:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

No secondary sources for MVEDC?

Among the secondary sources with active links (many are dead), none seem to mention the Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation. Many of them mention World Plan Executive Council. Should the name of the article be changed to the actual topic? What secondary sources mention the MVEDC?   Will Beback  talk  00:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Will, thanks for the heads up on the links, I tweaked a number of them so they are now working. One still remains out of order and two are for the Malnak vs. Yogi court case and we'll see if they cannot also be corrected in the near future. There are 43 citations in the article. Only 7 of them are first or second party sources. The remaining 36 citation are from third party sources. Yes, some of them mention WPEC because that is a sub topic, just like the court cases. Not sure what you mean by "Should the name of the article be changed to the actual topic?".-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Which secondary sources discuss the nominal topic of this article, "Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation"? I couldn't find any among the citations.   Will Beback  talk  20:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

MVEDC is mentioned by name in secondary source citations 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 12, 16, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24 and 25. In addition WPEC, the predecessor of MVEDC, is mentioned by name in secondary source citations 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 40 and 43.-- — Kbob • Talk • 00:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You may not be aware of the meaning of "secondary source". A secretary of state filing or a court case is primary source. See WP:PSTS. I see only two secondary sources on that list, "Greater Tulsa Reporter" and "The big fish: consciousness as structure, body and space". The latter only mentions MVEDC in the context of acknowledging a copyright holder, which is trivial. The GTR article says this:

• In a November 2003 article in The Hartford Advocate, Chris Harris reports, “In 1994, the bearded popularizer of TM’s enigmatic and faceless Maharishi Vedic Development Corporation purchased the Clarion Hotel building on Constitution Plaza, and there, in full view of the bustle of I-91, the dilapidated edifice has sat—a vacant, untouched, neglected eyesore, and a billboard advertising Hartford’s urban ruin.” Harris goes on to write, “There were plans to convert the hotel into one of his Maharishi Vedic Universities, where students would be schooled in the ways of transcendental meditation. But again, no action, and now, in 2003, the hotel lies in wait, its future uncertain.” According to Harris’ article, the Maharishi Vedic Development Corporation purchased the property for $1.5 million and in 1998, after years of decline, put it on the market for $14 million. As of 2003, it remained unsold, but was still on the market although the realtor would not discuss the asking price with Harris. The realtor did offer, though, that he had had several offers coming in from around the world.

It says nothing about the MVEDC except that it is "enigmatic and faceless", and that it purchased a derelict hotel in Tulsa. If we limit ourselves to what is in those source then this will be a very short article indeed. What source says that the MVEDC is the successor to the WPEC?   Will Beback  talk  00:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

ABUSE

Here is a perfect example of the abuse of the editing process that occurs again and again in these articles by the TM-Org affilited editors. Material that was originally added and properly sourced in the TM article, regarding the 60 products and services being offered gets moved, the text gets changed and then the same person who changed the text now claims that the source doesn't support the text and that it's a "questionable" source. This is absolutely unacceptable, it is disruptive, and it is contrary to the policies and guidelines of Misplaced Pages. This has to come to a stop. Fladrif (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

References

1. United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Civil Suit #85-2848, 1986
2. http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/853/853.F2d.948.87-7060.87-7033.html Kropinski v. WPEC, 853 F.2d 948 (CADC 1988)