This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Golden Domes article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Golden Domes was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is the result of many hands. A small amount of text is copied from the Wikipedia articles on John Hagelin, Maharishi University of Management, and TM-Sidhi program. In addition, I contacted a number of people who've been published on the topic, and several of them gave me significant help in researching and drafting this article. Their input has improved the article immeasurably. However I am solely responsible for the posted text and any errors it may contain. <b> Will Beback talk 11:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
While I respect the effort you've put into this article, I believe its a coatrack article. For example, its a big stretch to collect information on a building , and to eventually deal with research considerations. I won't engage you further on it at this time, but this is my opinion.( olive ( talk) 15:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC))
I just looked at one, but this isn't the issue...The domes are incidental to the research.... you're creating connections that are insignificant at best...and in some cases are misleading. Attaching the word domes to sentences to make connections is risky,encyclopedic writing. The article implies the connection to the domes is significant to the studies its not. The article implies Buckminster Fuller had some impact on creating the domes . He didn't as far as I know. I've never seen that in sources...nor have I seen sources that say the ME research was dependent on the domes.
The results of this study were compelling. The regularity and extent to which events
in the Lebanon War responded to changes in group size in Jerusalem were highly significant, both in statistical and human terms (war deaths, for example, being reduced by 76%
below expected levels...quotation
the group was in Jerusalem not in Fairfield, Iowa. The Washington DC course the group was in Washington... and so on
Of course you deleted my changes .... so what's new.....( olive ( talk) 22:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC))
This article is full of mistakes. I could care less about the article but I don't like the precedent being set for Wikipedia articles. If this kind of article is acceptable, fine, if not we need to know that . That is a concern. As for peremptory removal of sources.... Do you have a source that says, as your article implies the domes were/are significant to the research. There is no such statement because that is not the case. Such implications are OR. I suggested that I could do a version of the article in a sandbox to describe what I meant, but you'd sooner try and accuse me of removal of RS.( olive ( talk) 22:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC))
Doc James removed 8 RS and you supported him and an AE that had me banned for 3 months when I went to ask for a warning... and now you are attacking me, and BWB I noticed, for changes for things like women to ladies. Why is that . Why the timing.( olive ( talk) 22:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC))
The picture of the 1983 Taste of Utopia coursed is clearly not a picture of that course which was held in December While it would be nice if things were warm enough for green field and trees in Dec., that's not Iowa's climate. I've removed until an other pic is found.( olive ( talk) 19:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC))
We have the sentence "The domes' structure is based on the geodesic domes[16] developed by Buckminster Fuller, who had participated in a symposium with the Maharishi in 1971.[17][18]."
Yes the dome is based on geodesic designs. Yes Fuller developed geodesic domes. Yes Fuller participated in a symposium with the Maharishi in 1971. But stringing these 3 pieces of information together to give the reader the impression that Fuller was somehow directly involved in the design of the Golden Domes is Original Research. Maybe Fuller was involved in the design on the Domes, but we need a reliable secondary source to state this directly. -- BweeB ( talk) 03:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
(undent) Perhaps BeBack could clarify the information that he intends the read to get from this sentence? Why mention the symposium at all if there is no intention to connect Fuller somehow with the design of the domes? -- BweeB ( talk) 21:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
(undent) BeBack, you don't seem to be addressing the point of this discussion - that the sentence as it stands is OR. All the other stuff about Fuller is a red herring. -- BweeB ( talk) 01:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Refactoring from above:
But drive north out of town, and you enter another world. Those two golden, geodesic domes on the right of Iowa 1? That's where 1,000 people a day meditate together, women in one dome, men in the other." Wood, Toni (April 4, 2004). "Midwestern meditations: There's enlightenment among the corn in an Iowa city". Kansas City Star.
If you look closely at a photo, you'll see that there are more trapezoidal shapes in the lattice than triangles. A geodesic dome wouldn't have trapezoids. No official source refers to it as geodesic dome. Also, it has a flatter shape than a geodesic dome does. It seems like we shouldn't state this as fact unless we have a good source about the structure. I've never actually seen anything that discusses the structure. TimidGuy ( talk) 09:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
A geodesic dome is a triangulation of a Platonic solid or other polyhedron to produce a close approximation to a sphere (or hemisphere) (source: Wolfram Mathworld). I would think that the owner or architect of the MUM domes could state or have stated whether the dome support structures (which may not be visible) are indeed geodesic. This would seem the best way to settle the matter, as claims from other sources would most likely spring from ignorance of the mathematical definition. The word 'geodesic' has acquired a sort of content-free semantics in popular usage, but WP should be better than that. David Spector (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I attended the SCI symposium at which Fuller spoke. While many of his presented ideas seemed compatible with SCI (and good engineering), he didn't seem fully aware of SCI or its basis in consciousness, and to the best of my knowledge had little or no further association with Maharishi's Movement. Corrections are welcome. David Spector (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm curious what Regal says about the Maharishi Effect (footnote 8). It's not available via Google Books or Amazon. Could you please quote the text? Thanks much. TimidGuy ( talk) 10:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I restored a couple of sourced sentences which were deleted without discussion. Will Beback talk 22:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
What is being questioned here? Will Beback talk 06:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Propose we delete this text. It is not directly about the domes.
An editor deleted this photo with the comment, "not fair use: other imgs of Golden Domes exist in article". [11] That's true, but there are no other photographs of the historic "Taste of Utopia" assembly, which is what this photo portrays. The taking of the photograph is discussed in the article, allowing for its fair use for the purpose of commentary on the photo itself. Will Beback talk 18:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I have posted a request on the NOR Notice Board [12]. Thanks, -- BwB ( talk) 18:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the coatracking issue that was raised in a thread above, to help resolve this dispute I posted to the No Original Research Noticeboard for input from uninvolved editors. Itsmejudith posted this comment, which gives clear direction for moving forward -
In a subsequent comment, Itsmejudith pointed to this WP article as a model: King's College Chapel, Cambridge
The next step now that we have received this feedback at dispute resolution, is to put this article in a sandbox and edit it down so that it sticks to the point. And then invite Itsmejudith to review the revised version to see if it satisfies his/her objections. -- BwB ( talk) 19:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
No one suggested deletion of content.( olive ( talk) 03:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC))
About "coatrack": many WP articles discuss ancillary topics. Such discussion is certainly not forbidden under WP guidelines. Since the Golden Domes are not general-purpose structures, the fact that they are used almost exclusively for practice of the TM-Sidhi Program makes that topic germane to the article. As I read it, the article is a well-written essay on the domes themselves as well as many naturally-related topics. It clearly fails the WP definition of a coatrack article. Furthermore, I'd like to congratulate Will for a fine piece of writing and research. The other editors would do well to emulate this leadership instead of picking nits and splitting hairs. David Spector (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
An editors added dates based on sources, implying that certain activities were limited to those years alone. [13] I don't see how this benefits the article. There's no evidence that the timings have changed. If this type of edit is helpful here, would it be helpful in other articles? Virtually every sentence of every article could be amended similarly. "As of 2008, the Transcendental Meditation technique is practiced for twenty minutes, twice daily. In 1979, it was said to bring relaxation and alertness." And so on. I agree that these equivocations can be useful when there are changes to the asserted facts, but they are otherwise disruptive and even misleading. Will Beback talk 21:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
"MUM researchers have conducted numerous studies on the effects of Yogic Flying in the domes. Proponents assert that lower crime rates, increases in stock market indices, the reunification of Germany, fewer air traffic fatalities, and other quantifiable changes are the result of lowering tension in the world by practicing TM-Sidhi in the domes."
This wording has multiple problems:
I'd like to reword it but since my efforts to correct this have been revereted once, I'd like to open discussion again on this. Thanks ( olive ( talk) 18:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC))
"done in the domes" creates false meaning. Unless the place where the YF was done was a significant factor in the results of the studies we cannot make that kind of statement. The problem may just a simple as a misplaced modifier. We could say, 'Yogic Flying research has been conducted on practitioners in the domes as well as at other locations."( olive ( talk) 18:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC))
Oprah Winfrey, who learned TM last summer, flew to Iowa in her private Global Express jet and visited the MUM Ladies' Dome and meditated with 400 women there for 20 minutes on October 19, 2011. She also paid for her entire staff to learn TM; they arrived at MUM a week earlier to begin work on an hour-long show on Fairfield's meditation community in the series Oprah's Lifeclass, to be seen on the Oprah Winfrey Network (OWN).
She also spoke with students at the K-12 Maharishi School (part of MUM; not to be confused with the Maharishi School in Lancashire, England) about her spiritual journey, according to School director Richard Beall.
Celebrity friend Rosie O'Donnell's personal discovery of TM was covered on Oprah's website over a year ago.
Celebrity M.D. Dr. Mehmet Oz wrote about TM on Oprah's website five years ago. Clearly, Oprah's interest has been percolating for some time. She typically shares what she learns and likes with her many fans when she feels ready.
These events have been covered by reliable sources, including the Associated Press, the Huffington Post, and Yahoo! News (at WP-blocked link http://www.associated content.com/article/9052925/oprah_winfrey_meditated_in_fairfield.html?cat=7). I've been waiting for over a month for someone to report them here, so I guess it's up to me to be WP:BOLD and do so myself. Feel free to make factual corrections to the above. I did not dare to add this material to the article, because I am not that WP:BOLD :o) David Spector (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
The Golden Dome article was recently reviewed on the WP:NOR Notice Board [14]. Concerns [15] raised by an uninvolved editor on that NB have not been addressed nor has there been removal of the "fluff"noted by Malleus in the last GA review. I have had concerns from the beginning that this article is largely a coatrack article. I'd like the GE reviewer to consider these points. I have created a first draft of a pared down version of this article which may address the coatrack issue. However, I'm happy to let this matter drop once a reviewer has made a determination on the status of this article ( olive ( talk) 18:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC))
FYI: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Golden Domes. Will Beback talk 20:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Please note the status of the image File:Taste of Utopia.jpg used in the article. Details are linked to from that page. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
To the extent that this article goes beyond discussing the buildings themselves and presents information about TM (primarly the Golden Domes#Effects and studies section), it needs to follow WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. The section in question only presents information and quotes from TM adherents and gives no information about their reception in the true scientific community. cmadler ( talk) 19:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Will, the article is a coatrack article and has been from the beginning. I don't think its a good idea to ignore both a GA reviewer and a Notice Board. I'm happy to take this back to a NB though. I'm not interested in labels Will, or your interrogations, I'm interested in an article that complies with the way in which an encyclopedia is written. Please show me where in the TM Sidhi research, the place where the research is carried out, is a parameter for the research. If its not it has very little place here, possibly a mention at most.( olive ( talk) 20:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC))
According to proponents, group practice of the TM-Sidhi program, as done in the domes, creates the "Maharishi Effect", which they describe as a coherence-producing field which has resulted in lower crime rates, increases in stock market indices, the reunification of Germany, fewer air traffic fatalities, and more. Proponents claim that the effects depend on the number of people practicing in one place; the domes have a capacity of 3,000 practitioners, but assemblies have brought together as many as 7,000 Yogic Flyers. However, these claims are not generally accepted by the scientific community, which generally considers Transcendental Meditation and its associated theories to be pseudoscience.
A large amount of sourced, relevant info was removed in a series of edits. [16] [17] [18] [19] We can discuss the issues here. None of the edit summaries quote any policy-based reasons for deletion. If there are no good reasons for deletion I'll restore the material, all of which is adequately sourced and relevant. Will Beback talk 06:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok. Let's look at what I actually deleted. The first edit [20] removed the 'Use and significance' section in its entirity. The first paragraph merely tells us how the Maharishi and his followers have used metaphor describe it, which relates to neither 'use' nor 'significance'. The next section, on 'attendence' tells us repeatedly that 'thousands' of people have attended the domes, and that many have moved into the area to do so regularly: it is hardly necessary to expand five paragraphs on this, surely? The 'Admission' section seems completely off-topic, relating to who is entiltled to use the domes, rather than to the Domes themselves. The 'Interior and program' section seems to be a strange hybrid of descriptions of the interior (a reasonable enough topic for the article), and yet more detail about the 'program' including such trivia as a statement that "Late admission is not permitted". The 'Assemblies' section combines discussion of attendence at special events (which may merit mention) with off-topic discussion of fees for the TM-Sidhi program being underwritten. The last section I deleted, 'Events' discusses the marriage of a stage magician at the dome, a few concerts, and the 'World Yogic Flying competitions' - with a great deal of off-topic waffle about 'World Peace' etc. In my opinion, what little useful content there is here can comfortably be reduced to a couple of paragraphs, if the hyperbole and off-topic rambling is removed. A paragraph (or perhaps more - this article is supposedly about the buildings) describing the interior, and another paragraph describing the uses to which the buildings are put (without fringe claims regarding what effect events there supposedly have on the outside world), should be more than enough - We have an article on the TM-Sidhi program, and it is entirely unnecessary to describe it all again here.
My next edit [21] removed an 'Other' section - a micellany of material on TV appearences etc, a cafe which isn't part of the Dome, and material relating to buildings in other locations entirely - off-topic trivia.
I then [22] removed a paragraph recounting the implausible claims made by attendees regarding the supposed effects of 'Yogic Flying' - much of which appears not to have taken place at the Domes. I'd also point out that presenting material in this way looks like a breach of NPOV, given the undue weight inherent in presentin 'MUM researchers' output as 'studies'. I also deleted the next paragraph - yey more material on attendence etc.
My final edit [23] removed a paragraph regarding more implausible claims regarding the construction of the Domes, and an obvious refutation of this. I was tempted to leave this in, given that it at least aded a little balence to the facile regurgetation of hyperbole that pervaded the rest of the article, but NPOV suggests this bit of trivia should probably be ommitted too.
THe whole article not only veered wildly off-topic, and gave a ridiculous amount of undue weight to the fringe claims of a religious movement that likes to put on a facade of 'scientific credibility' wholely unjustified by any neutral criteria, but lacked any semblence of a coherent structure, with material seemingly jammed in almost at random. Regardless of the effectiveness of what goes on inside the Domes, the buildings themselves appear rather more sensibly and solidly constructed than this article. Can I suggest that we try to at least do justice to the buildings, and construct an article that actually tells our readers about them in a coherent manner, rather than engaging in wholesale hyperbole and trivia? Will Beback describes the material removed as 'sourced' and 'relevant' which is rather getting priorities backwards: 'relevance' needs to be demonstrated before sourcing becomes an issue, and far too much of the article seemed to consist of material either entirely unrelated to the Domes, or only related in as much as the dubious claims of the 'program' assert its relevance. It seems to me that the article resembles rather too closely one of the in-universe Star Trek fansites one sees that treat fiction as fact, and fail to relate to external reality at all. It is bad enough when Wikipeia articles on Star Trek and the like show symptoms of this, and to have a similar problem in an article describing a major piece of architecture for a not-insignificant movement is unacceptable. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 22:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The buildings have special mystical powers?...I've never heard that before. It will be Interesting to see what sources there are for that claim.( olive ( talk) 02:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC))
I don't think its uncommon for people to describe buildings in a way that might be reverent... even homes... my home is my castle ... my home is my oasis of solitude, and churches of course, but that seems very different from saying in a literal way that a building is exerting some mystical power... I do think t would be fine to quote MMY on this, as in "particle accelerators..." as long as we have more than one comment from him along this line so the text doesn't have undue weight.( olive ( talk) 17:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC))
Shouldn't the article include the Maharishi Golden Dome completed in Skelmersdale in 1988 [25] as well as the domes included in the master plan for Maharishi Vedic City? Just askin'. Fladrif ( talk) 16:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
(undent) Perhaps we need to change the title of the article to "Golden Dome at Maharishi University of Management"? -- BwB ( talk) 16:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
3000 in total or 3000 each? Cusop Dingle ( talk) 22:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Unless there are specific, policy-based objections, I'll put in this material:
Attendance
Thousands of people have moved to Fairfield to participate in group practice in the domes. [1] [2] Hundreds of TM-Sidhi practitioners go to the Golden Domes every morning and evening, [3] creating a "parade", [4] a "stream", or a "flood" of attendees walking, pedaling, or driving to the domes. [5] The resulting traffic jams [6] [7] and parking problems have irritated their non-meditating neighbors. [8] Homes and accommodations within walking distance of the domes are desirable. [9] An office building across the highway from the domes is advertised as "just a few seconds from the Golden Domes by car". [10] The campus shuts down during program sessions. [11] [12]
The executive vice president of the local Chamber of Commerce said in 1991 that TM practitioners, who make up from a quarter to a third of the town's population, "spend a great portion of their days in the Domes". [13] The Men's Dome is typically occupied 14 hours a day. [14] MUM President Bevan Morris said in 2009 that there have been "something like 30 million hours of transcending" in the domes. [15]
Attendees range from MUM faculty and students (who receive academic credit for meditating), [16] to business owners and executives. [17] [18]
Yogic Flyers living in Fairfield who are not part of the university are said to be members of the "Town Super Radiance" (TSR) community. [19]
- ^ Bogumil 2006.
- ^ Knopp 1998, p. 182–182.
- ^ Williamson 2010, p. 10.
- ^ Lee 2006.
- ^ Lee 2004.
- ^ Howard 1996.
- ^ Strauss 1987.
- ^ Crawford 1991.
- ^ Jimenez 1995.
- ^ Review 2001e.
- ^ D'Antonio 1992, pp. 249–250.
- ^ Knopp 1998, p. 159.
- ^ Saari 1991.
- ^ Review 2001a.
- ^ TMB 2009.
- ^ DePalma 1992.
- ^ AP 1990.
- ^ Review 1996.
- ^ Review 2002b.
It is directly related to the domes, and is not "coatracking". Will Beback talk 23:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
(←)Unless there are specific, policy-based objections, I'll put in this material is not how it works. Articles are written by consensus. One editor does not get to tell the others what arguments they are or are not willing to accept. See Wikipedia:Consensus#Reaching_consensus_through_discussion. Cusop Dingle ( talk) 07:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
The sentences The Transcendental Meditation movement has conducted a number of assemblies bringing together thousands of Yogic Flyers in the hope of positively influencing the United States and the world. The largest assembly brought together 7,000 Yogic Flyers for several weeks starting in December 1983. are unsourced and it is thus not clear whether they refer to assemblies held in these structures, in which case they are relevant, or elsewhere, in which case they are not. Cusop Dingle ( talk) 22:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Golden Domes article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Golden Domes was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is the result of many hands. A small amount of text is copied from the Wikipedia articles on John Hagelin, Maharishi University of Management, and TM-Sidhi program. In addition, I contacted a number of people who've been published on the topic, and several of them gave me significant help in researching and drafting this article. Their input has improved the article immeasurably. However I am solely responsible for the posted text and any errors it may contain. <b> Will Beback talk 11:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
While I respect the effort you've put into this article, I believe its a coatrack article. For example, its a big stretch to collect information on a building , and to eventually deal with research considerations. I won't engage you further on it at this time, but this is my opinion.( olive ( talk) 15:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC))
I just looked at one, but this isn't the issue...The domes are incidental to the research.... you're creating connections that are insignificant at best...and in some cases are misleading. Attaching the word domes to sentences to make connections is risky,encyclopedic writing. The article implies the connection to the domes is significant to the studies its not. The article implies Buckminster Fuller had some impact on creating the domes . He didn't as far as I know. I've never seen that in sources...nor have I seen sources that say the ME research was dependent on the domes.
The results of this study were compelling. The regularity and extent to which events
in the Lebanon War responded to changes in group size in Jerusalem were highly significant, both in statistical and human terms (war deaths, for example, being reduced by 76%
below expected levels...quotation
the group was in Jerusalem not in Fairfield, Iowa. The Washington DC course the group was in Washington... and so on
Of course you deleted my changes .... so what's new.....( olive ( talk) 22:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC))
This article is full of mistakes. I could care less about the article but I don't like the precedent being set for Wikipedia articles. If this kind of article is acceptable, fine, if not we need to know that . That is a concern. As for peremptory removal of sources.... Do you have a source that says, as your article implies the domes were/are significant to the research. There is no such statement because that is not the case. Such implications are OR. I suggested that I could do a version of the article in a sandbox to describe what I meant, but you'd sooner try and accuse me of removal of RS.( olive ( talk) 22:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC))
Doc James removed 8 RS and you supported him and an AE that had me banned for 3 months when I went to ask for a warning... and now you are attacking me, and BWB I noticed, for changes for things like women to ladies. Why is that . Why the timing.( olive ( talk) 22:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC))
The picture of the 1983 Taste of Utopia coursed is clearly not a picture of that course which was held in December While it would be nice if things were warm enough for green field and trees in Dec., that's not Iowa's climate. I've removed until an other pic is found.( olive ( talk) 19:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC))
We have the sentence "The domes' structure is based on the geodesic domes[16] developed by Buckminster Fuller, who had participated in a symposium with the Maharishi in 1971.[17][18]."
Yes the dome is based on geodesic designs. Yes Fuller developed geodesic domes. Yes Fuller participated in a symposium with the Maharishi in 1971. But stringing these 3 pieces of information together to give the reader the impression that Fuller was somehow directly involved in the design of the Golden Domes is Original Research. Maybe Fuller was involved in the design on the Domes, but we need a reliable secondary source to state this directly. -- BweeB ( talk) 03:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
(undent) Perhaps BeBack could clarify the information that he intends the read to get from this sentence? Why mention the symposium at all if there is no intention to connect Fuller somehow with the design of the domes? -- BweeB ( talk) 21:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
(undent) BeBack, you don't seem to be addressing the point of this discussion - that the sentence as it stands is OR. All the other stuff about Fuller is a red herring. -- BweeB ( talk) 01:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Refactoring from above:
But drive north out of town, and you enter another world. Those two golden, geodesic domes on the right of Iowa 1? That's where 1,000 people a day meditate together, women in one dome, men in the other." Wood, Toni (April 4, 2004). "Midwestern meditations: There's enlightenment among the corn in an Iowa city". Kansas City Star.
If you look closely at a photo, you'll see that there are more trapezoidal shapes in the lattice than triangles. A geodesic dome wouldn't have trapezoids. No official source refers to it as geodesic dome. Also, it has a flatter shape than a geodesic dome does. It seems like we shouldn't state this as fact unless we have a good source about the structure. I've never actually seen anything that discusses the structure. TimidGuy ( talk) 09:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
A geodesic dome is a triangulation of a Platonic solid or other polyhedron to produce a close approximation to a sphere (or hemisphere) (source: Wolfram Mathworld). I would think that the owner or architect of the MUM domes could state or have stated whether the dome support structures (which may not be visible) are indeed geodesic. This would seem the best way to settle the matter, as claims from other sources would most likely spring from ignorance of the mathematical definition. The word 'geodesic' has acquired a sort of content-free semantics in popular usage, but WP should be better than that. David Spector (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I attended the SCI symposium at which Fuller spoke. While many of his presented ideas seemed compatible with SCI (and good engineering), he didn't seem fully aware of SCI or its basis in consciousness, and to the best of my knowledge had little or no further association with Maharishi's Movement. Corrections are welcome. David Spector (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm curious what Regal says about the Maharishi Effect (footnote 8). It's not available via Google Books or Amazon. Could you please quote the text? Thanks much. TimidGuy ( talk) 10:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I restored a couple of sourced sentences which were deleted without discussion. Will Beback talk 22:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
What is being questioned here? Will Beback talk 06:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Propose we delete this text. It is not directly about the domes.
An editor deleted this photo with the comment, "not fair use: other imgs of Golden Domes exist in article". [11] That's true, but there are no other photographs of the historic "Taste of Utopia" assembly, which is what this photo portrays. The taking of the photograph is discussed in the article, allowing for its fair use for the purpose of commentary on the photo itself. Will Beback talk 18:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I have posted a request on the NOR Notice Board [12]. Thanks, -- BwB ( talk) 18:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the coatracking issue that was raised in a thread above, to help resolve this dispute I posted to the No Original Research Noticeboard for input from uninvolved editors. Itsmejudith posted this comment, which gives clear direction for moving forward -
In a subsequent comment, Itsmejudith pointed to this WP article as a model: King's College Chapel, Cambridge
The next step now that we have received this feedback at dispute resolution, is to put this article in a sandbox and edit it down so that it sticks to the point. And then invite Itsmejudith to review the revised version to see if it satisfies his/her objections. -- BwB ( talk) 19:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
No one suggested deletion of content.( olive ( talk) 03:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC))
About "coatrack": many WP articles discuss ancillary topics. Such discussion is certainly not forbidden under WP guidelines. Since the Golden Domes are not general-purpose structures, the fact that they are used almost exclusively for practice of the TM-Sidhi Program makes that topic germane to the article. As I read it, the article is a well-written essay on the domes themselves as well as many naturally-related topics. It clearly fails the WP definition of a coatrack article. Furthermore, I'd like to congratulate Will for a fine piece of writing and research. The other editors would do well to emulate this leadership instead of picking nits and splitting hairs. David Spector (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
An editors added dates based on sources, implying that certain activities were limited to those years alone. [13] I don't see how this benefits the article. There's no evidence that the timings have changed. If this type of edit is helpful here, would it be helpful in other articles? Virtually every sentence of every article could be amended similarly. "As of 2008, the Transcendental Meditation technique is practiced for twenty minutes, twice daily. In 1979, it was said to bring relaxation and alertness." And so on. I agree that these equivocations can be useful when there are changes to the asserted facts, but they are otherwise disruptive and even misleading. Will Beback talk 21:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
"MUM researchers have conducted numerous studies on the effects of Yogic Flying in the domes. Proponents assert that lower crime rates, increases in stock market indices, the reunification of Germany, fewer air traffic fatalities, and other quantifiable changes are the result of lowering tension in the world by practicing TM-Sidhi in the domes."
This wording has multiple problems:
I'd like to reword it but since my efforts to correct this have been revereted once, I'd like to open discussion again on this. Thanks ( olive ( talk) 18:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC))
"done in the domes" creates false meaning. Unless the place where the YF was done was a significant factor in the results of the studies we cannot make that kind of statement. The problem may just a simple as a misplaced modifier. We could say, 'Yogic Flying research has been conducted on practitioners in the domes as well as at other locations."( olive ( talk) 18:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC))
Oprah Winfrey, who learned TM last summer, flew to Iowa in her private Global Express jet and visited the MUM Ladies' Dome and meditated with 400 women there for 20 minutes on October 19, 2011. She also paid for her entire staff to learn TM; they arrived at MUM a week earlier to begin work on an hour-long show on Fairfield's meditation community in the series Oprah's Lifeclass, to be seen on the Oprah Winfrey Network (OWN).
She also spoke with students at the K-12 Maharishi School (part of MUM; not to be confused with the Maharishi School in Lancashire, England) about her spiritual journey, according to School director Richard Beall.
Celebrity friend Rosie O'Donnell's personal discovery of TM was covered on Oprah's website over a year ago.
Celebrity M.D. Dr. Mehmet Oz wrote about TM on Oprah's website five years ago. Clearly, Oprah's interest has been percolating for some time. She typically shares what she learns and likes with her many fans when she feels ready.
These events have been covered by reliable sources, including the Associated Press, the Huffington Post, and Yahoo! News (at WP-blocked link http://www.associated content.com/article/9052925/oprah_winfrey_meditated_in_fairfield.html?cat=7). I've been waiting for over a month for someone to report them here, so I guess it's up to me to be WP:BOLD and do so myself. Feel free to make factual corrections to the above. I did not dare to add this material to the article, because I am not that WP:BOLD :o) David Spector (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
The Golden Dome article was recently reviewed on the WP:NOR Notice Board [14]. Concerns [15] raised by an uninvolved editor on that NB have not been addressed nor has there been removal of the "fluff"noted by Malleus in the last GA review. I have had concerns from the beginning that this article is largely a coatrack article. I'd like the GE reviewer to consider these points. I have created a first draft of a pared down version of this article which may address the coatrack issue. However, I'm happy to let this matter drop once a reviewer has made a determination on the status of this article ( olive ( talk) 18:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC))
FYI: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Golden Domes. Will Beback talk 20:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Please note the status of the image File:Taste of Utopia.jpg used in the article. Details are linked to from that page. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
To the extent that this article goes beyond discussing the buildings themselves and presents information about TM (primarly the Golden Domes#Effects and studies section), it needs to follow WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. The section in question only presents information and quotes from TM adherents and gives no information about their reception in the true scientific community. cmadler ( talk) 19:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Will, the article is a coatrack article and has been from the beginning. I don't think its a good idea to ignore both a GA reviewer and a Notice Board. I'm happy to take this back to a NB though. I'm not interested in labels Will, or your interrogations, I'm interested in an article that complies with the way in which an encyclopedia is written. Please show me where in the TM Sidhi research, the place where the research is carried out, is a parameter for the research. If its not it has very little place here, possibly a mention at most.( olive ( talk) 20:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC))
According to proponents, group practice of the TM-Sidhi program, as done in the domes, creates the "Maharishi Effect", which they describe as a coherence-producing field which has resulted in lower crime rates, increases in stock market indices, the reunification of Germany, fewer air traffic fatalities, and more. Proponents claim that the effects depend on the number of people practicing in one place; the domes have a capacity of 3,000 practitioners, but assemblies have brought together as many as 7,000 Yogic Flyers. However, these claims are not generally accepted by the scientific community, which generally considers Transcendental Meditation and its associated theories to be pseudoscience.
A large amount of sourced, relevant info was removed in a series of edits. [16] [17] [18] [19] We can discuss the issues here. None of the edit summaries quote any policy-based reasons for deletion. If there are no good reasons for deletion I'll restore the material, all of which is adequately sourced and relevant. Will Beback talk 06:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok. Let's look at what I actually deleted. The first edit [20] removed the 'Use and significance' section in its entirity. The first paragraph merely tells us how the Maharishi and his followers have used metaphor describe it, which relates to neither 'use' nor 'significance'. The next section, on 'attendence' tells us repeatedly that 'thousands' of people have attended the domes, and that many have moved into the area to do so regularly: it is hardly necessary to expand five paragraphs on this, surely? The 'Admission' section seems completely off-topic, relating to who is entiltled to use the domes, rather than to the Domes themselves. The 'Interior and program' section seems to be a strange hybrid of descriptions of the interior (a reasonable enough topic for the article), and yet more detail about the 'program' including such trivia as a statement that "Late admission is not permitted". The 'Assemblies' section combines discussion of attendence at special events (which may merit mention) with off-topic discussion of fees for the TM-Sidhi program being underwritten. The last section I deleted, 'Events' discusses the marriage of a stage magician at the dome, a few concerts, and the 'World Yogic Flying competitions' - with a great deal of off-topic waffle about 'World Peace' etc. In my opinion, what little useful content there is here can comfortably be reduced to a couple of paragraphs, if the hyperbole and off-topic rambling is removed. A paragraph (or perhaps more - this article is supposedly about the buildings) describing the interior, and another paragraph describing the uses to which the buildings are put (without fringe claims regarding what effect events there supposedly have on the outside world), should be more than enough - We have an article on the TM-Sidhi program, and it is entirely unnecessary to describe it all again here.
My next edit [21] removed an 'Other' section - a micellany of material on TV appearences etc, a cafe which isn't part of the Dome, and material relating to buildings in other locations entirely - off-topic trivia.
I then [22] removed a paragraph recounting the implausible claims made by attendees regarding the supposed effects of 'Yogic Flying' - much of which appears not to have taken place at the Domes. I'd also point out that presenting material in this way looks like a breach of NPOV, given the undue weight inherent in presentin 'MUM researchers' output as 'studies'. I also deleted the next paragraph - yey more material on attendence etc.
My final edit [23] removed a paragraph regarding more implausible claims regarding the construction of the Domes, and an obvious refutation of this. I was tempted to leave this in, given that it at least aded a little balence to the facile regurgetation of hyperbole that pervaded the rest of the article, but NPOV suggests this bit of trivia should probably be ommitted too.
THe whole article not only veered wildly off-topic, and gave a ridiculous amount of undue weight to the fringe claims of a religious movement that likes to put on a facade of 'scientific credibility' wholely unjustified by any neutral criteria, but lacked any semblence of a coherent structure, with material seemingly jammed in almost at random. Regardless of the effectiveness of what goes on inside the Domes, the buildings themselves appear rather more sensibly and solidly constructed than this article. Can I suggest that we try to at least do justice to the buildings, and construct an article that actually tells our readers about them in a coherent manner, rather than engaging in wholesale hyperbole and trivia? Will Beback describes the material removed as 'sourced' and 'relevant' which is rather getting priorities backwards: 'relevance' needs to be demonstrated before sourcing becomes an issue, and far too much of the article seemed to consist of material either entirely unrelated to the Domes, or only related in as much as the dubious claims of the 'program' assert its relevance. It seems to me that the article resembles rather too closely one of the in-universe Star Trek fansites one sees that treat fiction as fact, and fail to relate to external reality at all. It is bad enough when Wikipeia articles on Star Trek and the like show symptoms of this, and to have a similar problem in an article describing a major piece of architecture for a not-insignificant movement is unacceptable. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 22:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The buildings have special mystical powers?...I've never heard that before. It will be Interesting to see what sources there are for that claim.( olive ( talk) 02:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC))
I don't think its uncommon for people to describe buildings in a way that might be reverent... even homes... my home is my castle ... my home is my oasis of solitude, and churches of course, but that seems very different from saying in a literal way that a building is exerting some mystical power... I do think t would be fine to quote MMY on this, as in "particle accelerators..." as long as we have more than one comment from him along this line so the text doesn't have undue weight.( olive ( talk) 17:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC))
Shouldn't the article include the Maharishi Golden Dome completed in Skelmersdale in 1988 [25] as well as the domes included in the master plan for Maharishi Vedic City? Just askin'. Fladrif ( talk) 16:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
(undent) Perhaps we need to change the title of the article to "Golden Dome at Maharishi University of Management"? -- BwB ( talk) 16:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
3000 in total or 3000 each? Cusop Dingle ( talk) 22:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Unless there are specific, policy-based objections, I'll put in this material:
Attendance
Thousands of people have moved to Fairfield to participate in group practice in the domes. [1] [2] Hundreds of TM-Sidhi practitioners go to the Golden Domes every morning and evening, [3] creating a "parade", [4] a "stream", or a "flood" of attendees walking, pedaling, or driving to the domes. [5] The resulting traffic jams [6] [7] and parking problems have irritated their non-meditating neighbors. [8] Homes and accommodations within walking distance of the domes are desirable. [9] An office building across the highway from the domes is advertised as "just a few seconds from the Golden Domes by car". [10] The campus shuts down during program sessions. [11] [12]
The executive vice president of the local Chamber of Commerce said in 1991 that TM practitioners, who make up from a quarter to a third of the town's population, "spend a great portion of their days in the Domes". [13] The Men's Dome is typically occupied 14 hours a day. [14] MUM President Bevan Morris said in 2009 that there have been "something like 30 million hours of transcending" in the domes. [15]
Attendees range from MUM faculty and students (who receive academic credit for meditating), [16] to business owners and executives. [17] [18]
Yogic Flyers living in Fairfield who are not part of the university are said to be members of the "Town Super Radiance" (TSR) community. [19]
- ^ Bogumil 2006.
- ^ Knopp 1998, p. 182–182.
- ^ Williamson 2010, p. 10.
- ^ Lee 2006.
- ^ Lee 2004.
- ^ Howard 1996.
- ^ Strauss 1987.
- ^ Crawford 1991.
- ^ Jimenez 1995.
- ^ Review 2001e.
- ^ D'Antonio 1992, pp. 249–250.
- ^ Knopp 1998, p. 159.
- ^ Saari 1991.
- ^ Review 2001a.
- ^ TMB 2009.
- ^ DePalma 1992.
- ^ AP 1990.
- ^ Review 1996.
- ^ Review 2002b.
It is directly related to the domes, and is not "coatracking". Will Beback talk 23:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
(←)Unless there are specific, policy-based objections, I'll put in this material is not how it works. Articles are written by consensus. One editor does not get to tell the others what arguments they are or are not willing to accept. See Wikipedia:Consensus#Reaching_consensus_through_discussion. Cusop Dingle ( talk) 07:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
The sentences The Transcendental Meditation movement has conducted a number of assemblies bringing together thousands of Yogic Flyers in the hope of positively influencing the United States and the world. The largest assembly brought together 7,000 Yogic Flyers for several weeks starting in December 1983. are unsourced and it is thus not clear whether they refer to assemblies held in these structures, in which case they are relevant, or elsewhere, in which case they are not. Cusop Dingle ( talk) 22:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)