Talk:Maharishi International University/Archive 1

His Holiness

Delete "His Holiness."

Um, you could've done this. But I went ahead and removed it along with the POV tag. Although it should be noted that his followers do refer to him as His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, so I don't really know if that makes it NPOV or not. Adm58 17:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

New templates

Added a "main" template at top and "navigation" template at bottom. Tanaats 01:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Moving text from TM page to here

Per discussion on the Transcendental Meditation Talk page, I've moved the MUM-related material here. Tanaats 18:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

last two paragraphs

I see a bit of edit warring going on regarding the last two paragraphs. Note that the Citation tags have been there for some time. Seems like sources should be found, or else they can legitimately be deleted.TimidGuy 12:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm copying one of the sentences here in case I can ever come up with a cite. " A recent guide shows MUM received a rating of 1.5 out of a possible 5, the lowest rating of Midwestern colleges and universities in the opinion of educators who were surveyed." (Tanaats)

Oops. looks like you forgot your signature. Seems like we could remove the fact tag on the last sentence. Notice that the links in the sentence give the info about the University's performance on those measures.TimidGuy 02:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Distinguishing Features

I am removing the following sentence from the "Academics" sub-section, as there is nothing "distinguishing" about the subjects

"Students may choose from a range of majors in the arts, sciences, business, and humanities, receiving traditional training in these fields." --BwB (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and the auto-signing bot seems to be shut down.

Removing the fact tag works for me. Tanaats 04:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tanaats.TimidGuy 12:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

last two paragraphs

This article is a stub. Articles in Wikipedia about universities mention survey data from US News, etc., only after a long introduction that includes history, curriculum, student body, etc. The last two paragraphs were details, not the kind of thing that should be in a stub. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roseapple (talk • contribs) 01:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Whoops, sorry I forgot to sign Roseapple 01:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Roseapple

Heya Rose- welcome.

I vigirously disagree that that there is a specific template for how pages on universities are allowed to look or how they are done. I also strongly disagree that there are certain details appropriate or not appropriate to subs.... mainly because the way to turn a stub into an article is to, well, add details!

Instead of deleting things, why not fill out the article? Sethie 01:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. I'm not saying there's a template or something isn't "allowed." I'm saying that it's not well written when it includes details before the subject is thoroughly introduced. Roseapple 01:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Roseapple

It is a stub! The goal is not to be well written! The goal is to gather data to create an article. Erasing cited information doesn't an article make. Sethie 01:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If we took out the last two paragraphs then it would be a well written stub. What's wrong with that? Roseapple 02:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Rosie

Also, I see the second to last paragraph has no citation for the last sentence. Roseapple 02:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this violates the guideline of undue weight. I propose that it be deleted until the article is filled out and a citation found. That citation tag has been there for months. TimidGuy 12:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to remove the uncited fact, I am digging for the source.

Also, which portion of the undue weight guideline are you proposing it violates? Sethie 17:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph deletions

Roseapple, please stop deleting those two paragraphs. It is absolutely "not done" to delete well-sourced material without discussion on the Talk page.

I'm new to this whole thing, so don't know the rules. Can you point me to info? Thanks Roseapple

Hi Roseapple. You aren't expected to know all the rules when you first show up, but you are also expected to not act as though you do. I tried to very nice and say "please stop" when I originally reverted your deletions. Sethie also tried to talk you out of doing that. You kept doing it. Maybe I was too short on patience, but I didn't want to keep having to revert your edits and no one seemed to be getting your attention.

First, I very strongly suggest that you completely stop deleting stuff without discussing it first on the Talk page and also receiving consensus that the deletion should be made. You need to get more experience before you go around deleting multiple entire paragraphs on your own (even with more experience it's a risky move). In general if you make any sort of edit and someone reverts it, open a discussion on the Talk page about it instead of going back and making the exact same edit again.

To begin your formal education I suggest reading WP:5 and following the links from that page. You'll also learn a lot from following discussions on the Talk pages of the articles you are involved with. And by asking questions on the Talk pages.

We'll start completely over. Welcome to our little group! Tanaats 04:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tanaats, for being gracious and suggesting "we'll start completely over." I don't understand the vandalism warning, though. I believe Rose was within the guideline of 3 reverts in 24 hours -- but just barely. TimidGuy 12:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

(Roseapple, the issue is indeed completely forgotten, I'm just responding to TimigGuy's question re obscure points of "Wikipedia law", nothing personal.) I joined the RCP a few ago weeks, and have learned a lot since then. Actually, the WP:3RR rule has nothing to do with the question of whether an edit is "vandalism" or not. But repeatedly deleting well-sourced material in the face of multiple informal requests not to do so is considered vandalism irregardless of whether 3RR is being violated or not. BTW I'm changing the heading of this section and editing the first paragraph. I've also removed the warning from her Talk page.) Tanaats 19:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tanaats, for your kindness in editing your comments and her Talk page. I accept your point about removing souced content. TimidGuy 22:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I'm back. I really appreciate everyone trying to educate me. Obviously I should have known more before my first try at editing. The WP5 link is very helpful. Sorry for causing such an uproar. Roseapple 19:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

No problemo. Welcome back Tanaats 21:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Nomination

I nominated the entirety of the #Distinguishing Features section for POV.

As a fact, the history section is POV, due to the editor's choice of quoting original sources verbatim. I tried to remove some of the more POV words and I think even it can't be completely neutral, at least it wouldn't be said as a POV-pushing section.

However, even I know MUM is much related to the TM movement, nearly the entirety of the #Distinguishing Features looked like a MUM ad piece, written by fanatics of the movement. Hence I considered this as non-neutral (correct me if I'm wrong) and nominated it for NPOV.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 07:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

"Fanatics"? Whatever happened to WP:AGF and WP:CIV? I agree that parts of this could have a more neutral tone. TimidGuy 11:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Just looking over your changes -- I think they're good overall. Thank. TimidGuy 11:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, now I have assumed good faith. Now what we need to do is to make that section more like that for MUM, not that for TM in general. --Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 12:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Just reading this article... I think we can clean it up so its more neutral in tone. I'll start working on it in the next few days if that's ok with everyone.(olive 19:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC))

Thanks, Samuel, for AGF. Good work, Olive, on the section on the block system. This is definitely in the direction we need to go to attain NPOV. TimidGuy 11:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I have went on cleaning up-- but there are a bit of block. #All Knowledge Interconnected are too TM a subsection for me to decipher; and I can't read between the lines as for why sanskrit is needed in MUM. I suppose TimidGuy and olive are more knowledgeable in TM to enlighten me. --Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 12:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You sure have been cleaning up -- with liberal use of your delete key. : ) This is good feedback. Yes, I think we do need to say something about why Sanskrit is part of the curriculum. I'm working under deadline and can't do anything at the moment. Likely Olive will be here. Maybe Gold Apple, who wrote most of this first draft, will return. TimidGuy 15:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added a bit of explanation to "pad out" some of this material, including a short quote to explain Sanskrit. Some of the links seem to not be working or appropriate so I will check on those soon to make sure everything is ok , unless someone else does it . At any rate I think the article is no longer a NPOV problem.(olive 18:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC))

Concern about adding too many links

I have been checking citations and links to make sure everything works . I realized that by adding links on much of this information I am linking back to the university site repeatedly which starts to look like an advertising ploy which isn't the intention. Any thoughts on this? Do we need the links or is it enough to just link back to the university site once in the beginning. (olive 15:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC))

I'd say that the best thing to do would be to look at articles about some major universities, especially if one has been selected as a Featured Article, to see what the convention is. TimidGuy 16:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The convention seems to be to not use links back to the university site... I checked four different universities ...So, I or some one else can delete links back to the MUM site with the exception of one link in the introductory paragraph. Hope that sounds OK. (olive 20:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC))

A little bit of weightiness-ness

I should have been stopped meddling with this article since I don't know MUM at all, but, IMO, the long Sample List of research studies is unnecessarily long compared to the weight of the article. I think just attaching a link from the MUM website for those is just okay. --Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 14:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Samuel. I don't know if it's a violation of undue weight but agree with you that there may be a better way to handle this. It does interfere with the readability of the article. I'll give some thought to how it might be fixed. Maybe Gold Apple will have an idea how to fix it. TimidGuy 14:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag removed

I've removed the tag since nothing in the section following it seems more than facts.Sueyen 20:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Current editing for MUM

Its tough to make this kind of article not look like an advertisement, for example look at Harvard University.I agree that there are changes that could be made here to help this article read in a more encyclopedic fashion. I have to be out of town today, but could look at this tomorrow, if thats OK with any other editors interested in this project.(olive (talk) 13:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC))

I've started to edit this article for advert. tone . More later.... There may be material that can be added at this point as well, to create a more factual and interesting article . (olive (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC))

Thanks, Olive. I think you've done a good job. Someone vandalized the date on the template, and I went ahead and deleted it, since there hasn't been any discussion and since you did a nice job of pruning some problem areas. TimidGuy (talk) 11:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Although the students do a form of meditation here, this is a completely American university with students from all over the world who practice whatever religion they might have.(olive (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC))

Repetitive mentioning of Parsons College

Littleolive oil's addition today should belong to Parsons College, not here. MUM is clearly not descendant of Parsons.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 04:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Including a short history on the background of Parsons College gives the reader a sense of how and why the land and university facility was originally established, and helps this article read less like an advertisement. Other university articles have historical information . The fact that the campus changed hands so to speak doesn't mean that the history is not interesting or pertinent to an understanding of a campuses' background. Since there are still many buildings on the MUM campus that were built during Parsons days including a restored building on the National Register of Historic Places, such an inclusion seems appropriate. I am not attached to this one way or the other but would like comment from other editors.(olive (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC))

My original intention was to add a little more material here, as well, to make a smoother transition from historical to present day information.(olive (talk) 12:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC))

Since there is Parsons College already, and since MUM is not the corporate successor of Parsons (and MUM clearly won't claim that, given Parsons' bad rep during its final years), I don't see the point in including them in the MUM article. Interested readers can click on the wikilink if they want to. --Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 14:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

We are including a history of the campus itself, how it was purchased and so on, which I think is pertinent. I'd still like input from other editors besides you and me, and then maybe an agreement can be reached on the material.(olive (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC))

Maybe a compromise would be to condense it a bit. It's nice to have some context because sometimes the press gets it wrong, saying stuff like "took over Parsons College." I don't' see a problem with briefly indicating when it was established, sectarian background, and closure. You're right, Samuel, that MUM is somewhat eager to distance itself from the Parsons legacy, particularly the Millard Roberts era. TimidGuy (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I could compromise on this and cut it down as TG suggests. Seems like a good "in-between" idea.(olive (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC))

Let olive did the condensation first and see what happens.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 23:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Please add comments

Its pretty hard to not write about a university and not make it sound like an advertisement. I did check out other articles on universities and found the same concerns. I am in the process of adding material on the history, for example that should add perspective. This article has come a long way, from its initial incarnation. However, Antelan, please add here, any constructive comments you might have to improve the article. I would appreciate it. Thanks for your comment.(olive (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC))

Actually, we write about thousands of universities without advertising for (most of) them. It can be done here, as well. This article has two major problems right now: (1) a paucity of sources, and (2) an excess of external links. So far, I've worked on rewording the overtly promotional language without removing the underlying message. Antelan^talk 02:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

In think most of these changes are good. Note that the "fluff'" language is how the university describes itself so it can be allowed, but there may be better ways of saying it. I also am not attached to it. I'll go through the whole thing tomorrow and may be able to make more changes and or look more closely at what you did . I would also appreciate any other editor's comments. Thanks Anatelan.(olive (talk) 02:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC))

The fact that the university uses fluff to describe itself does not mean that we can use such language. This is an encyclopedic article about the university, not for it. Thanks for your comments. Antelan^talk 03:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not what I meant ....There are ways of describing how the university sees itself without creating a sense of advertising, for example by quoting the institution, although I think quotes can weaken an article . At any rate I'm fine with that change and will work on the article tomorrow. I think I'll have some time.(olive (talk) 03:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC))

I think quoting the university would pretty much take us in the opposite direction. They are, of course, the ones who stand to benefit the most from creating a good image of themselves. Every university speaks about itself in superlatives - it's not our job to parrot that. Antelan^talk 03:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! You're fast. We are talking a little at cross purposes but no matter. We can agree on this!(olive (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC))

Hah, yes I edit conflicted when I tried to post this: "I'm sure you'll do good work, so I won't belabor the point here. I think we are both working in the same direction." Looks like we agree! Antelan^talk 03:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

GarryGere's additions

Of course if his content is not WP:OR and have reliable sources, his content can stay. IMO, in this stage his content is still original research.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 05:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to clarify my reason for deleting this section for the editor who added it. Most universities place blocks on certain sites. Those sites can include anything , but probably often include sites like pornographic sites. If we are going to add sites blocked by this or any university then we should include all or at least a flavour of the different kinds of sites blocked to be neutral. One of these sites is not negative to TM, the other more so . The issue is that this kind of information is fringe to a discussion of any university. Note also that one of these links to a site that is selling a technique ... spam link, so should not be allowable under Wikipedia policy/guidelines. If the material is sourced, neutral and is not fringe it could be added, but at the moment it isn't any of these. As I said when I first removed the material , it is fringe material, and is as well presented in a non neutral manner.(olive (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC))

Links and tag

Although there may be a few places where links could be added to this article many links were removed because they link to the university created a sense of advertising. I will check the article in the next week or so for links we could add, but tagging the article seems an inaccurate reading of what is needed here.(olive (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC))

I think the tag referred to wiki links -- internal to Wikipedia. TimidGuy (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops! My mistake. Apologies!(olive (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC))

Still, I sure don't see why it was added. It's hard to see what else might be wiki-linked. And there's a Wikipedia guideline that advises against too much wikilinking. From my cursory glance, the main terms are linked. TimidGuy (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Too many wikilinks and the they become distracting.(olive (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC))

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Maharishi International University/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article has developed nicely so far. At present it has a good overall structure, meets general MOS requirements and its sections and sequence of topics have been modeled after other Wiki articles like Harvard and Yale. It is well sourced and contains all of the basic material for a good article. What it needs: Some good editing for cohesion and flow Some outside editors to assess and edit the Reception section Some more photos -- — Kbob • Talk • 20:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 02:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 21:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)