Talk:Maharishi International University/Archive 2

Rankings, perception

This article needs a section discussing the university's place in well-established rankings and external perceptions of its unique curriculum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.159.79.134 (talk) 02:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

good idea --Kbob (talk) 01:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with this. Also, are there no more famous alumni? Surely a university proposing to develop the full potential of the individual would have produced many famous and successful alumni? Bigweeboy

See this section has not been updated in many months. No famouns MUM graduates? Bigweeboy (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they have an alumni association or something on their web site. --Kbob (talk) 03:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added some notable alumni with citations.--Kbob (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I added some more "famous" alums today. --BwB (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Distinguishing Features

Academic

I am removing the following sentence, 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)

Health

Removing the list of meals, as it is unnecessary. --BwB (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Research

Some of the information in this section is repetition of material in the "Maharishi International University, Fairfield (1974-present)" section. Perhaps a project to rewrite these sections to ensure no overlap is in order (I'm not volunteering!). --BwB (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Things to Add

It would be nice if we could add some information on the following topics:

• Student Activities
• Athletics
• Faculty and Research

-- — Kbob • Talk • 14:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to Remove the Prior History of Parson College Campus section

I find the section about the prior campus history, to be a distraction to the article and don't feel it adds anything of value. What do others think?-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I added it after looking at the histories of other colleges and universities, Yale for example. I think it adds a dimension to the understanding of how the college came to be which some might find interesting.(olive (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC))

I see you've removed the sentence on the move from California to Parsons. I think this sentence needs to be there somewhere even if in the preceding section to make the connection between Parsons and the original campus clear.(olive (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC))

OK, good points, I have added a few sentences as segues between the sections. Please feel free to correct/edit as you like. I am OK with leaving the current section on Parsons History now that I have looked at other articles like Yale, Harvard etc.-- — Kbob • Talk • 00:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I also think this is a distraction. The material on Parsons isn't relevant to the MUM, and some of it isn't even relevant to the campus. I'm going to rewrite it from scratch as a paragraph, and merge all of the history into one section.   Will Beback  talk  00:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Rather than fresh text I copied the serviceable text from the Parsons College intro.   Will Beback  talk  01:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys. The next time you want to make this kind of change please give other editors a chance to respond before making changes. I don't agree with the change especially given WP:UNIGUIDE and after the Christmas will tale a closer look at it . Thanks. (olive (talk) 03:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

Here's the text from WP:UNIGUIDE:

• History — Describe the history of the college/university, including noteworthy milestones in its development such as sexual and racial integration, major campus expansions, foundation of new schools, notable student protests or reforms, and impact of major historical events like wars. It is a good idea to include old pictures of buildings which no longer exist or photos traditions practiced centuries ago. You can find many old images on public domain image search engines.

I don't see anything there about listing the number of trustees of the previous owner of the campus. From what I gather, the most relevant history would concern some buildings that were replaced, but that's better dealt with later, in the 1980s.   Will Beback  talk  06:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Article Format and Flow

I took a look at the Wiki articles for Harvard, Yale and Princeton and though there was some minor variations they all had a format like this:

• Lede
• History
• Campus
• Academics
• Student Life/Campus Life
• Athletics
• Alumni

So I decided to be bold WP:BOLD and rearranged this article to follow suit. The main change was that I moved the Campus section up from the bottom of the article to third place under History. I also fiddled with the Distinguishing Characteristics section as it seemed to be a little bit peacock-ish. WP:PEACOCK I think this is a good improvement to the overall article. However if the consensus from other editors is that I have made a big mess :-) then we can consider doing a deep revert. Comments? -- — Kbob • Talk • 01:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Consciousness-Based

Will, nice work on the clean up.I thought it odd that there were links to the MUM site for every degree program. Glad to see its revised. One thing however, Consciousness-Based is a pronoun and trademark and both words are capitalized so I have changed it back. thanks,-- — Kbob • Talk • 03:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

In this section we have the sentence "Consciousness-Based education is said to include both personal experience and intellectual understanding of knowledge and its possible source." Can we not simply say: "Consciousness-Based education includes both personal experience and intellectual understanding of knowledge and its source"? --BwB (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

yes 'possible' is weasel wording and should be removed. WP:WEASEL -- — Kbob • Talk • 20:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Consistent: M.U.M. or MUM

We need to be consistent with our use of abr. from Maharishi University of Management, I feel. Do we want M.U.M. or MUM? --BwB (talk) 16:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

MUM is given in parenthesis after the first mention of the subject. This is easiest and OK with me. -- — Kbob • Talk • 20:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

OK Let's use "MUM" them. I'll clean up the text. --BwB (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Enrollment - 78% foreign students

KBob, before you delete something claiming that it's not in the source material, you might consider actually reading the source material first. Why are you claiming that the source material doesn't reflect the 78% foreign student figure? You've got to scroll down a little bit on the second footnote, but if you bother to do that, you come to this table:

Maharishi Student Body

In 2007, Maharishi had a total enrollment of 948 students (813 full-time equivalent).

Students in the Freshman Class:Group Percent

• Full-Time 100%

Students By Class:Group Percent

• Undergraduate 29%
• Graduate 71%

Racial Diversity:Race Percent

• White 14%
• Black 1%
• Hispanic 1%
• Asian 1%
• American Indian 0%
• Unknown 5%
• (Foreign Students) 78%

Students by Age:Age Percent

• Under 18 0%
• 18-19 5%
• 20-21 7%
• 22-24 13%
• 25-29 42%
• 30-34 17%
• 35-39 8%
• 40-49 4%
• 50-64 3%
• 65+ 1%

[Emphasis added] Fladrif (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

And, where does "large minority enrollment" come from? Other than the foreign students, it looks from the above statistics that you could fit the entire US-born minority enrollment around a large dinner table. Fladrif (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Fladrif, Sorry that. I reverted your edit. I have place the 78% back in the article now that I see its in the source. My mistake, I didn't see it further down on the page. Sometimes this happens. I see that you have missed the sentence in the MUM source that says: "Students numbered 948 in 2007 at Maharishi. The school has a large minority student population." Which I had put in the article and you had deleted. So we both make mistakes sometimes. Let's be patient with each other and try to avoid sarcastic comments like "KBob, before you delete something claiming that it's not in the source material, you might consider actually reading the source material first." I did look at both sources but I also made a mistake too. In the future let's give each other the benefit of the doubt and bring innocent errors to each others attention in a neutral way, OK? Thanks for your help with the article. All the best, -- — Kbob • Talk • 17:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so MUM's website is the source on the "large minority enrollment". Sorry. Missed that. Leaving aside what "large" is supposed to mean, the statement is extraordinarily misleading. When other colleges and universities calculate their "minority enrollment", and when governmental and other agencies report those figures, foreign students are not counted as "minorities". If the above table is accurate, the minority enrollment , excluding foreign students, is 25-30? Of course, that could be as much as 14-15% of the non-foreign students. That's not really really a high percentage compared to other schools around the country. Maybe whatever is buried in the "Unknown" category brings the percetage up to a higher figure. But, even doubling it would just be in the average range. So, I'm skeptical of the "large" claim. Fladrif (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Fladrif, we don't have to say 'large' we can say 'significant' or 'strong' or something like that. Whatever you think is best for creating balance and a good article. I am sorry about the prior misunderstandings. I like to stick to the sources and I am not one to put in spam links or to take liberties with a source even though I know there have been instances when it appeared that way. So anytime you see that I have made a mistake please let me know and we can quickly clear it up. Thanks for your patience and understanding. I think we can work together in this way. I will also try to 'assume good faith' in regard to your citations in the future as well as in the past I may have jumped the gun a few times. Glad we are getting this cleared up. -- — Kbob • Talk • 00:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit the statement seems misleading to me too. Generally minority has to do with relationships of one group to another. Minority in this case I would think refers to the United States in which the minority groups are not Caucasian. However, in China the Caucasian is in the minority. Foreign students are not minorities in their own countries and to define them as that here is not accurate in my mind. I would just remove the material. It really gives very little useful information.(olive (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC))

There are two sources cited in that section. Both of them give a lot of detailed statistics and information. Fladrif felt that it would be valuable for the reader to know that 78% of the student population is foreign. Which is fine. I'm sure he had his reasons. I thought this sentence stuck out a bit and seemed out of context, so I added two other, related sentences about minority and MUM being third in foreign students in Iowa. So that's the history of it. We certainly could discuss making adjustments. The main thing is that we have good text that is valuable to the reader.-- — Kbob • Talk • 13:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Since Fladrif had also questioned the minority sentence, I have removed it for the time being.-- — Kbob • Talk • 13:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the 78% was a bit of a non sequitur. That whole section is weak since the analysis of the student body moves into the quite unrelated student council information. More information on the student body could be included while the student council information could be expanded moved to its own section. (olive (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC))

I just thought it was interesting that nearly 80% of the enrollment was foreign students. I had no idea that was the case. I'm sure that's among the highest percentage of any college or university in the country, and it's something notable about MUM. That's all. I didn't know where else to put it in the article. I think the ensuing edits have put it in better context.Fladrif (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Among the other things that might be noted from the stats here and at the NCACS site about the student body is that it is 1/3 undergrad, 2/3 grad; unusually high male:female student ratio more than 2:1. Switching to faculty, are the figures being reported various places on faculty salaries right or is there something misleading about them? McDonalds pays more for flipping burgers or tending a fry basket! And, are male faculty really paid twice what female faculty are paid for the same jobs? Hasn't somebody sued? Shouldn't this go in the article somewhere?Fladrif (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Everyone is paid about the same for the same jobs. There are two areas (funded research, computer science) where faculty receive substantially more money, and it happens that the faculty in those two areas tend to be male. The difference is great enough that it would skew things when averaged among all the faculty, giving the appearance that male faculty are paid twice as much. TimidGuy (talk) 10:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Which then leaves the question of why MUM pays professors less than MickeyD's pays apprentice frycooks. That isn't even minimum wage, as near as I can figure.Fladrif (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

My general comment is that there is lots of good information in these citations. We need to be careful though about drawing our own conclusions from the data. We also don't want to just create a bunch of dry statistical sentences either. So we need to use good judgement in this area, I think. The best thing would be to find secondary sources that give objective statements about the students and faculty rather than trying to find a way to work this data into the article on our own.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Reception section

I've done some editing on the Reception section, first paragraph. I believe this it to be a more comprehensive application of the information in the Times article.(olive (talk) 04:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC))

I have no problem whatsoever with these edits on the material from the NYTimes article.Fladrif (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I have now removed the Reception section, recently added, to maintain consistency with every article on a university I checked. I checked 14 universities and they all have a very consistent format and tone. The tone is neutral to positive, none has a reception section into which can be dumped negative information about the university, and with only one significant exception, Kent State, there was there very little or no negativity about the university included anywhere in the articles. (The Kent state tragedy was a huge, nationally publicized tragedy). Even in that article the section on the Kent State tragedy is used to describe a very positive outcome for the university.

Initially, I attempted to work on the reception section, but discovered these concern:

• Patterson's comment about accreditation is not significant. This is the only comment I've ever seem questioning the actual, accrediting body and accredaitation team and the comment is made by someone who is not an expert. As an aside a little research indicates MUM has to this date from their last accreditation visit reveived the longest accreditation time given by the accrediting body -10 years.
• Comment by one student is thirty years old and weightd the section. Every university has students who don't like the school.No university article I saw had this kind if student comment on its page or any student comment for that matter.
• The Christian Research Journal is not a reliable source [2].(Roark's comment)

These are concerns, but the major issue is that this article is being held to some standard completely inconsistent with other Wikipedia articles on this subject, and would be enough to seriously question the inculsion of this section.

For general informaton: Attempts to establish consistency in articles on universities see, WP:Universities.(olive (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC))

Universities I checked:Yale, Harvard, Grinnel College, University Of Iowa, University of Chicago, University of California, Berkeley, Oxford, Rhode Island School of Design, University of Missouri, Thaddeus Stevens College of Technology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Kent State University, Memorial University

Well reasoned approach to removing the section. --BwB (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It is an ill-reasoned and sloppily researched approach. WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a justification for removing reliably-sourced material from an article. And, while MUM may regard itself as the Harvard of Fairfield, Iowa, your comparisons are inapt. Take alook at other colleges and universities affiliated with religious institutions: Liberty University, Bob Jones University, Oral Roberts University, just to name a few. See also University of Pennsylvania,DePauw University, Warnborough CollegeCollege of DuPage I could go on, but I won't. Fladrif (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed it, but the reference you give to support your claim that the Christian Research Journal is not a reliable source makes no mention of that publication, and is a different website, www.apologetics.index.org, not www.equip.org. Fladrif (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry incorrect link... not reliable by Wikipedia standards [3]

The universities I checked randomly all came up without controversy sections, and there were many. Harvard, whose foundation is religious, has a long history, and why I chose some of the older schools, long enough for lots of controversy, but yet nothing like that is in their article. What we can say is, conceding partially to your point, is that some universities have a controversy section some do not. What are we going to do here? I can say for starters the section has to be cleaned up . Besides the concerns I listed above, it violates NPOV. Your position is no more valid than mine. Unless we go through every article on every university and determine the percentage with controversy sections and the percentage with out we'll never have a definitive view. I'm not going to do that, so no basis for either one of us to say their position is the right one. I won't revert to my position, but the section needs to be brought into line with NPOV, and we need to deal with the concerns I listed above.(olive (talk) 23:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC))

and in this situation WP:OTHERSTUFF did not apply since every school I looked at was consistent. So no reason given that information to create a precedent for this one school. Since you've come up with schools with controversy sections its a different situation.(olive (talk) 00:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC))

It is also interesting to note that the editor who added the "Reception" section choose to only add controversial material. There is no doubt that if we all took the time to do the research, we could come up with dozens of article that have positive things to say about the university. And I cannot see Flad's point of comparing MUM with "other colleges and universities affiliated with religious institutions". MUM is not a university affiliated with and religious institutions. --BwB (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The New York Times made the comparison with colleges strongly associated with religious institutions because MMY's teachings are woven into every single subject matter taught, in the same manner that religious doctrine is intermixed with subjects at those kinds of church-affiliated colleges and universities. Without re-debating the point of whether or not TM is a religion, if you can't see the point of why the comparison is made or why one should look to articles on religious-affiliated schools as examples for this article, perhaps you should meditate on it. Fladrif (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Oohhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm :-) -- — Kbob • Talk • 16:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

So you are a Sanyasi! At least, I hope so for your sake, as the Maharishi said that if a householder uses Om as a mantra, it will have a destructive influence on his life, and women should never use a mantra that includes Om, as it is "like fire to the ladies". Beacon Light, pp 66-67 (PDF pp 90-91) Fladrif (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Fladrif you are officially a TM expert! -- — Kbob • Talk • 21:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Picture missing

I made some edits to the Info Box. Now it seems the photo is not showing. If anyone can help fix it I'd appreciate it.-- — Kbob • Talk • 02:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Christian Research Journal

Regarding the use of the Christian Research Journal, see WP:SOURCES, which says, "Care should be taken in evaluating the quality of journals, as journals created to promote a particular viewpoint may claim peer review, but have no meaningful peer review outside of adherents of the viewpoint they promote. Such journals generally represent the consensus view among such adherents, but may otherwise be considered unreliable." The Christian Research Journal exists to promote a particular viewpoint: "Our goal is to equip Christians with the information they need to discern doctrinal errors, evangelize people of other faiths, and provide a strong defense of Christian beliefs and ethics." [4]. TimidGuy (talk) 10:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The text you deleted, is reporting not the opinion of the author but the statements of MUM's former Dean and Dept Chair Dennis Roark about the school. WP:Sources says use care with journals promoting a POV; it does not say summarily delete the material. Are you suggesting that the author of the article and the editors simply made this up? As I'm sure you know, one can readily verify that Roark has said those things and more that is even less flattering about MUM. While this source may push a POV, the substance of what it is reporting can be readily verified, and therefore it is perfectly appropriate and proper to use under WP:SOURCES, and your deletion is improper. Fladrif (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Notice of post on RS Notice board

I have posted a request for input from outside editors on the RS Noticeboard here [5]

So, I take it that your attitude toward RSN is that, if someone there disagrees with you, its something that can be ignored [6] but if someone agrees with you, that's a binding consensus. Are those the ground rules here? 13:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Well the consensus is that it's *not* a reliable source and you need to bear that in mind, whatever your current dispute is on this talkpage. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No. Per the example of these TM-org affiliated editors, a couple of uninvolved editors doesn't establish a consensus- unless they happen to agree with whatever they are pushing on these pages. But, more to the point, consensus cannot override policy. And per WP:V, this is a perfectly acceptable reliable source for the limted purpose it is being used here. A knee-jerk reaction that a journal with an editorial POV of Christian apoligetics is automatically not a reliable source evidences prejudice rather than thoughful application of these policies. If this is a proper application of WP policies, then I should think that everything in these TM-related articles published by TM-affiliated officials, organizations and employees, should be summarily stricken.Fladrif (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to argue it out with the blocking admin if you chose to edit-war over the matter. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Is that supposed to be a threat?Fladrif (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems that most editors on the RS Notice feel that the source is not reliable. --BwB (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Lets clarify:

• RS Notice board input suggested Beacon Light of the Himalayas is a primary source, and only be used in tandem with a reliable secondary source. This is the way Beacon Light is being used in the TM article here:

In a speech the Maharishi gave in Kerala, India, in 1955, he mentions a connection between the mantras and personal deities and occasionally similar references can also be found in his later works.

• The word "crackpot" from John Hagelin was taken to the BLP/Notice board. General agreement here was that the use of the word violated WP: BLP. Only two editors who gave input on BLP plus Fladrif felt that the word was appropriate. When I rewrote /reordered the section that contained "crackpot", I did not remove the word. Only later when Will Beback, and all editors here, except one, suggested another phrase be substituted did I finally take out the word crackpot.
• Four uninvolved editors, plus editors here agree the Christian Research Journal is not a reliable source. Notice board input is not binding , but consistent with use of the Noticeboards here at this time, and consistent with an overwhelming agreement from involved and uninvolved editors; this source should not be considered reliable. (olive (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC))

The only consistency in these TM-related articles, is the consistency with with the TM-Org affiliated editors push their POV by every means available to them. Fladrif (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is collaborative. Four uninvolved editors agree the source is not reliable. One involved editor insists the source is reliable. What do we do? Go with one editor who is involved, or four who are not? The answer is obvious. And your attack is an ad hominem.(olive (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC))

Resolved

Barron's article

• According to a 2004 article in Barron's magazine "some of the most convincing research has come out of the Institute for Natural Medicine and Prevention... at Maharishi University of Management".
  • Barron's, Mind Over Markets, April 19 2004, Robin Blumenthal, [7]

Could we please see the entire sentence, or preferably the entire paragraph, from which this excerpt was extracted? Omitting the type of research being referred to leaves the statement unclear.   Will Beback  talk  23:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Will, I took out the words "College of Vedic Medicine". There is a link to the article within the ref. Why don't you just take a look. If you feel we should quote the entire sentence verbatim I would not have any objection.-- — Kbob •Talk • 22:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I notice that sometimes when you access the URL the entire article is not visible, however I was able to access it after repeated tries. In case your having trouble, here's the entire sentence:"Some of the most convincing research has come out of the Institute for Natural Medicine and Prevention at the College of Vedic Medicine in Fairfield, Iowa, part of the Maharishi University of Management".-- — Kbob • Talk • 23:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that, but it's not clear what kind of research are they are talking about.   Will Beback  talk  23:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

After that sentence the article then talks about the NIH grants etc. Its a long article and if I could cut and paste I'd show more text but I don't have time to retype entire paragraphs, sorry.

-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It's the sentences before that are probably most important, because I presume they'd indicate what kind of research is being discussed. the material we have in the article now is something of a non sequitor. Does Barron's mean that, of all research ever conducted in human history, the most convincing comes from MUM? Or does that article deal with a particular branch of human knowledge?   Will Beback  talk  22:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Bans

Will... I'm not sure why you are insisting on using the word ban...Its not quite the right word... and its not in the source.... you did ask for a source, right...Whatever, but seems unusual to me.(olive (talk) 06:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC))

They don't ban tobacco, alcohol, or drugs?   Will Beback  talk  06:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The edit by olive was incorrect.[8] The Student Handbook also prohibits students from using alcohol during off-campus events.[9] The policy is strictly enforced, according to the handbook, so "banned" or "prohibited" are appropriate words. Saying that "MUM is a drug-free campus" asserts that there are no drugs on the campus, not just that they're prohibited. Short of conducting a full search, there's no way of determining whether MUM is drug-free.   Will Beback  talk  06:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The source says drug free...."prohibited" is fine since one of the sources says that too.... The terms smoke free for tabacco free is well used ... but as I said, whatever ...I thought you wanted the source, and the language from the source is what I used.(olive (talk) 06:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for providing the source. I was able to find a better one. I don't think any of the sources claim that the campus is smoke-free or alcohol-free, just that that is the policy.   Will Beback  talk  07:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree, its not accurate to say smoke free or drug free for the reasons you stated. The word prohibits is better.-- — Kbob • Talk • 23:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

No pictures? It'd be great to have some photographs of the campus. Wikipedia is so strict on copyrights that the best thing would be for an editor or an editor's friend to take some pictures and release them under one of the GFDL-type licenses.   Will Beback  talk  09:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. Good idea. Snapped one with my phone this morning. Will try to get it uploaded soon. And will look around to see what else I have. TimidGuy (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I love pictures and notice we don't have any on any of the TM and related articles.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Founding

• In 1971, [A. Nathaniel Goldhaber] established Maharishi International University, now an accredited institution offering undergraduate and graduate degrees in Fairfield, Iowa.[10]
• Once Maharishi officially inaugurated the project, Dr. Wallace became MIU’s first president, to establish the new university. [..] The faculty then traveled to Santa Barbara, California, where, in 1973, MIU started to offer its first classes.[11]

The New York Times said the MIU was founded in 1971 by Nat Goldhaber. MUM says it was founded in 1973 by Robert Keith Wallace. Any ideas about the discrepancy?   Will Beback  talk  05:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It was incorporated in 1971. Subsequently people who were becoming teachers of Transcendental Meditation were taught under the auspices of MIU. 1973 was the first year there was an actual campus, in Santa Barbara. Nat was the one who got the idea for the university. Keith Wallace was the founding president. TimidGuy (talk) 12:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that background. That helps. Is there any better history of the early years? The MUM website is a bit vague.   Will Beback  talk  12:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Alumni

I don't think that Greer, Gray, or Peckman graduated from MIU. The Wikipedia articles on Greer and Peckman just say that they attended. I don't believe Gray ever attended MIU. Most sources say his degrees are from Maharishi European Research University.[12]. TimidGuy (talk) 12:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The Gray source in the article is the Globe and Mail, which says, "...Mr. Gray got a couple of degrees from the Maharishi International University in Iowa,..." But you're right that there are many sources that mention MERU but not MUM. It may be overwhelming enough to discount the otherwise reliable source. As for the others, it's not necessary to graduate to become an alumnus. The definition includes former students.   Will Beback  talk  12:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Butler

The Butler stabbing subsection is almost half the length of the entire history section. As well in the entire history of the university this is the only unfortunate situation of its kind. This is a violation of undue weight. Any comments from other editors (olive (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC))

I'm not convinced the history section is the best place for this content, either. It is about a court case as well as an incident on the campus. It doesn't compare to the rest of the history section which is more of a chronology.(olive (talk) 02:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC))

What metric are you using for deciding weight? This incident appears to have received more coverage in the media than any other event at MUM, or even all other events combined. We can move it back to a section of its own, but it is part of the history so that's why I moved it there.   Will Beback  talk  02:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The court case involved the school, so it's part of the school's history too.   Will Beback  talk  02:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

And I might add that the Butler stabbing material is arranged chronologically, and fits into the history in chronological sequence.   Will Beback  talk  02:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

edit conflict

A university that goes about its everyday business is not of interest to the press. A small university that has an almost zero history of any kind of crime does become fodder for press when such an unusual incident occurs. Such press does not indicate the weight of the situation in terms of the university or of an encyclopedic article on the university. It merely indicates how a newspaper sells papers. The incident should be reported here but we should not give it more detail and length than anything else on the university. Common sense tells us a university is much more than a single case of this kind, but the amount of text and space devoted to this gives it more emphasis than anything else as if this was the single most important incident in the university history.(olive (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC))

Everything is part of the university history. Right now the history gives a more longitudinal sense of the sequence of events that shaped the university development. The Butler case is much more in depth than anything else in the history. That's what shifts the weight, gives excessive importance.(olive (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC))

If there are secondary sources that would allow us to expand the rest of the history then I'm all for that.   Will Beback  talk  03:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

That sidesteps the issue.The Butler case in relation to content on the university is not of the importance this article indicates. Expanding the article only deals with the space of the content, but doesn't deal with the detailed descriptions of of the case lending it importance it doesn't deserve.(olive (talk) 03:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC))

The other alternative is to spin it off into a separate article, leaving a summary.   Will Beback  talk  03:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to the weight this incident deserves, it appears that the other regular editors of this articles have thought that it deserved zero weight since none of them added any mention of it. I'm not going to say that that omission is related to the COI issues. But I do think that any neutral editor would agree that this belongs in the article based on the extensive media coverage. 03:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)   Will Beback  talk 

As far as I can remember It was formally in the TM technique article, then moved. So I think that's what accounts for it not being here. I believe there was discussion a couple of times about where it belonged, but from what I remember nothing definitive was decided so it just sat in the TM article.(olive (talk) 04:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC))

I can't speak for anyone else but a summary here and a split off of content into its own article would be one solution, or shortening and condensing what we have now another. Either would be fine.(olive (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC))

Why was there no mention of the case in this article? Why was it deleted from the other articles? This discussion, the only substantial one I can find, is not an example of neutral editing at its finest.[13] The case involved charges of cover-ups. If an event that is so well covered in the media gets deleted then maybe neutral editing is a problem after all.

The Butler material is well-sourced and neutral. It's only a small part of the whole article, so weight really isn't a problem.   Will Beback  talk  05:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hold on. There was a public, transparent discussion of the lawsuit which you also did not take part in. How is that non neutral. So the press decides a tragic incident is a cover up. Well that sells papers, I guess. But you probably noticed one of the articles you sourced which explained how just such events have occurred in other universities and why, because no on expects it. Lets not toss out red herrings into this discussion by implying non neutral editing. AGF. The point is weight. The jump from taking information in one of our sources to implying that some coverup is going on here is relatively outrageous, and side steps the issue we have control over, and what we are supposed to be discussing, this article.

To get back to the matter at hand. Moving the content out of the history section decrease weight slightly. Thanks for that compromise. It does't address the length in general, though, or the detail given to this one entry in the article. So more discussion is needed. (olive (talk) 14:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC))

I do not agree that the section is neutral. It is way too long, and while there may be notability to the event, there is too much POV. I think this was the only murder on that campus, ever. Most campuses unfortunately have a far higher rate and yet there is very little publicity about it because it is commonplace. I doubt wikipedians would post in depth sections about every such event. Further, facts are being presented in a biased way. I don't feel that sentences like "The attacks led critics to question the movement's claims that advanced meditation techniques could end violence," are intended to be neutral, they provide no new useful information since obviously critics of TM would use any negative even to question the usefulness of the technique, and present an eschewed point of view, given that the campus remains one of the safest in the country.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 06:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any POV in the material - it's just a summary of the facts reported in the sources. Have you read the sources? The quoted sentence is taken directly from an article in The Observer.[14] How many murders on other campuses in Iowa have been reported in London? I'll attribute it to make its source clearer. According to whom is this one of the safest campuses in the country? If we have a source for that we can add it.   Will Beback  talk  07:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

While I think it was fine where it was, as a compromise I've moved it back out of the history section per Olive's concerns.   Will Beback  talk  06:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Will, for moving. I, too, have questions regarding weight. If you do a search in Google News archives on "Maharishi University of Management" "Levi Butler" you get 29 hits. That's paltry compared to other facets of the University. If one searches on the two university names, one gets 1,560 results. By weight, the murder should be about 1.8% of the article. It's currently 9.3%. Also, I don't understand why your addition is completely one-sided. You're usually more cautious regarding NPOV. For example, you include the accusation of a coverup but entirely ignore the statement from the university. And you incorrectly say that the MVED suit was settled. It was dismissed. And Druhl's speculation is problematic. The sources say that Sem had stopped taking his medication months earlier but that he had been a student for six weeks. So that means he stopped taking it before he became a student. This hearsay and speculation shouldn't be in the article, especially since it's demonstrably factually incorrect. TimidGuy (talk) 12:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I was happy to move the material to address Olive's concern about overwhelming the history section, which I've added too as well. Anything to help.

Raw Google hits are a useless measure. No offense, but they're a waste of time.

What matters more is the degree of coverage among reliable secondary sources. While the section only uses nine sources, there are easily twice that number available. Is that the case for every other section of the article? Some don't have any secondary sources at all. What if we even the weight by deleting all sections that don't have three secondary sources? What of the article then? Would that fix the weight issues?

As for the medication details: sources?

Statement from the University: link?   Will Beback  talk  13:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like you're threatening. Why? You know that a topic can self define per Wikipedia. Sources that define the university by the university are acceptable and necessary.

Are you suggesting we remove all such sources in all university articles, like this one [15]. All university articles that i've looked at cite their own websites.

I suspect raw google hits are as accurate or more so than any one of us counting up sources. So I wouldn't discount google hits out of hand. Weight isn't necessarily decided by one factor but by an accumulation of them. Lets look at the total number of for and against points and come to a logical, group-decided agreement. As well, I think there are details in the addition that aren't necessary, and the sources give comments by the university which we haven't added here. Lets not get side tracked again(olive (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC))

That's the second time this week you've incorrectly accused me of making a threat.[16]

I don't think I've suggested removing any sources in this thread. That seems to be another inaccurate accusation.

If there are some responses from the university let's add them. I looked through the school newspaper but there was no mention of the incident there. None at all, it's as if it never happened. Is that what's meant by "self define"?

There is a response from the Maharishi. I'll see if I can find the verbatim version and add that.   Will Beback  talk  20:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You're mischaracterizing.(olive (talk) 02:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC))

Could you explain what I'm mischaracterizing, and give the correct characterization?   Will Beback  talk  02:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

There are discussions worth having. This isn't one of them. Thanks.(olive (talk) 02:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC))

OK.   Will Beback  talk  03:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this event and lawsuit is notable and deserves an appropriate mention in the article and it has been part of the article for some time. The current objections by some editors, including myself, are that the topic is being given undue weight and prominence, both in terms of its length and language. Every year for the last four years MUM has hosted a special weekend featuring David Lynch. A few months ago I added a single sentence to the MUM article about this event. If I had a strong POV or was trying to promote MUM I could have created a special section in the article on this event topic and included information and quotes from the many sources which reported on the event, not only this year, but for all four events. These events included appearances by David Lynch, Donovan and Moby, all of whom generate lots of press. I could have included details about the musical performances and celebrity appearances with appropriate Wiki links etc. But I did not do this. I felt it was only a minor part of the article as a whole and to give it that kind of prominence and coverage in the article would be inappropriate for a university article. The same with this Butler tragedy. It is my opinion that we should be making these same kind of neutral decisions now by creating text that covers the topic as reported by reliable sources but also keeping it minimal and in its context as one event (however tragic) in the history of many, many events, good or bad, that have occurred at MUM and been covered by the press over its 30 year history.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The only reason this has been in the article "for some time" is because I moved a very short description, focused on the lawsuit, from another article six weeks ago.[17] None of the involved editors, even those who participated in a major re-write, found it worth including.[18]

It'd be worthwhile to add more information on the Lynch events, but I don't see much about them in secondary sources. The only significant source for the Lynch weekends that I've found is this long L.A. Times piece, "A lotus amid the Iowa corn" September 10, 2006 by Carina Chocano. We can use that to add more details.

Articles should be based mainly on secondary sources, and they should reflect what are found in those sources. Aside from the Yogic Flying, the Butler killing appears to be among the most notable things that have happened on the campus. This case has been reported internationally in many reliable sources over an extended period. I don't object to reporting the number of books in the library or the details of the water filtration system, but we should follow the lead provided by secondary sources when deciding how much weight to give various topics.   Will Beback  talk  22:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added the quote from the Maharishi and a rebuttal from the university to address concerns expressed here.   Will Beback  talk  23:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is a double standard being applied: When I added some sections to the TM Sidhi article using peer review studies on the Maharishi effect, you repeatedly said that there was too much information, yet you use up half the length of an article on one isolated event. I agree that the murder should be mentioned; I do not agree that is should be given the place of honor in the article. Kbob makes an excellent argument, He could have done the exact same thing Will did, using ample press coverage on David Lynch events, yet he did not, so as not to violate undue weight. The same standard should be used here --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the exact exchange to which you're referring, but I think I've always said that weight determinations should consider the coverage in reliable secondary sources. If you're referring to the Merseyside study, you added about 137 words based on a single source.[19] The Butler material is about 510 words with nine sources, or just 57 words per source, less that half of the weight per source as the Merseyside material. Since the entire article is only about 4700 words, the Butler material takes up about 11%, not half, of the article.

If folks want to argue that the material now has too much weight then it's incumbent on them to say what the correct weight would be and explain how they arrive at that figure.

I can't find the ample press coverage of the Lynch weekends.   Will Beback  talk  00:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The correct weight would be about 2%, as I showed. You argued against using a search engine test, yet you used a search engine test to support your argument in the TN-Sidhi article. I don't understand. TimidGuy (talk) 15:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue at TM-Sidhi is which name is most commonly used, which is the usual standard for naming articles. WP:NC If anyone can suggest better ways of determining common usage it would help settle naming disputes on hundreds or thousands of articles.

Search results can bring up all kinds of numbers.

[ "Maharishi University of Management" OR "Maharishi International University"] = about 1,580 [20]

["Maharishi University of Management" OR "Maharishi International University" stab OR stabbing OR butler] = about 45 [21]

That combination of searches gives us 45/1580=3%

How do other elements of the article do with the same test?

["Maharishi University of Management" OR "Maharishi International University" "financial aid"] = about 6 [22] 6/1580=.4%

["Maharishi University of Management" OR "Maharishi International University" "david lynch weekend"] = about 15 [23] 15/1580= 1%

["Maharishi University of Management" OR "Maharishi International University" "yogic flying" OR hopping] = about 121 [24] 121/1580=7.6%

It'd be interesting to see what an article would look like weighted just by how various search terms appear n Google news. The article is currently about 4890 words. According to this method, we should devote 19 words to financial aid, 49 words to the David Lynch Weekends, and 374 words to Yogic Flying. Obviously, that's an absurd way to write an article.

I'm not stubborn. As a compromise I'll shorten the text.   Will Beback  talk  20:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It's now down to about 460 words. I don't think it can be shortened much more without losing important details. If folks still object to the length then we can split it off. Then it can grow as long as necessary to fully cover the incident.   Will Beback  talk  22:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Will, for shortening. I think it could be cut to a third of the length. A search engine test isn't an absurd way to get a sense for relative importance of that facet of information reported by the media. Of the universe of information about a university relevant to an encyclopedia entry, only a small portion of it is reported in the media. They don't generally report information such as financial aid, facilities, academic programs, student life, etc. And of that small portion reported by the media, 1.8% was related to the murder. This section still constitutes 10% of the article. It contains a lot of speculation, it contains detail that isn't necessary, and it could be further shortened. TimidGuy (talk) 12:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite understand how we'd decide which items in this article to apply this standard to. The media doesn't report financial aid information, but it's OK to devote space to it, but what the media does report should be strictly limited?

Let me ask this: a search for ["transcendental meditation"] alone gets about 12,800,[25] while ["transcendental meditation" research OR studies] brings up about 3,850 hits.[26] That indicates that research should only take up 1/3 of the article, instead of 1/2 as it is now. A search for ["Maharishi Mahesh Yogi"] gets about 7,350[27], while ["Maharishi Mahesh Yogi" beatles] gets about 3,160.[28] That indicates that half of the article should be devoted to the relationship between the Beatles and the Maharishi. A search for ["TM-Sidhi"] gets about 101 hits,[29] while ["yogic flying"] gets about 699 hits.[30] That indicates the TM-Sidhi should occupy just 15% of an article on Yogic Flying. Are editors willing to use this standard across all of the TM articles?   Will Beback  talk  17:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This suggests that we're in the right ballpark in the TM article. And also in the TM-Sidhi article, since there's much more discussion of Yogic Flying than the TM-Sidhi program as a whole in that article. And some of the Yogic Flying results are probably related to the Maharishi Effect. We'd maybe want to test and see whether the Maharishi Effect should be so heavily weighted in that article. The Beatles/Maharishi comparison may not be apt, since there are likely many results that are articles about the Beatles with an incidental mention of Maharishi, given their prominence, whereas with Levi Butler/MUM it's unlikely that any results would be primarily about him with an incidental mention of MUM. Even so, the Beatles section in the Maharishi article is substantial, being one of the longest sections. So these results would certainly justify the current weight. TimidGuy (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

We have to be careful not to conflate what must be in an article on an university, and what is not a necessity to a basic understanding of the university, per [31]. Obviously, we need information on the university how it runs, its programs, and for that kind of information the best source is probably the university itself. Then we can add notable information if the secondary sources indicate significance such as with the Butler case. However, I assume we aren't suggesting comparing the two. First and foremost we must describe the university . One incident such as the Butler case is only a tiny part of the overall university information.(olive (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC))

The Google test that TimidGuy suggests doesn't have a way of distinguishing "basic understanding" from what appears in secondary sources. So are you endorsing or rejecting the standard he proposes?   Will Beback  talk  20:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Neither. It doesn't apply to my comment. I suggest we use the guideline and common sense in terms of what goes into an article on a university. The guideline outlines the basic information that should be included. If a significant event occurs at that university as determined by reliable sources then that event can be included. In no way should that event be considered in the same discussion as good fundamental information on the university. First we outline the university, then we can add significant events. Those significant events should not appear to be more critical to the article than the information which describes the university and how it functions. (olive (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC))

The history of the university is part of that suggested outline and this is definitely part of that history, even if the university never mentions it.   Will Beback  talk  21:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Don't misunderstand . I'm not suggesting the Butler content shouldn't be in the article. I'm suggesting that we not try to eliminate information fundamental to a university operation because a secondary source doesn't mention it. And no, no university puts that kind of information on its web pages although, crime reports on the campus do account for the tragedy. (olive (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC))

Most university newspapers would report a killing on campus, I believe. Where are the crime reports that you mention?   Will Beback  talk  22:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably true. MUM is very small school and I don't see that it has such a newspaper , although I believe it has a kind of good news report publication. [32] for crime reports. Any one can access these reports and can request "back" reports as I understand. Universities are in the business of recruiting students and no university adds tragedy to their websites, but any intelligent parent of a prospective student would check and ask for the crime reports. The university is an accredited institution. Any such cover up would deeply affect them. (olive (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC))

"Activities and organizations include drama/theater, radio station, choral group, student newspaper, ..." Is our article incorrect?

"Universities are in the business of recruiting students..." That's a cynical view of the role of universities in general and of this university in particular. Some universities are honest about violence on their campus. Kent State, for example.[33]   Will Beback  talk  23:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

MUM did not at the time have a student newspaper. And no, that is what universities do. They must have students. Please acqauint yourself with the present difficulties many universities face right now in recruiting students, and in keeping their doors open before you judge me to be cynical . You judge from a few newspaper comments that this university is dishonest. Do you really think a crime such as this university dealt with was hidden . At the same time this was one tragic event in the entire history of a small university and should be treated as such. The Kent state murders were of national and international importance because they they were part of a much much larger situation, the Viet Nam war. They are not comparable even if MUM has had a student newspaper at the time. They didn't. Note also that no university can require the kind of personal information concerning the state of mental health of a student.

There is another obvious, neutral option to splitting off the content on the stabbing and that was to tighten it up while maintaining the same amount of information. I was working on that.(olive (talk) 00:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC))

Since Timidguy was insisting on his 2% limit it would have been impossible to "tighten it up" enough without losing substantial amounts of information. I never said the university is dishonest, it just omits information from its history.   Will Beback  talk  00:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No Will. TG had an opinion. You and I both know nothing held us to that opinion. There was no consensus or agreement. I was working on tightening the content up and in fact I was finished and was at the point of checking the refs to make sure I had it all in place correctly. You are assigning an arbitrary set guidelines to what a university should have in its public web pages. That's not fair nor is it an accurate measure of anything. Do you have any idea how many tragic events occur on college campuses. The university i went to had 30 rapes a month on the campus and in the town connected to the campus . Did that huge university put that information into their recruiting information. No. Is it in their crime reports. Has to be. I can't see that your position is neutral or fair or based on anything but an arbitrary set of judgments. Maybe I'm wrong on that. I hope so.

Initially. I felt a split would be possibe and acceptable per Wikipedia . However WP:UNIGUIDE leads me to question that position. The levi Butler stabbing is probably as significant as it is because it is related to this particular university. And that's what you have written into the lede of the new article. A stabbing by a mentally ill person in a big city would not get worldwide press, would hardly be noted at all. Such content according to WP:UNIGUIDE should not be split off . Only if the content is significant with out the university affiliation and too large for the article should aspects of the history be split off.

Separate articles explaining a college or university's history (History of Texas A&M University), campus (Campus of Michigan State University), and alumni (List of Athabasca University people — see lists guideline above) must still fulfill the notability policy of receiving significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the university. Such articles are generally notable only at large institutions or institutions where one of these aspects is especially important or significant.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs)

The reporting issue isn't a big issue - we're not putting that into the article.

What's the name of the student newspaper?

The stabbing article isn't about the history of MUM, it's about a single notable incident. There is a specific notability guideline for crimes. WP:N/CA. Since this incident received national and international coverage, it appears to qualify.   Will Beback  talk  06:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

According to you, the incident is part of the history of the university. The incident , although tragic by any measure, independent of the university is not a notable crime, so yes this qualifies. Remove the university name and you don't have the notbality for an article. Nor is the article so long that we needed to start splitting off. The issue was undue weight. (olive (talk) 15:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC))

The UNIGUIDE appears to discuss entire histories, not individual incidents. Splitting off notable incidents and leaving a summary behind is a good way of handling the weight issue.   Will Beback  talk  20:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Have no idea what the name of the student newspaper is or of there is one at this point, so maybe that needs to come out of the article, and as for the rest :Put your hands in the air Olive and move away from the discussion.(olive (talk) 15:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC))

I'm not sure it qualifies, since no one was found guilty of a criminal act. The perpetrator was found not guilty by reason of insanity. There were no criminal charges against the university. The was a civil suit, right? TimidGuy (talk) 12:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The victim did not die of an accidental stabbing. It would not have gone to trial if there hadn't been a crime. The "not guilty by reason of insanity" doesn't mean that a crime didn't occur, just that the perpetrator can't be held responsible for his actions.   Will Beback  talk  20:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Since so many editors are saying that they think this section is too long for the article, that leaves only the option of splitting it off. So I'm moving it to Maharishi University of Management stabbing. I'll write a short summary for the history section.   Will Beback  talk  23:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The article has a talk page. I suggest that discussions of its contents, etc, should be held there.   Will Beback  talk  20:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Will, note that it never went to trial. There is only a crime if there is criminal intent. TimidGuy (talk) 10:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources?   Will Beback  talk  11:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I have a question at talk:Maharishi University of Management stabbing regarding a source you added.   Will Beback  talk  11:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Lynch weekends

According to our article on James McCartney, which cites a blog:

• James McCartney made his his U.S. debut, performing November 14, 2009 at the Fairfield Arts & Convention Center, during the Fourth Annual David Lynch Weekend for World Peace and Meditation in Fairfield, Iowa.

So are some of the events held off-campus, but still under the sponsorship of MUM? Or are the concerts separate from the conference?   Will Beback  talk  00:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

A better source says:

• London, Nov. 5 -- Sir Paul McCartney's son James is all set to rock in the US as he makes his American debut at a charity event hosted by filmmaker David Lynch. The 32-year-old James McCartney, born to the former Beatle's late first wife Linda, will give a sole performance at the fourth annual Change Begins Within charity event at Iowa's Maharishi University, reports the Daily Express. According to New York Post, the proceeds from the November 14 benefit gala will be donated to teach meditation to at-risk kids.
  • "Paul McCartney's son to make US debut at charity gala" The Hindustan Times. New Delhi: Nov 5, 2009.

Is the "Change Begins Within" charity gala a separate event from the "David Lynch Weekend for World Peace and Meditation "?   Will Beback  talk  00:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The concert was part of the David Lynch Weekend, sponsored by DLF.TV, and the Visitors Weekend with David Lynch, sponsored by the university. TimidGuy (talk) 11:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Researching this is harder because Lynch has presented other events that aren't directly related to MUM, plus his foundation, so searches are hard to comb through. Apparently a charity concert in New York was also called "Change Begins Within".   Will Beback  talk  12:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Dead link

• In 2002, the Gazette (Cedar Rapids and Iowa City) reported that, despite the fact that major medical schools might have in the past "turned up their noses" at studies MUM was conducting, millions of dollars had been awarded by the National Institutes of Health, and major universities, including the University of Iowa, University of California- Irvine, and University of Hawaii, were conducting research on alternative medicine and therapies with MUM. Maharishi University and the University of Iowa, the article reported, were working on a study that looked at whether holistic therapy can effect the slowing or progression of heart desease.
  • http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=0F599ED5E31BE4C6&p_docnum=1

The link to this article has gone dead, it isn't available in the Internet Archive, and I can't find it in the newspaper's online archive.[34] If this isn't verifiable we should remove it.   Will Beback  talk  21:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I remember that article. I'll look too and see if I can find another way of accessing it.(olive (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC))

While you're at it, this newly added link doesn't work either:

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=1015E25F04F82A8B&p_docnum=1

It'd really be helpful if editors would use complete citations. When bare URLs are used it's almost impossible to fix them when they go bad.   Will Beback  talk  17:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

My fault completely. I was rushing and didn't think about using the complete citation. I disliked dealing with refs even in graduate school. Its catching up with me. (olive (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC))

The MUM Stabbing

I am not opposed to putting in the text about the stabbing incident, but I do feel it OTT to call it "the Maharishi University of Management stabbing". Is not giving it so much attention, and evening creating a Wiki article to support the link, a little POV? What do others think? --BwB (talk) 13:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestions. However I think this discussion is best held on the article talk page rather than here.   Will Beback  talk  13:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Carlsen & World Teacher Seminar

WORLD TEACHER SEMINAR v. IOWA DIST. COURT was an Iowa Supreme Court case which seems to have a bearing on the MUM. I'm still trying to make sense out of the matter, so I'm just parking this here while we compile more sources. If it looks like it's significant we can add something later.   Will Beback  talk  09:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Did You Know on Butler stabbing

Editors may wish to comment here [35] on a proposed DYK on the MUM stabbing.(olive (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC))

David Leffler's institute

I don't think this is officially affiliated with the university. Is there a source saying that it is? TimidGuy (talk) 11:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The website for the Center for Advanced Military Science (CAMS) is a page on the Institute of Science, Technology and Public Policy website.[36]. Since CAMs appears to be part of ISTPP, and the ISTPP is affiliated with MUM, it appears that CAMs is affiliated with MUM. Further, Leffer says in a min-bio: "Dr. Leffler is a founding member of the Center for Advanced Military Science (CAMS) at Maharishi University of Management."[37] That also implies some affiliation. And this: "These plans were instrumental in the establishment of the Center for Advanced Military Science (CAMS) at Maharishi University of Management in 1999." Perhaps this is the clearest expression: "Dr. Pearson is the Executive Vice-President of Maharishi University of Management. I am employed at the Center for Advanced Military Science (CAMS) which is affiliated with this institution."[38] Note that Leffler also has a separate entity: The Division of Enlightened Defense of the Institute for Development of Enlightened Arts and Sciences Inc.[39] Aside from sharing an executive director and being in the same city, IDEAS and CAMS appear to be unconnected.   Will Beback  talk  12:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! TimidGuy (talk) 11:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Alumni 2

Why were all of the alumni deleted? 20:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed the ones that were not reliably sourced. Please see the talk pages of Ron Parker, Steven M. Greer, and Jeff Peckman. They can be added when and if we have secondary sources.-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added sources for all three.   Will Beback  talk  22:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the big rush to delete the alumni?   Will Beback  talk  00:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No rush, am happy to have any well sourced alumni on the page.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Any objection to restoring Greer? His article says he attended MUM.   Will Beback  talk  17:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes I object to Greer being added. The source that says he attended MIU is primary, self-published and vague.I do not consider it reliable enough for inclusion. What do others think? [40]-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's the source in question, a self-published memoir:

• Greer, Steve (July 23, 2006). "Chapters 1 &2" (PDF). The_Disclosure_Project . Retrieved January 10, 2010.

We use primary, self-published sources for many assertions in this article, including for several newly added names in the list of alumni.   Will Beback  talk  23:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that this PDF is a reliable source for this article?[41]-- — Kbob • Talk • 14:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I wrote to the email address connected to one of his organizations, asking for more details. The website manager replied that the material comes from his book, Hidden Truth - Forbidden Knowledge (ISBN 978-0967323824). She goes on to say "That is all he says about his time at MIU". So yes, I think his own book is a a reliable source for non-extraordinary details of his life. If he said he graduated summa cum laude from Harvard then it might be different. There's no substantive reason to doubt that he attended MIU, as he claims.   Will Beback  talk  20:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It sounds fine for biographical info on the subjects own Wiki article but I'm not sure that translates into a reliable source for other articles. -- — Kbob • Talk • 20:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Greer's book also appears to be self published. If we can find a reliable secondary source (or confirmation from MUM) then I am fine to add Greer or any other alumni to the article. Just trying to stick with good, reliable sources.-- — Kbob • Talk • 13:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I've edited over two hundred articles on universities and colleges, and this is the first time I've seen such a demand.   Will Beback  talk  16:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Parson in history section

In the MUM history section we have 3 sentences on Parson College. Why do we need so much on them? Article not about Parsons. Could we not say something like "MIU purchased the abandoned campus of Parsons College in Fairfield, IA in 1973". Since we have a link to Parsons, readers can click thru to that page for more details. --BwB (talk) 10:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree it should be condensed. It also appears to be unsourced.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a copy of the lead paragraph from the Parsons College, and replaces a longer section. I agree that we don't need much space on it as it's covered in another article.   Will Beback  talk  17:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I would disagree. The short bit of history of Parsons directly relates to how and why the campus was available for purchase by MUM. I do remember that content was sourced at some point, so possibly the source was deleted accidentally at some point. I'll try and find it. WP:UNIGUIDE indicates history of the university is important, and this little bit of information is part of the history of the campus.(olive (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC))

This is interesting. I wrote most if not all of this content and did it with a source and without using the WP article. I hadn't been keeping too close a watch on this article until recently so don't know if the content that is in the Parson's college article was moved here or if what I wrote was moved there but the original content here was not taken form the WP article and was sourced. I'll check the history for my own information. Strange.(olive (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC))

We discussed this above. See #Proposal to Remove the Prior History of Parson College Campus section.   Will Beback  talk  17:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, on checking, this is not my writing as far as I can tell, so not sure what source was used... and it does look as if it was taken from the main article. I still think a small bit of information would be good in this article , and I would be happy to write something short, sourced and original to this article if there is agreement for inclusion.(olive (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC))

What facts do we need to say about Parsons that are relevant to this article? The most relevant event was its closure, which allowed MIU to buy it.   Will Beback  talk  18:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

What led to the closure is relevant. Had those events not occurred the college would not have been bankrupt, would not have been for sale, and MUM would not have been able to buy the campus.(olive (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC))

Thanks, didn't remember that discussion. I'm not clear as to what is being discussed here then. I don't support the content being any less than it is, although it could be rewritten to be original and sourced. (olive (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC))

So is there any actual problem with the existing text, aside from a disagreement over its length? Sources for it can be found in Parsons College.   Will Beback  talk  18:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the text could be a little more relevant. Text that explains the closure and sale to MUM is relevant. I would be open to some new and concise text if Olive wants to propose something.-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Remove SCI section

Since Sept. 2009 we have been waiting for citation on this section. If they are not provided in the next few days, I am going to remove the folowing text:

"===Science of Creative Intelligence===

Entering MUM freshmen and transfer students begin their first semester with a Science of Creative Intelligence (SCI) class, which consists of 33 taped lessons created by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. The course outlines a systematic understanding of consciousness that enables the students to connect any academic discipline to a holistic paradigm that includes themselves. " --BwB (talk) 11:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it on the MUM web site? If not, then it should be removed.-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

There are sources available. I'll try to find them again and add them.   Will Beback  talk  17:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Maharishi University of Management celebrates the dawn of a New World Order of Peace

Maharishi University of Management celebrates the dawn of a New World Order of Peace, as demonstrated by the invincibility of President Fidel Castro of Cuba, the freedom of President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, the Divine Rulership of President Abdurrahman Wahid of Indonesia, and the casting off of corrupt democracy by President Robert Guei of the Ivory Coast.

These four Heads-of-State are four great forerunners of a forthcoming New World Order of Peace.

The present strength of their leadership is the first visible effect of improvement in the administration of nations. Their special qualities of ideal leadership demonstrate a rise in the world of Global Administration through Natural Law, and foreshadow a time soon to come when every nation will be sovereign, self-sufficient and invincible, yet will be united with all other nations in a world family enjoying perpetual peace.

During the past forty years, nine American Presidents have tried to overthrow or kill Fidel Castro, and have failed -- he has demonstrated invincibility in the face of a giant nation of vast destructive military power.

President Robert Mugabe has stood firm against the hypocritical threats of Zimbabwe's former colonial master, and reminded Britain that Zimbabwe is not their colony anymore. He has demonstrated freedom, and stood against the savage depredations of the colonial past.

President Wahid, the first President honored as a saint by his people, has brought into the world of politics the qualities of purity, tolerance, harmony, and devotion to God. He is the First Divine Ruler of Indonesia.

President Guei has thrown off the faulty and corrupt democratic system imposed on so many nations by their former imperial overlords, and which has led only to chaos and plundering of the nation by an elite, while the poor remain pressed under the weight of their misery.

The world is awakening to the reality that the old order is passing, and a New World Order of Peace is dawning. The new order will be characterized by these very qualities of the four Presidents - - invincibility, freedom, divine rule, and the transformation of corrupt and failing democracies into governments that unify and nourish on the basis of the support of the evolutionary power of Natural Law.

Maharishi University of Management, Holland Celebrates the Dawn of a New World Order of Peace -- the Rise of Perfection in World Politics and Economy Canada NewsWire. Ottawa: Apr 5, 2000. pg. 1

Apparently there's a "Maharishi University of Management" in Vlodrop too. And apparently they don't like democracy.   Will Beback  talk  02:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Ranking

Some new text has been added about MUM's ranking. However, the ref does not provide any text to support the wording in the Wiki article. Perhaps we can find a better source to support the wording? Or do others feel the reference is sufficient? Thanks. --BwB (talk) 14:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean this, in the intro?

• Maharishi University of Management cites high rankings on "benchmarks of effective educational practice" from the National Survey of Student Engagement. The results of the ACT alumni survey show a high level of alumni satisfaction.

The intermediate source is MUM itself. Maybe we should put this in "reception" section.   Will Beback  talk  19:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No. There was a whole section titles "Ranking". See that Kbobb has now moved it to to a different section. However, my question is the source. --BwB (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. The text says that it is from the "US News and World Report College Rankings", and that is the cited source.   Will Beback  talk  21:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I was not clear. Here is the text with ref:

"Maharishi University of Management was listed a tier 4 university in the Masters Midwest Category of US News and World Report College Rankings. The lowest rank possible in this category. It was also the most expensive school to be classified as a tier 4 in the Masters Midwest Category. US News and World Report stated its admissions selectivity was "less selective"."

I am wondering about the quality of the reference and if the text is OR. --BwB (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Although this may well be true the source doesn't support the text. We need a compliant source that refers directly to the content of the article. or the content should be removed.(olive (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC))

Simple math is not OR. If MUM is at the top or bottom of a list we can say that. It's still not clear to me what is being disputed here. That it was listed in Tier 4? That Tier 4 is the lowest? That MUM had the highest tuition in its category? That the admissions have been called "less selective"?   Will Beback  talk  18:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Will is exactly correct. See Wikipedia:No_original_research#Routine_calculations.Fladrif (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Its OR, and simple math is 1+1=2. I could care less how MUM, a tiny midwestern school is ranked. OR is a concern. Unless I am missing something in the source given:

The source does not say MUM is the most expensive school. It simply gives tuition fees. Comparing those fees to other schools is OR.

The source does not say Tier four is the lowest . Adding that is technically OR although I would consider it fine to add.

I'm a stickler for policy . There's way too much abuse to allow myself to slacken on policy. If other editors feel that despite the fact that this material is technically OR, its still admissible in the article, fine. I'm not going to engage in an argument over it.(olive (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC))

Whether it is a violation or not is open to discussion. Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Highest or lowest on a list.   Will Beback  talk  18:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no other school on the list in terms of tuition. Its a comparative exercise and its OR. I also said I would add the tier four ranking.(olive (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC))

• "It was also the most expensive school to be classified as a tier 4 in the Masters Midwest Category."

This sentence is un-sourced and is being challenged by other editors. It is the responsibility of the editor who placed the text in the article to provide reliable sources to support the text otherwise it may be removed. WP:BURDEN Is there a source for this text?-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

We discussed this elsewhere. I can't figure out how the editor who added it made that conclusion. I suggest we remove it.   Will Beback  talk  23:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Done.   Will Beback  talk  23:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit Will. Let's also keep all of this rankings data by US New Report together, OK? Thanks! "In addition, U.S. News & World Report categorized its admissions selectivity as "less selective", its application deadline as "rolling" and its setting as "urban".-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Those have nothing to do with rankings. One describes the campus, so it belongs in the "campus" section. The other concerns how admissions are processed, so that's an administrative matter. The selectivity of the admissions is relevant to ranking, so that material belongs in the ranking section.   Will Beback  talk  22:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. In keeping with your desire to have things in their proper category, I have moved the sentence on admissions to the enrollment section as it is has nothing to do with MUM's Tier4 ranking. Thanks.-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Admission selectivity is a key component of a college's ranking. However I won't fight you over it.   Will Beback  talk  22:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of text on health benifits

Recently the following text has been removed from the article:

"Discussing the potential health benefits of Transcendental Meditation, a 2004 article in Barron's magazine said "some of the most convincing research has come out of the Institute for Natural Medicine and Prevention ... at Maharishi University of Management"."

I think it sould be replace since it is a valid source and the text reflects the source. What do others think? --BwB (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Health claims need to be based on good quality references. Please see WP:MEDRS for more information. The only source which is acceptable in this situation would be a published review article in a medical journal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not a reference to any particular health benefit. This statement is in the "reception" section of the article where the focus is on how outside observers view MUM and its activities. The Barron's article is used to demonstrate a positive view of MUM, an opinion expressed by the author of the report. It seems reasonable to use this quote in this section since it from a reliable source and the expression reflects the comments of the author. This section of the article is not trying to make any health claims about TM. I feel the text should be reinstated. --BwB (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This seems more relevant to the TM article than this article. The subject of the assertion is TM research, not MUM.   Will Beback  talk  18:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it is also relevant to TM article, but here the author is saying that good research is coming out of MUM institute. How could this not be a positive comment on MUM? --BwB (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Not "good research", but rather "some of the most convincing research" on the topic of the potential health benefits of TM. In other words, the writer is comparing TM to the other institutions that are conducting that type of research. While many institutions have conducted one or two studies, I'm not aware of any that comes even close to the number of studies conducted by MUM. How easy it is to convince a Barron's reporter of the value of medical research is open to question. ;)   Will Beback  talk  19:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

However, this is a reliable source so what we think about it is moot, and since this is not content making a health claim but which is making a general statement on research the content needs to be re added unless there is some other viable concern with the text and its source.(olive (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC))

Why don't we compromise and replace the text with a slight edit as follows:

• "A 2004 article in Barron's magazine said "some of the most convincing research has come out of the Institute for Natural Medicine and Prevention ... at Maharishi University of Management".-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

How would deleting the nature of the research help? The proposed "compromise" is the same text that was added back in December.[42] Is this a case of "Let's compromise - do it my way"? ;)   Will Beback  talk  22:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

My suggested text is a compromise because it takes into account the "health benefit" concern discussed by editors in this thread. Are you opposed to a compromise?-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how simply deleting the text that says it concerns health research makes the assertion stop being about health research. Wikipedia:How many legs does a horse have? As I wrote above, I suggest move it to the TM article's section on health research since that's what it addresses.   Will Beback  talk  22:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Moving it to the health section would be fine.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Notable enough for inclusion

In the "Reception" section a recent addition (which I have edited to reflect the source) reads: "A student who left the TM movement has referred to the university as a training ground for a cult." Do others feel this is worthy of a mention? Do we feel it meets the Wiki WP:N standard? --BwB (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:N is solely concerned with whether a topic is notable enough to have an article. It does not concern the material within an article. Views reported by the New York Times are significant in part just because of their reporting.   Will Beback  talk  21:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This source was notable enough for a number of other statements made in the article. I am unsure why there are concerns of notability here? Please see WP:NPOV about content of articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the application of WP:N, Will. What I am really trying to say is that this source says that a former student had criticisms of MUM. Wondering why 1 student complaining over a 35 year history and many thousands of graduates is worth mentioning in the article. That is what I meant by "noteworthy". --BwB (talk) 13:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The New York Times thought it worth noting. By comparison, many details in the article have never been noted by any outside source.   Will Beback  talk  17:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Come on Will. 1 newspaper article with 1 students opinion is notable? --BwB (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Just because a reporter only quotes one person doesn't mean that the view is only held by one.

Everyone at the university -- all students, all faculty, all administrators -- meditates, and the Maharishi's teachings are woven into mathematics, physics and every subject taught there, much the way Christian or Jewish ideas become a part of teaching at colleges with strong religious affiliations.

Maharishi University claims it is not a religious institution. But people who have left the movement call transcendental meditation a cult, and the university its training ground.

"Students there are getting a medieval education and a medieval view of what life is," said Curtis Mailloux, class of 1979, and a former director of the Transcendental Meditation Center in Washington, D.C., until he left the movement in 1989. Now involved in "deprogramming" former meditators, he called the Fairfield campus a "coercive environment" with a "propensity for fraudulent research." [..]

The accreditation itself has been questioned. "It's a crying shame," said John W. Patterson, a professor of material science and mechanical engineering at Iowa State University. The North Central Association, he said, "does nothing more than to lend credibility to these crackpots." [..]

Dr. Fagan, who has been meditating since 1968, had been doing research on the predisposition of certain genes to cancer. He wanted to continue the work in Fairfield, but he did not expect Government support right away. He was right. His grant applications were rejected three times.

"On site visits," Dr. Fagan said, "the guys from N.I.H. would say, 'You seem to have the facilities, but what is this M.I.U. place? Is it some kind of cult? A religion?' "

After reviewing that, I'd say the text is not as accurate as it could be. It'd be more accurate to write something like, According to the New York Times, some former members of the movement have called MUM a "training ground" for a cult. One former student said the university had a "propensity for fraudulent research." Non-student members of the movement have moved to Fairfield so they can join in group sessions in the universities golden domes, and to help establish world peace. Thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  19:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes this seems reasonable. --BwB (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is fairly one sided and ignores most of the published criticisms of the institution. Unfortunately it currently reads like an advertisement.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources, then you can add the material. --BwB (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

One problem may be the volume of material sourced to MUM itself. However that seems common with college articles.   Will Beback  talk  18:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Will's right. College articles tend to rely very heavily on the subject's own publications and websites; this article isn't at all unusual in that regard. There's very little alternative when it comes to describing a lot of aspects of even a large university, because a lot of basic information isn't going to show up in many secondary sources. Schools of this size get very little secondary source coverage, and what there is is almost exclusively local; MUM probably gets more attention in the national press and other publications any other ~500 student campus that I can think of.Fladrif (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Intercollegiate sports - Kangaroos

A couple of questions. Can anyone point me to a better source than the one I found for the team nickname "Kangaroos"? It's cute, notable, and shows a great sense of humor on the part of whomever selected it. How many of the sports listed are actually intercollegiate sports? Is rock climbing actually an intercollegiate sport, or is it a non-competitive activity? I'm wondering how one goes about "winning" at rock climbing...though I am quite certain what would constitute "losing"- I've seen Norm McDonald's routine on cliff diving.Fladrif (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Rock climbing can be competitive. A climb can be done for speed, or climbing routes can be set up for "difficulty" which climbers must figure then out how to navigate. I don't know about sources for sports teams, but I'll take a look later today.(olive (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC))

I guess that makes sense. Just to follow up, looking at the reference, which is to the MUM website, I don't see "football" (ie American football, as opposed to association football) listed as a sport, and it doesn't say whether or not any of these are intercollegiate sports or not. An earlier version of this article indicated that mens and women's golf were intercollegiate sports, and that soccer and volleyball were club sports. I've got no idea what's correct, obviously.Fladrif (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Me either. I'll see if I can find some sources.(olive (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC))

The Kangaroos, first I've heard of that. Very amusing. :-) Fladrif brings up a good point,not all of the sports listed on the MUM web page may be intercollegiate and may need to be categorized as activities rather than competitive sports. Let's see what Olive comes up with.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to go with the current web site that lists soccer as a competitive sport but everything else seems to be at the activity level [43]. I don't see other sources for competitive sport so far.(olive (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC))

• I'd hope that we could find a better source for "kangaroos". Since PrepSportswear.com seems to think that MUM has a football program, and no other sport, it doesn't appear to be in contact with the school. There is a source for people associated with MUM being nicknamed "roos", my understanding is that the derivation is from "guru" and that it's not limited to sports teams. This self-published site, [44], which seems less commercial, says the team or mascot is known as the "Flyers", also reported by these sites: [45], [46], [47], [48]. I propose we use "Flyers'" instead.   Will Beback  talk  23:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh! How sad. I should have suspected that Kangaroos was too whimsical and wonderful to have been true. But we gotta go with the more reliable sources. You don't think that the school might reconsider? Schools change nicknames - Stanford went from the Indians to the Cardinal (rejecting the far superior and top vote-getting alternative - "The Robber Barons"), why not rename the Flyers the 'Roos?Fladrif (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I tend to favor team names that allow for people in mascot suits to act stupidly on the sidelines. I was surprised to see how many schools use "Flyers". I tend to associate it with "Flexible Flyer sleds".   Will Beback  talk  01:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

A guy dressed up like a sled would be a lot better than the Philadelphia Flyer's short-lived mascot "Slapshot" [49], though there is something to say for the Dayton's Flyer's [50]. Not something good to say, but something....Fladrif (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Back to the point. I've gone through the online issues of "The Review". It looks to me like the only true intercollegiate sport that has been played is golf, at least recently. Soccer is a club sport with a local indoor and outdoor soccer league, not an intercollegiate sport. The only mention I found of team "nicknames" is that the school fielded two 8-man soccer teams for an indoor tournament, MUM United and the MUM Flyers. Based on that, I'm guessing that there is in fact no offical nickname or mascot. This should be viewed as an opportunity, not a problem. Someone needs to come up with a campaign to adopt "Roos" as the official school nickname, and a bouncy guy like this as the mascot[51] Fladrif (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just delete the nickname entirely. If a clear nickname becomes apparent in the future it can be added then.   Will Beback  talk  23:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, I agree.Fladrif (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Happily, I agree too! :-) -- — Kbob • Talk • 00:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)