Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:09, 26 January 2009

Adding and Clarifying material on MVS

I have added a little more material to clarify this topic without changing it very much (olive 19:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC))

You'll want to add some citations, probably from official TMO websites. Tanaats 20:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

yes, thanks, coming soon(olive 00:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC))

deleted redundant material... realized lines under subheading say the same thing(olive 16:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC))

Moved vedic science

The definition of Veda on this site is Vedic Science and not Maharishi Vedic Science so I have moved it to the Vedic Science site, and removed this material from the MVS site(olive 21:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

Reorganization and extension of MVS stubb as per discussions

As we discussed a few weeks ago I have reorganized /organized the MVS site with the view to moving this material off of the TM site, and lessening the material on that site.

• I reorganized material in a more accurate way as far as I can tell from my research so that the articles could either be developed here on the MVS site or developed on another site specifically pertaining to that material. Hopefully this organization will make future development of the material easier.
• I extended the stubb to include the two "arms" of MVS and to give some introductory material on those topics, to wiki- link them, link them externally and in some cases both.
• I have not deleted the material from the TM site, under Related Programs. That material has been reorganized and moved into its appropriate slot on the new site. Related programs was a general non-specific heading. I thought I'd hold off deleting for three days maybe until Friday, so anyone interested could compare the two and add what they thought was appropriate to the new site.
• In the interest of brevity I have included very little material under each MVS /Vedic literature topic with the hope that these might be eventually be developed in a more extended way than was on the TM site.
• I have not included material I could not find a citation for since this would be OR. (olive 18:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC))

Whoa!... very strange the whole article I just put up is gone ....fortunately I saved it in another document ..... so apologize to anyone who is looking for it ..... I"ll get it back up as soon as I can .....very very weird(olive 18:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC))

Efforts to strengthen the article

Hi all, I am planning to spend a little time strengthening this article. First I am going to remove many of the web links which are self promotional WP:SELFPUB and replace them (hopefully) with better sources. Secondly, I may expand here and there on a sub topic or too depending on what my research turns up. If anyone has any comments or suggestions please let me know. Namaste! --Keithbob (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggested

This article seems to have problems the the most glaring being that there seem to be no reliable third party references making the topic/subject non-notable. Because of that major concern I am thinking of asking for deletion of the article.(olive (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC))

I'd go along with that. Plus, it's sort of an idiosyncratic use of "science," which is problematic. While facets have been researched empirically, the overarching concept is more philosophical than scientific. I don't think this should be a Misplaced Pages article. TimidGuy (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that deletion may be appropriate. I've been looking for sources that deal in particular with MVS and all I find are fansites and publications of Maharishi. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

TG, you'll notice I used your words somewhat for the notice. Thanks and hope that was OK.(olive (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC))

Per the talk section above this one, I have been spending a little time on this article. A lot of my edits have been deletions because there were some links and paragraphs that seemed to me a bit promotional or self serving. I then went looking for third party references and I found a few, but not too many. I also have noticed that many of the sub topics found here are already covered in related articles. So all things considered I would not be opposed to a deletion.--Keithbob (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Keithbob. It looks like we have agreement. The delete tag will stay in place for five days and then if there is no opposition the article can be deleted.(olive (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC))