Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:20, 19 December 2009

Higher education B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Misplaced Pages. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

{{WikiProject United States|class=start|importance=|IA=yes|IA-importance=}}

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)

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)

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%

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)

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 .(Roark's comment)

These are concerns, but the major issue is that this article is being held to some standard completely inconsistent with other Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages standards

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." . 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

So, I take it that your attitude toward RSN is that, if someone there disagrees with you, its something that can be ignored 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)

Misplaced Pages 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,

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. The Student Handbook also prohibits students from using alcohol during off-campus events. 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. Misplaced Pages 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, established Maharishi International University, now an accredited institution offering undergraduate and graduate degrees in Fairfield, Iowa.
• 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.

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 Misplaced Pages 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.. 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)

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. 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. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 . 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))

References

1. Yogi, Maharishi Mahesh, Beacon Light of the Himalyas 1955, p. 63.
2. Gurus in America, Edited by Thomas A. Forsthoefel, Cynthia Ann Humes, p. 63,

• B-Class Higher education articles
• WikiProject Higher education articles