Talk:Maharishi Vedic Science

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 Wikipedia 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))

Where's the Tag?

I'm not sure why the tag suggesting deletion was removed. If there was a concern I think the appropriate way of dealing with it is to discuss it not to remove the tag four editors have agreed on. MVS is not a term that has good reliable third party sources, believe me I've checked and I'm very familiar with this area. However, I will replace the tags as per the discussion and agreement and you can leave your points and possible refs here, or add them into the article, then as a group we can work this out. Note that MVS is a very specific term and has a specific meaning, that can't and shouldn't be mixed up with anything else. Thanks(olive (talk) 04:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

I can't discern from the discussion above just what's going on here (though I admit I didn't look before removing the prod). It's highly unusual to delete an article that's been around for so long. What's the plan and rationale? Is there another article on the same topic? If so, then a merge proposal is in order, eventually changing this one to a redirect, but leaving it for its history. If the name is wrong, a move is in order. If the content is wrong, it should be fixed. I don't see that it would be difficult to establish notability (see these 40 books). Dicklyon (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, what's with SA's unsourced "this is not science" in the lead? I think we can all agree it's not science, but there's no reason to say so unless we find a reliable source. Is he worried that someone will think it's science? Why? Dicklyon (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll check these more closely when I have time... possibly tomorrow, but most connect back to the TM organization, the university and the university faculty so are probably not the best sources. The concern was notability. Connection to the organization only makes it notable inside the organization. I'll comment more tomorrow.(olive (talk) 05:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

There are a few independent ones among them. I think I just cited at least one (it's hard to tell). Dicklyon (talk) 05:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Keithbob added a ton of citations, but didn't figure out how to put a references section; Keithbob, can you tell us something about your sources? Do you have these? I tried to find your first one in Google Book Search, and came up empty. Things that are "verifiable" only in the Maharishi-related sources need to be clearly identified as their teachings or opinions, as opposed to facts. Then it should be possible to make a standard decent article out of this. Dicklyon (talk) 05:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dicklyon, thanks for your comments. Sorry about the ref section problem, I think it is fixed now. Regarding the sources I was using as references five books; four by MD's and one by a PhD. They are all 3rd party publications by independent individuals and are not TM Movement publications. You can look them up on Amazon if you like. One book called Contemporary Ayurveda, is part of a series of “Medical Guides to Complimentary and Alternative Medicine” and is used as a textbook for health practitioners. --Keithbob (talk) 03:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What is it?

Hi Dick... These are my concerns with this article. I did some of the initial work on it although it seems to have changed a lot since then...

History:

MVS was moved from the Transcendental Meditation article because the TM article had become a collecting place for anything even remotely related to the technique or the TM organization. There was a need to delineate information for clarity, simplification and length and so a general consensus was reached to move information not directly about the technique to other articles if the topic merited its own article.

The term:

MVS is a term used to "umbrella" two aspects of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's theories. First, a practical aspect for living - the techniques... TM and the TM Sidhi program, and second, an application of the theory to life as he describes in for example health , architecture and so on...The term is a philosophical construct in a way intended to collect two different but related areas of theory.

The term MVS is only defined by these two categories, and in and of itself does not really have a definition or literature that refers somehow to MVS by itself. In a sense MVS would be better placed in dictionary where it could be defined and then left.

Probably the lede here is all the information we have on MVS. Beyond that we are getting into information on the programs I mentioned. The TM technique has its own article as does the TM Sidhi program. The side and aspects of MVS dealing with health and so on are gradually being collected it seems, if notable enough , and placed as their own articles.

I wonder if in taking the term MVS, then looking for one "arm" of MVS say Maharishi Ayur Veda that may not even mention MVS would be a form of OR.

Sources: I haven't yet looked at all of the sources but many at a glance are being generated from writer's associated with the organization... some are parts of a university catalogue it looks like, and some are repeats. The term may be notable within the organization but I can't see how it is outside of it, unlike the TM technique that has a very large following, is noted in third party refs, and has numerous studies all recommendations for it in terms of notability and Wikipedia

I apologize for reverting the tag last night ... I wasn't aware that Prod tags once removed should not be replaced -first time using the tag and template....

Some thoughts on the matter...(olive (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

I would have no objection to shortening the article to little more than the lead, dispatching to the related topics, if that's all we have good sources for. On the other hand, there's no problem using sources associated with the topic to expand the treatment, as long as we have a few independent ones to establish notability. We really need to decide what the problem is, then pick a strategy. If someone believes still that the topic is not notable, they just have to show that the cited sources are all from within the organization (including its university); I don't think that's the case. If there's a lot of OR here, it should be challenged and removed; if there's a content overlap, then maybe a multi-way merge is in order. In no case is a delete appropriate for an article with so much history. Dicklyon (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

How about merging with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi? TimidGuy (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea. Since the topic concerns a philosophical-type approach and definition derived from Maharishi' theories and programs including the information in the MMY article makes sense.(olive (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

Tag

Shoemaker. Not sure if you noticed this article was marked for deletion, but in response to that Dicklyon felt it was worth saving or merging.I think it would help a lot if you could lay out very specific concerns so each could be addressed/ fixed/repaired. I'm not sure the section reads so much as an advertisement so much as it has to first self define in order to describe what each aspect is. Thanks for your input.(olive (talk) 04:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC))

Seems like we could just go ahead and merge this with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Maharishi Vedic Science is sort of an in-house thing and doesn't really make sense to anyone other than those who study his philosophy. And it's received hardly any notice outside of this. The idiosyncratic use of "science" is problematic. We can merge, mention of few of these things briefly in the Maharishi article (in fact, I think they're mostly already mentioned there), and then blank this and redirect. TimidGuy (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed ... Lets merge.(olive (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

I think it entails posting a template at the top, and then if no one objects after a period of time, then going ahead. Right? I'm not too familiar with the templates. TimidGuy (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

We can merge without the template unless we feel there will be a lot of controversy on the move. There are so few editors concerned with this and some have not come back after one or two comments. I would think the merge could be done easily. I could add the template if you think its necessary.(olive (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

Aye, let's go with it. This one reads so much like an advertisement, though, that I'd suggest some care that it doesn't carry the tone over. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and added merge proposal tags. Please comment at Talk:Maharishi_Mahesh_Yogi#Merge_discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 04:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I had consented earlier to the deletion so I am also OK with the idea of taking the first paragraph summary ( and other relevant points) and merging it into the Maharishi page. If that is the proposal. --Kbob (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I've condensed the material here and moved it to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi as per discussions.(olive (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC))