Talk:Maharishi International University

Proposed removal of chart

Current Text: In 2007 the university had 52 faculty members in 2007 Citytown Info and average salaries for full-time faculty as compared to the national average are compared in the chart below."Faculty Salaries, Benefits and Total Compensation", National Center for Educational Statistics

Level	MUM Male Faculty	MUM Female Faculty	National Average
Professor	$19,595	N/A	$98,500
Associate Professor	$14,648	$9,644	$70,800
Assistant Professor	$17,109	$6,678	$59,300
Instructor	$7,992	N/A	$55,300
All Faculty	$15,692	$7,296	$71,100

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The above text violates the following policies and guidelines:

• 1) WP:OR There is no source that compares MUM salaries with the national average. Instead the chart compares two sources, one on-topic and one off-topic. For what purpose?
• 2) WP:Notability The comparison is not notable and has not received any press or media coverage etc.
• 3) WP:UNDUE The chart format creates undue emphasis and weight for a minor, non-notable piece of information.
• 4) WP:NPOV The source gives dozens of university statistics on demographics, enrollment, admissions, degree programs and more, but a chart is created only this particular set of statistics plus a comparison to national salary data. This gives it undue weight and emphasis and creates POV.

My proposal is to remove the chart format and retain only the faculty salary info (and citation) in text format. The statistics on national salaries is off the topic of this article and should be removed in my opinion. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your points above. As well, what is the use of salary data from 2007 unless used for historical purposes? That data is five years old. Is there anything more recent.(olive (talk) 14:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC))

I have removed the chart and given a one sentence summary of the data. If anyone wishes to add further information from the source, in text from, please feel free to do so.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Parking sourced text for discussion

A son of Joaquim Chissano, then President of Mozambique, and several of the children of his cabinet members received scholarships to Maharishi International University in the mid-1990s.KELLER, BILL (February 20, 1994). "Heavenly Plans for Mozambique". San Francisco Chronicle. p. 3.{quotation needed|date=July 2012}

• My issues with the above text which was in the Noted Alumni section are:
  • Its been tagged as quotation needed for 6 months. Is the source verifiable?
  • Allegedly the source says that several children received scholarships. OK, let's assume that's true. Is there any source that says they attended MUM? Were they scholarships for academic excellence? athletic excellence? Were they partial scholarships? Maybe the scholarships were a kind of invitation that was never accepted. Do we know? If not, how can we say they are alumni?
• I don't think the content is appropriate or has any notability or relevance until we can confirm the existing citation and find additional RS's that explain the scholarships and how/if they were used. Comments?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you: the quotation as is does not seem worth mentioning, even if the ref could be verified, because we don't know whether Chissano's kids actually attended the university. However, I looked in Google News archives and found a somewhat more detailed article on this topic by the same author, in the same month, but in the NY Times. The quotation in this case does include more specific detail on the attendance of the children of the Mozambique president, at MUM. Here's the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/10/world/beatles-guru-offers-nirvana-to-mozambique.html

And here's the more elaborated quotation (in about the 13th para): "Mr. Chissano's son and several other children of Cabinet members are studying on scholarships at the Maharishi International University in Fairfield, Iowa, a liberal arts college that features daily meditation by all students, faculty and staff."

Perhaps the SF Chronicle had to cut for space, so that some info went by the wayside. So perhaps it is worth mentioning, using the more specific quotation, after all. EMP (talk 23:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice detective work. I've readded the info to the alumni section [1] Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Gidley source

I'm not clear what policy or guideline would support this deletion.[2] The book is published by an academic press. TimidGuy (talk) 15:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Gidley is a non-notable academic (whose article was recently deleted at AFD for no evidence of notability in six years); there is no justification to call out Gidley as if authoritative in the text, for example, or to put in single studies by a non-notable and not authoritative academic as if they are weighty. Given that, the work would probably need to be shown to be of any weight. WP:CHERRYPICKING is an essay on the hazards of such when attempting to find Wikipedia-quality reliable sources - David Gerard (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I was hoping you could point me to a relevant policy or guideline. My understanding is that books published by an academic press are considered RS. For example, "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." In any case, I took a look at the source, and it turns out that the citation was incorrect. Gidley wasn't the author of the chapter that was being cited. Regarding the sentence you removed, I do think there was an issue with NPOV and don't have any objection to your removing it. TimidGuy (talk) 09:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Name change

Here. Spicemix (talk) 15:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Unqualified lay-commentator - Michael D'Antonio

Quoting an unqualified lay-commentator - Michael D'Antonio, Under "Reception" - to comment on advanced physics and philosophy (in 1992) goes against Wikipedia standards, demotes wikipedia to the standard of an opinion blog, and is unethical in any scholarly understanding of ethics in encyclopaedic education. The sentences should be removed, or reported to Wikipedia standards. - Tommy Barlow, Vermont, USA. 73.16.39.72 (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)