Jump to content

Talk:Maharshi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old comments

[edit]

The text below was removed from the article page. The original pronounciation varies according to the user and the user's language. In the use of the word 'jaw', item 2 below, it seems to assume that English speakers speak with an Indian accent. --- There is some debate as to the correct pronunciation. The two most prevalent schools of thought are:

(1)

  • 'Ma' as 'Mu' in 'Mutter'
  • 'ha' as 'he' in 'her'
  • 'Rish' sounds like 'Wish; with an 'R'
  • 'i' is like the 'e' in eagle

ma HA ri shi

(2)

  • 'Ma' and 'ha' rhyme with 'jaw'
  • 'ri' rhymes with 'see'
  • 'shi' sounds like 'she'

MA ha RI shi ---

I have reverted the paragraph on the two pronunciations. It is not correct to state that there is only one spelling, as Google turns up huge numbers for both. It is also not correct to state that there is only one pronunciation. I have lived in Fairfield, Iowa, USA, the home of Maharishi University of Management, for 15 years. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is a constant topic of conversation in this town. I hear both pronunciations all the time, approximately equally. It is also not correct to state that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi declared himself to be a Maharishi. Following ancient Indian custom, the title was given to him by consensus of his peers, without any prompting from him. Kevin Carmody 18:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I support the reversion, because it was all unsourced stuff. Sethie 09:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


--- I have removed the sentence at the close of the article reading "In the song "Gold Watch" by Lupe Fiasco he sings about his Maharishi sandals" as it is irrelevent to the article, which is a definiton and pronunciation of the subject word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.206.107.10 (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference

[edit]

Added a reference to a Sanskrit - English Dictionary --BwB (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also section

[edit]

A "See Also" section has been added that seems to be a long list of Wiki articles about organizations associated with MMY. Is this appropriate for an article on the generic term "Maharishi". --BwB (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a benefit to it.   Will Beback  talk  05:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:ALSO the See Also section is defined as: "A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links (wikilinks) to related Wikipedia articles. Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous." The See Also list is provided as a convenience to the reader who may be interested in related topics on Wikipedia. Certainly articles with the name Maharishi in the title are related. The list contains links to individuals and organizations not associated with Mahesh Yogi as well as those that are associated. As a neutral editor I included all of the Wiki articles I could find that have the term Maharishi in the article title when I created the Maharishi article yesterday. The list (and all of the sources and content) from Maharishi was copied here to this article by Will Beback which brings up a separate issue that I raise in the thread below.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason to link to a dozen or so TM movement entities, just because of the decision to name them after Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. There are literlly thousands of entities with "United States" in their title, but we don't list all of them in United States. If folks are interested in MMY's legacy they can go to his article. Perhaps the "See also" list would be better devoted to related terms, like "Maha" and "Maharaji".   Will Beback  talk  02:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to continue this discussion and obtain community input as needed, to resolve it. But first, I ask you to please provide sources for your misspelled title of the article title, as outline in the discussion below.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's stick to discussing the lengthy "See also" section in this thread. Why do we need it? all of the named entities can be in links from the MMY article. It feels a bit spam-ish.   Will Beback  talk  22:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there's nothing else I'll remove the long list.   Will Beback  talk  23:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I object. Why are you opposed to a list that meets the requirements of WP:ALSO? The See Also section is defined as: "A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links (wikilinks) to related Wikipedia articles. Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous." What is the basis for your objection?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, community seems to be needed on this issue so I have begun a thread on the DR noticeboard, please come please comment there. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After days of ignoring my posts, you've finally responded but instead of waiting for my reply you've taken this straight to the DRN. Apparently you aren't interested in engaging in a consensus-building discussion here.   Will Beback  talk  23:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. I said: "I'd be happy to continue this discussion and obtain community input as needed, to resolve it. But first, I asked you to please provide sources for the Maharshi article title, as outlined in the discussion below." You ignored both my requests and so apparently you were not interested in engaging in collaboration and consensus-building on the talk page. Therefore per TM ARbCom I "resorted to dispute resolution". -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per comments from editors at the DR noticboard, I have removed most of the entries in the See Also list. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very roundabout way of dealing with a straightforward issue.   Will Beback  talk  05:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading Article Title: Maharishi vs. Maharshi

[edit]

The title of this article is missing the "I" in the word Maharishi which is the common usage English spelling of the word and the spelling used in all of the sources cited in the article. All of the sources cited in the article are sources for Maharishi, which is a different spelling than the article title. This is misleading to the reader.

    • WP:TITLE says:
  • "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources."
  • "article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources"
  • "the ideal article title will resemble titles for similar articles, precisely identify the subject, be short, be natural, and recognizable."

So I think the 'i' needs to be added and article title (spelling) changed. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same word, so there shouldn't be two articles. The article name should be at the most common usage. While Maharishi Mahesh Yogi spelled it with an 'i', I gather it is pronounced by most followers without the 'i'. I'm srue there are no lack of sources for the other spelling too, they just haven't been added yet. I'd caution editors about favoring one spelling over another without a very good reason.   Will Beback  talk  02:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your wrote: "I'm srue there are no lack of sources for the other spelling too, they just haven't been added yet." Then please produce [sources] that meet the standard of WP:TITLE and are "recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources". And I would caution editors who dismantle a recently created and well sourced article [1] and who redirect and combine said article to an article that is tagged as "Unreferenced", to reconsider their disruptive editing behavior which does not serve Wikipedia or its readership. [2] [3] -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you only researching one side of this, or are you editing in a responsible, neutral fashion by looking at both sides of the issue?   Will Beback  talk  22:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any sources Will? Or are you going to continue to play games? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked. I'm not playing games. Please don't make accusations like that. I assume you looked. Am I wrong?   Will Beback  talk  23:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Maharishi with two "i"s

[edit]
How about sources for the other spelling?   Will Beback  talk  22:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to have the titel of the article be "Maharshi" then we need to find sources to support that spelling. --BwB (talk) 03:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who made this comment? Is this from Bigweeboy?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the question is whether editors are acting neutrally or are promoting, perhaps unintentionally and unconsciously, the spelling used by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Since there doesn't seem to have been any effort to find other spellings, it looks like the effort here it to justify using that one spelling rather than to actually discover which spelling is most common. If you'd like to prove me wrong that'd be great.   Will Beback  talk  01:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the question is whether editors are acting neutrally or are promoting, perhaps unintentionally and unconsciously, an alternate spelling and preventing the article from being titled correctly, according to mainstream sources that are "recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources" per WP:TITLE. Since the editor who dismantled the properly sourced article with the mainstream spelling [4] [5] [6] refuses to provide any sources to support their actions, it looks like the effort here is it to justify using the alternative spelling by stalling, making personal comments and assuming bad faith, rather than conceding to the obvious fact that the alternative spelling is not widely used and does not serve the Wikipedia project or its readership. If you'd like to prove me wrong that'd be great. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing was "dismantled". Are you asserting that "Maharishi" is an entirely different word from "Maharshi"?   Will Beback  talk  23:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has not been any progress in the discussion here. I have taken the issue to the Dispute Resolution noticeboard. Interested parties are invited to participate there.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Results of the Dispute Resolution noticeboard

[edit]

Since there appears to be no further comments at DRN, I have summarized the feedback we received from editors not involved in the general topic of Maharishi, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi or TM.

  • User fg: "The article should be named Maharishi (two i's) and Maharshi (one i) should redirect to it."
  • User TransporterMan: "It seems to me that the article title should be Maharishi with Maharshi redirecting to it."
  • User Binksternet: "I'm going to echo TransporterMan and say that Maharishi should be the main article spelling with Maharshi the redirect."
  • User Mr. Stradavarius: "looking at the evidence above it seems that Maharishi should be the name of the article and Maharshi should redirect to it"
  • User Nevard: "On the basis of common use in dictionaries, I would be inclined to agree." "Maharishi is the better spelling for an article referring to the concept of 'Maharishi" "Maharshi is best for the actual concept within Hinduism that the article describes"

SUMMARY: Four uninvolved editors said that the article title should be Maharishi and that Maharshi (one i) should redirect to Maharishi (two i). One editor agrees that Maharishi (two i) is the commonly used spelling per dictionaries but also feels that Maharshi (one i) should have its own article since it is a prevalent spelling within the concept of Hinduism. Therefore there seems to be a clear consensus amongst the uninvolved members of the community that the main article should be called Maharishi (two i) and Maharshi (one i) should redirect to it. Thank you to all those that participated in this community forum. I'll begin making the changes shortly.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maharshi&oldid=1200523006"