Talk:Pranava yoga

message: Can you provide a citation to anyone using the name "Om yoga meditation" in print? If no one else has used this term, then this article might be original research. —Hanuman Das 22:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is absolutely OR. There is no citation for anyone else using the phrase 'pranava yoga' as a distinct phenomenon. It's just a mantra you can use for japa, but it's still mantra yoga, not its own phenomenon. This information should go on the Om page if anywhere. Who wants to delete this?    Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 08:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems odd indeed. I've rephrased the first sentence. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research?

message: I had to remove two sections of the article as copyright violations. Both violations were from atmajyoti.org. The two sections were Om – the mantra and The Practice of Om Yoga Meditation. I note that "Om Yoga" is the title of a free ebook promoted by this site and am beginning to suspect that this is a promotional vanity article. If it is not, then I think that a summary (the intro) should be merged to Aum under the heading "Om Yoga" and the rest should be deleted as simply a list of verses intended to support what appears to be original research. Either that or the article should simply be nominated for deletion. It is really simply about a practical application of the syllable Aum and should be in that article. There is no need to duplicate the description of Aum, quotes about Aum, etc. as this article does. —Hanuman Das 01:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright violations

message: The deleted sections were used with the permission of the author of the sited ebook, Swami Nirmalananda. In my opinion, they should not be deleted, as they are important information regarding a very important and neglected subject in Wikipedia. As you know from the citations which you deleted, this is not a novel, created method, but is one one of long standing. Hence, it is not promotional of any specific organization. Further, the information is practical, that is, useable, rather than simply theoretical academic knowledge.
I further think that the article should stand as it is as a separate article, rather than being merged into the larger article regarding Om. Firstly, the article is primarily about a specific type of meditation, rather than primarily about Om. Secondly, if merged into a larger article it would of necessity need to be trimmed, i.e., diluted, and made insipid, impractical, and useless. If articles on meditation methods of less importance historically are permitted to stand separately, then this surely qualifies to remain as one.
Please consider these compelling arguements. Please forgive any neglect of other conventions due to ignorance. I will gladly conform to necessary standards. You could help by helping me find how to acknowledge permission granted for extended quotations such as is mentioned above. –Tarakananda 16:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sections used with Permission

message: I agree that there is not that much unique material here. Almost all of the quotes are about OM in general, not about "Om Yoga Meditation". Of the deleted copyvio material, one section is strictly about Aum, the other section a meditation instruction. The latter even if proper permission has been given is not encyclopedic. An encyclopedia is an overview; WP is not an instruction manual. Therefore, I support the proposed merge. If you wish to contribute source materials, for example, the whole article containing the copied parts, under the GFDL, the correct place is Wikisource, not Wikipedia. -999 (Talk) 20:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Changes have been made to this article per the recommendations of Hanuman Das. –Tarakananda 18:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Tarakananda! Your willingness to work with me on this article has resulted in an article that can stand on its own and should be resiliant enough to stand up against any nomination for deletion, in my opinion. The original article had a number of features that might have attracted the attention of deletionists, but together we have remedied that. Thanks again! —Hanuman Das 22:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision 

message: 11111111111  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.201.170.57 (talk) 18:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  705402372@qq.com