Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

Outside input

We now have two more people who have provided outside input Woonpton and John Carter. Both feel that what what we have currently is best. Ie no merging. Should we move on to improving the article or wait for more outside input? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to John for his input. Woonpton is not an uninvolved editor. John is of the impression that your split was carried out after extensive discussion which of course was not the case. What was resolved after extensive discussion many months ago was to create an article called TM movement and to separate that from an article called TM technique. The very simple renaming of the TM article to TM technique would have solved the problem outlined in the recent RfC, and was suggested by another outside editor but you bypassed that suggestion when you split off content to create another article. I think we could look into a true dab page but we need editor input and agreement on that. (olive (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC))

Just renaming would not have dealt with the length issue. Do you think that the 7000-word TM technique article would be improved if we moved the 1300-word "Theoretical concepts" section and the 900-word "Characterizations" section there?   Will Beback  talk  21:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There was no length issue per the RfC.

RfC statement: Transcendental Meditation" and "TM" are used by journalists and scholars to refer to both the meditation technique and the movement. Should the lead sentence of this article reflect both common usages? Will Beback talk 22:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC) The so called length issue was introduced after the unilateral split. If there is a length issue that's a discussion that belongs in the hands of all the editors here, not one or two. Further its another discussion. What are we discussing here? (olive (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC))

If we're not discussing improvements to this article we should move the discussion elsewhere.

I asked you if you think the TM technique article would be improved if we moved two long sections from this article to that article.   Will Beback  talk  21:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

And I said clearly, not me, or you or any other single editor should make that decision. "If there is a length issue that's a discussion that belongs in the hands of all the editors here, not one or two". What my personal opinion is has no bearing in this process. If we need a discussion on the length of this article that's another discussion. I'd be happy to take part in that kind of discussion with other editors later on, once we deal with the article concerns now. I don't think its clear what we are discussing anymore there have been so many side discussions. I was discussing a split and felt a neutral action would have been to rejoin the articles split off then clean them up to comply with best article practices. If editors see a length problem , it could be cleaned up then. At the same time if other editors discuss and agree on a dab page that would be a possible editor agreed upon solution. I'm not interested in any unilateral actions on anyone's part on these large issues.(olive (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC))

@Doc James, important modifications to the current Transcendental Meditation article is a reasonable option for me. However, it still remain that we must discuss what people expect to get in a Transcendental Meditation article.

@Olive, I must say that I do not think that a renaming of the main article from Transcendental Meditation to Transcendental Meditation technique is a viable option. Detractors of TM will want that the main article contains something about the TM organization. This says a lot about the value of the TM technique as such.

@John, A DAB page is only an option if we really cannot agree on the content of a main article. I am hoping that we will agree on the content of a main article. One reason for this is that, even if we have two articles at the same level, the detractors of TM will still try push their viewpoints in both articles. Therefore, it is simpler to address the issue in one main article. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Edith I'm referring to the original TM article which existed before the split and during the RfC... and I'm suggesting renaming TM to TM technique after the two articles in existence now, TM and TM technique are rejoined. I guess I would not assume what other editors would want or not want. I try to think we are all trying to be neutral and with discussion can come to some agreement.(olive (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC))

So, you are indirectly saying that you had no content issue in mind, just a renaming of the article, with no intention to exclude content about the organisation. Well, the thing is that I am not attach, but also not against the idea of three articles: TM, TM technique and TM organisation. I do not interpret it to mean that TM means equally TM technique and TM organisation. I still think that it primarily means TM technique. This is why I am hoping to first discuss the most common use of "Transcendental Meditation" before we start improving the associated article as it is now after the splitting.

If people want the Transcendental Meditation article to be the main article for "Transcendental Meditation", without a "Transcendental Meditation Technique" article, this is fine with me. I don't buy the length argument. It is not really an issue. Similarly, if people want a "Transcendental Meditation Technique" article to be the main article for "Transcendental Meditation" (without a Transcendental Meditation article, i.e., a renaming before splitting), this is also fine with me.

It seems to me that in all three cases, we will have to deal with the issue of what should be the content of the main article. So, why not discuss that. It seems to be the issue here. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Lead sentence

"Transcendental Meditation" and "TM" are used by journalists and scholars to refer to both the meditation technique and the movement. Should the lead sentence of this article reflect both common usages?   Will Beback  talk  22:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments from involved users

The lead sentence should make clear what the article is about. There is an article on TM movement. This article has been about the TM technique. Stylistically, placing both TM movement and meditation technique in the opening sentence must mean that the article is about both. In fact it hasn't been about both. Although there is content on TM movement, the article itself has not been on TM movement. Further, TM as a meditation technique is the most common usage. Literature on research on the TM technique dwarfs other literature. The primary issue here is what this article is about, once that has been established what goes where will proceed logically. The decision for deciding what this article is about can't be a unilateral one, but should be considered by all editors interested working on this page. And again before considering the sources... what is this article about? (olive (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC))

As well. The technique has a trademarked name. Should that name be used. If not, why not? Right now the official name of the technique has been omitted from the opening sentence of the article. What purpose does it serve to exclude the name of the technique?(olive (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC))

We at Wikipedia do not dictate word usage. We are here to reflect the usage of the scholarly community at large. So yes TM should refer to both the movement and technique. To do otherwise would be contravene WP:NPOV. If the article historically was not about both this is something that must change. As it stands now though it does appear to deal with both adequately. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

So Doc it seems you've decided this article is to be about movement and technique, is that right?(olive (talk) 23:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC))

I have no idea how writing an article about a technique violates NPOV, or for that matter how writing an article about two topics is more neutral than writing an article about one. (olive (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC))

NPOV requires that we include all significant points of view on a topic. Artificially limiting a topic to only certain points of view would be a violation.   Will Beback  talk  23:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the trademark issue: The details of the U.S. trademark filing have limited applicability to a worldwide movement. It is a very narrow self-description whose sole purpose is to fulfill certain legal requirements to prevent competing uses of a word or phrase. FWIW, the United States Patent and Trademark Office's Trademark Electronic Search System reports that the current trademark on "Transcendental Meditation" covers " G & S: EDUCATIONAL SERVICES-NAMELY, CONDUCTING COURSES AND SEMINARS ON PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT."[1] (Anyone interesting in verifying will have to conduct a fresh search - there's no ability to directly link to a record.) There is no mention of a specific technique. Even if there were, Wikipedia articles are not constrained by U.S. trademark filings.   Will Beback  talk  23:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not talking about a trademark I'm talking about common sense. The technique has a name...what is the objection to using it.(olive (talk) 23:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC))

I don't understand. Is the technique not called "Transcendental Meditation"? If so, that is also the name of the movement or organization, according to sources.   Will Beback  talk  23:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a servicemark, not a trademark. What is servicemarked is not the technique. What is servicemarked is the use of the term "TM" or "Transcendental Meditation" for the teaching of the technique. Taking at face value the claims of the Maharishi that the technique is thousands of years old and not his invention, the technique is not capable of being legally trademarked or servicemarked. Accordingly, anyone can teach the technique - so long as they don't call it TM. So, the argument based on the trademark has this exactly backwards; for purposes of trademark law, TM is not the technique; it is the method teaching of the technique, which is the TM Org and Movement. That being said, the argument based on trademark/servicemark misses the point entirely. Fladrif (talk) 00:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Transcendental Meditation technique is the name of the meditation, and the official name.[2] Using TM to mean either movement or technique blurs specificity. I have to ask once again what is this article about. We have a TM movement article. Do we need another TM movement article? If Yes, why?(olive (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC))

To answer your question what we need is a TM technique article. Thus you would be happy yes? I will create one.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at the page you linked. In big letters at the top of the page it says, "The Transcendental Meditation Program". The url is "http://www.tm.org/meditation-techniques" - plural. According to this official site, it would appear that they call it a "program" covering more than one technique. Be that as it may, we aren't here to report just the official version. We're here to report all points of view, giving weight according to their prominence. This article isn't titled "Transcendental Meditation technique" or "Transcendental Meditation techniques" or "Transcendental Meditation Program". What it is called is "Transcendental Meditation", and sources say that phrase refers to the type of meditation taught by the Maharishi and to the movement founded by him. Therefore we should reflect both usages in the lead.   Will Beback  talk  05:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "reflect"? --BwB (talk) 08:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

"Include" may be a more direct way of saying it, as in "we should include both usages".   Will Beback  talk  08:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments from uninvolved users

I'm an outsider, having become aware of the differences here through Doc James' RfA. The solution which seems obvious to me is to have two articles:

• Transcendental Meditation methods (or techniques or program or methodology) where the first line says For the organization and movement, see Transcendental Meditation movement.
• Transcendental Meditation movement where the first line says For the techniques of Transcendental Meditation, see Transcendental Meditation techniques (or methods, methodology, program etc).

This has probably been considered. What are the objections to it? --Hordaland (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Hordaland:There is a TM movement article that was split off of this article... and this article had been designated as the the technique article or methods article. One concern is that this article will become another TM movement article, and of course Wikipedia doesn't need two.(olive (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC))

That's why the 2 names suggested above. (I know there is a TMM - I linked to it.) I don't see why there has to be a parent article to those 2 suggested. Most people will be looking for the one or the other of them (first). Is that the argument -- that there has to be a parent article? If so, it can be very short and summarize the other two, seems to me. Hordaland (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry I realized you had linked to the article after I'd already hit save. I think simply renaming this article would solve a lot of problems... there would be two distinct articles with your solution. I don't think having a parent article is an issue in this discussion. The issue for me is to make sure that the articles aren't duplicated as could happen if the opening sentence of the lead refers to both TM technique and TM movement equally. I think its fine to have TM movement mentioned in the lead as I've said several times, but placement is important. And TM movement does link back to this article.(olive (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC))

Well then, you and I are in agreement. Where's everyone else?  :) Hordaland (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes think that is a great idea. I have moved much of the content to a subarticle. Some of the content overlaps and deals with both the movement and technique.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

James. You have mistakenly misunderstood the points made here. There was no agreement to create another article. Agreement in which you included yourself was to rename this article. I don't consider that three of us constitutes a consensus. However in the middle of a discussion and RfC as well as a request for mediation you made a huge unilateral change very much against what you and two other editors agreed on. I ask that you un do what you've done and wait for editor agreement on whatever will solve the issues here. I assume good faith and hope you misunderstood the conversation. Thanks.(olive (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC))

Was this not what everyone was referring too? We have an article for the movement, now we have one for the technique. And we have one that acts a little like a disambig and provides an overview of both.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

My goodness you move quickly, Doc James! But why? I can't see that there needed to be yet another article (to clean up). I could see an argument for a very short intro article, summarizing and presenting the other articles. But the article you are moving(?) stuff from is still waaaay long. Hordaland (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes a short intro article is what we are attempting to create. As we have an article on the movement and this article was getting too long, having an article on the technique was only fair for balance. I am unsure how to best split some of the remaining stuff. I guess the MVAH could be moved to the movement page. The school and corporate programs moved to the technique page.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Who are the "we" you are referring to Doc in your statement "a short intro article is what we are attempting to create?" Is this the "royal we"? --BwB (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Since no one here is a king or queen (or raja), I presume it's the editorial "we".   Will Beback  talk  23:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I was asking Doc for his answer with respect to "we". --BwB (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This RfC was unfortunately archived while it is still being actively discussed, so I brought it back to the active page for easy reference. It should stay here until the matter is resolved. Woonpton (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Open discussion

I'd like to request and open discussion first, on how this article was formed, and second on the article itself.

• This article Transcendental Meditation (TM) was created by splitting off content into another article, TM technique, despite clear editor objection on the second day of an RfC and with another suggestion on the table. Threads: [3][4] Is this an appropriate way to use an RfC, that should be a clearly collaborative, dispute resolution process. If not what can be done about it and this article?
• I have serious concerns about the article itself. Does anyone else have concerns?(olive (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC))

Who are you that speaks thus? Rumiton (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I thank thee for thine notice.(olive (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• This article in indeed the left over of an important content fork, which was not properly discussed. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Olive, what are your concerns about the article, in its current state?   Will Beback  talk  21:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's not bypass the most fundamental of the issues here. How was a split of an article created on the second day of an RfC when there was another suggestion, and when editors did not agree-desctinctly did not agree. Unless someone can show me how this split was legitimate in the first place, that is, how it was collaborative per the TM arbitration, how taking this action was agreed on by the editors taking part in the RfC, how this is an acceptable way to deal with an RfC , then the two articles should be merged and the split undone. If someone can show me how the split was legitimate and with editor agreement, then I'd be willing to take the next step and deal with the TM article itself and its multiple concerns.(olive (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC))

I'm interested in discussing the article. Whenever you're ready to talk about it I'll participate.   Will Beback  talk  03:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

How the article got here is discussing the article. It sounds as if you want to overlook that aspect. I don't want to overlook the input of several editors and a RfC that was cut off just as it started, and I won't pretend that this was a legitimate process. If you don't want to participate that's your prerogative. But I won't ignore the issue. If we need outside help to mediate this discussion to make it more comfortable for everyone, I will ask for help. Let me know if and how you want to proceed.(olive (talk) 03:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC))

Are you recommending merging both Transcendental Meditation movement at 96,926 bytes and Transcendental Meditation technique at 85,763 bytes into this article at 60,883 bytes? The resulting article would just be to big.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

No. I'm suggesting undoing the split of the original TM article into TM and TM technique. I'm going offline for tonight but will continue later tomorrow. Thanks for the input.(olive (talk) 03:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC))

That does not make any sense as it is neither fair nor neutral thus I strongly oppose this suggestion. TM refers equally to both the technique and the movement.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Can Olive explain why she wants to merge the two articles? There have been significant edits to both articles so we need to look at this from where we are today, not the past situation.   Will Beback  talk  04:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Before the split there were two article - Transcendental Meditation with a primary focus on the technique, and Transcendental Meditation Movement covering more the organization around the technique. These 2 artilcle served nicely to cover the main themes. Now we have three. --BwB (talk) 09:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears that some editors feel that the split of the article was made without proper consensus and due process. For this reason they would like to discuss that here now. It would seem to me to be an appropriate place. Is there any Wikipedia guideline that says that once an article is split that the split cannot be re-considered?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The vast majority of edits to the two articles were made by those who engineered and supported the split not by those who didn't. The discussion that followed the split effectively excluded input from editors who did not support the split. At this point for the purposes of dealing with this article, how this split was even possible is not the concern in part because it brings into the discussion editor behaviour. I'd like to just focus on the article itself. The real question should be why was the content split when there was another suggestion made by an uninvolved editor agreed on by both an involved and uninvolved editor to rename the TM article TM technique. Even then any action with out agreement would have preempeted the RfC. So editors were waiting for further input.

Merging the two articles and renaming the article TM technique was the suggested discussed solution of the RfC. The split was a unilateral edit but was supported by another editor. The question now is, which of these two solutions can be agreed on as supported by a consensus. By consensus I mean almost all editors from both sides of the dispute in agreement rather than stacking up editors on either side and calling that a consensus. I'd like to see a situation where both sides are happy with what we decide to go on with. If we can't get to that point on our own I'd like to bring in a mediator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs)

I don't see any point in constantly rehashing the past. Let's talk about how we want to improve the articles in the TM topic.   Will Beback  talk  21:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

We first have to decide what articles there are to deal with.(21:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC))small>—Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs)

See Category:Transcendental Meditation movement. Since this is a multi-article discussion maybe it'd be better held on the project talk page. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movement.   Will Beback  talk  22:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Editor input requested

If editors could point out which of these suggestions appeals to them most we could get a sense of where we stand on this issue and whether we can deal with this on our own or need and outside eye. As far as I'm concerned unless we have total agreement from both sides we should ask for help. I've notified the regular editors on the TM pages.

We have several possibilities:

1.) Don't merge Transcendental Meditation, Transcendental Meditation technique

2.) Merge Transcendental Meditation into Transcendental Meditation technique

3.) Some other re-configuration

---

These are always possibilities no matter what other decisions are made and are not mutually exclusive as the above can be:

4.) Improve the articles

5.) Delete them all and start from scratch

• Olive: #2...I originally supported the renaming of the article from Transcendental Meditation to Transcedental Meditation technique and still do.
• Bigweeboy - #2 I think the 2 articles we had prior to the split were sufficient. --BwB (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• TimidGuy - #2 There's no need for three articles. It's just confusing. About 99% of the time "Transcendental Meditation is used to refer to a specific meditation procedure, and that's what this article should be about. (Other, rare usages can be mentioned in the article.) TimidGuy (talk) 11:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

I'd like to discuss this before we vote. I'm not sure the point of a vote anyway.   Will Beback  talk  21:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Its not a vote but an indication of what people agree with and sets a bottom line on the discussion. Maybe we can all come to some agreement on how to deal with the article/articles in question. Discussion is ongoing and doesn't stop because we take a look at where we stand on this issue.(olive (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC))

What's the purpose of having a "bottom line" in a discussion? I don't know what that means.   Will Beback  talk  22:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

We have to be discussing the same thing. Right now we're not. You want to discuss an article others don't think should exist. Until we can agree on whether this article should be here or not a discussion has no focus. Per the arbitration far better to go to dispute resolution than drag on a convoluted discussion which is what occurs when groups can't even agree on what the discussion is about. If we can come to some understanding on what we are discussing we have a chance to resolve the issues.(olive (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC))

I still don't understand this "bottom line" concept. I said I'm not interested in rehashing this same old edit over and over, but you can do so if you want. I am interested in discussing improvements to this and other articles. If you don't want to that's fine too.   Will Beback  talk  22:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

So there is somewhat of an impasse... I want to discuss improvements to the article but think we have to establish first just what articles we are talking about... You don't want to discuss what articles we are talking about but would go onto discussing improvements with out that background in mind. (olive (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC))

Aren't we talking about Transcendental Meditation and Transcendental Meditation technique? Those are the subject of the poll. Are there other articles we're talking about too?   Will Beback  talk  22:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm discussing the original article and the split of that article into two articles. You seem to be discussing the articles that exist after the split. Those are the articles we are discussing. Well think about it. I'm going of line for the night.(olive (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC))

So is this basically a discussion over whether to merge the two articles? If so, please apply the relevant {merge} tags to the article and start a thread on that explicit topic. See WP:MERGE and Help:Merging.   Will Beback  talk  23:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

A merge at this point would be a purely technical procedure, a remedy to a split that was not accepted, was not properly discussed, etc. What is the tag when a new article is created without consensus by article forking? This would be the only acceptable tag in the current situation. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

See WP:SPLIT and Wikipedia:Content forking.   Will Beback  talk  00:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

We have three articles. One that gives an overview Transcendental Meditation one that deals with the technique Transcendental Meditation technique and one that deals with the movement Transcendental Meditation movement. This is a fair way to present the material. We could shrink the main TM page down to a disambig. But I feel that would be too small. We could join them all together but that would be to big. What we have now is just right. I have the impression of efforts to suppress information regarding the TM movement with a desire to give greater emphasis to the technique. While I hope I am wrong changes in this direction are not something I would support. BWBs possibles do not do justice to the options at hand which are:

1)Merge all three.
2)Don't merge all three and leave them as they are
3)Move material from the main article to the sub articles and only leave a disambig.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there are four article. Don't forget History of Transcendental Meditation.   Will Beback  talk  00:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou that would mean four to merge. Anyway off to the symphony. May vote should be obvious. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we can get back to the discussion at hand, the merging of the TM article, and TM technique article which was split off during the last RfC. If James wants to add his points to the above points I created and added to by Will that reference those two articles, he should. No one is suggesting merging three or four articles.(olive (talk) 03:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC))

If this is a merge discussion then let's do it right.   Will Beback  talk  04:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not a "merge discussion". As I stated above, before the unnecessary split, we had 2 article - one on TM that covered the TM technique, another that covered the TM Movement as the organization that teaches the technique and related courses. This covered material nicely. There is not even a need for a disambig in my opinion. --BwB (talk) 08:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I have already provided references that supported having separate articles on the technique and movement. Wikipedia is based on reasoned debate not a vote. TimidGuy says 99% of the time TM refers to the technique. Does he have a ref to support this opinion? The Encyclopedia Britannica disagrees with this position.[5] This change was done to increase WP:NPOV. No justification why it should not have taken place was ever put forwards.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Lets not suggest anything else but the clearly stated intention of the input I requested- not to vote to make changes, but to state positions in order to to get a sense of where everyone stood on the issue of merging the TM article in which, content was split off without consensus or agreement in the face of another suggestion, in the second day of an RfC. Now I'm willing to move beyond that action, but unless we know how all editors feel about putting back together ie merging those two articles created as a unilateral edit, we will have a difficult time clarifying what is actually under discussion.

At this point it appears that Will and Doc do not support the merge, while TG, Olive, and BWB do. Is that correct. As well, I'm not seeing this as a consensus-needed situation. I think we just have to know were we all stand. It seems clear that some support the merge and some do not, and I don't see so far, any common ground, so then the next step is to discuss why or why not the merge is needed.(olive (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC))

(undent) We did not need this to figure out where we all stand. Everyone knew this even before we started. The question is which version is more congruent with wiki policy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand the purpose of this discussion. An RfC was announced in early September to elicit outside input on whether the lead of the (then) TM article should mention that TM as used by sources refers both to the technique of Transcendental Meditation and to the TM organization or movement. The only comment from an uninvolved editor was a suggestion that the content be split into two articles, one a short intro titled TM that disambiguates the term TM, and the other titled "Transcendental Meditation technique" that covers the technique only. I haven't been paying attention to those articles, but from the discussion on this page, it appears that was done. That seems a reasonable solution to the difficulty. But more to my point here, I'm puzzled why it's being brought up now, six weeks after the RfC, and put to a vote of involved editors? This isn't how we settle questions on Wikipedia, by counting who's on which side. We go by what works for the encyclopedia, as spelled out in policy. It seems to me that the changes that were made satisfy policy and should have put the matter to rest; I don't see why it's necessary now to re-hold the RfC. I'm not seeing here any reasoned argument why the solution as proposed and carried out wasn't a good one. The information is all there, just organized in a way that should be less confusing to readers, so what's the problem? I don't get it. Woonpton (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me say again for all who continue to use the word vote that as I clearly stated, I was asking for input and for editors to give a sense of how they saw the issues so that discussion could be more focused. There was no vote suggested and no consensus asked for.

The suggestion in the RfC was to rename the article TM technique, not to split the articles. And in fact Wikipedia does function at times using consensus.

@James: In fact, we can't assume what editor positions are in a group process and don't have the right to assign motives to anyone. Asking that we use a group process to asses where editors stand is part of acting and dealing with groups. Whatever our personal opinions are on other people, assuming good faith rather than assigning opinions and motives to people will best facilitate good collaboration.(olive (talk) 01:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC))

In accordance with policy, we should evaluate if Transcendental Meditation usually refers to a mental procedure or to an organisation. It should have been evaluated before the split. Looking at the Encyclopedia Britannica [6] I could find many well structured sentences where "Transcendental Meditation" is used alone to mean the technique. We can find similar sentences all over the place, in newspapers, in TV programs, etc. I don't think that we have so many sentences where "Transcendental Meditation" is used alone to mean the organisation. There could be sentences that are in between, not so clear on the usage, such as "An adept of Transcendental Meditation". Anyway, what we need is to evaluate the most common usage in non ambiguous and well structured sentences, especially in popular media, which are most representative of the common usage. This was never done and thus policy was violated, but let just do it now. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that is not a common interpretation of policy. When a term refers to different things, we don't have to "evaluate" by some rubric which of the things is the more common use of the term and only have an article about that one; Wikipedia is full of disambiguation pages or introduction pages, that say "x can refer to y, or to z" with links to articles about y and z which people can click on depending on which meaning of the term they wanted to learn about. There is no policy requirement to choose between the meanings, in fact it's most common to disambiguate and have articles for the different meanings. Woonpton (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes those within the movement often refer to the movement as "World Government" and the technique as TM. But we are not writing from the position of those within the movement. We are writing from the position of general interest / academia. TM as you acknowledge above may refer to the movement. Thus I hope this settles things.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The policy or guideline says that for a given name we have the choice between associating that name to a disambiguation page or to a main article that corresponds to the most common usage of that name. In the latter case, the main article includes references to the other uses of that name. Normally, if one usage is more common, then we use it for a main article. For example, there is no disambiguation page for Pepsi. In any case, it says that it must be discussed before we do a splitting, create a disambiguation page or an introduction article. BTW, I don't think that introduction articles are so common. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Coming back to the issue at hand - before the split (for a very long time, in fact) we had only 1 article on TM that covered the whole gambit of references to TM, but the main focus was no the technique. Then an article on the TM movement was created - 1 article for TM technique (the most common usage of the name), and another for the TM movement. I am still firmly of the opinion that all we need is 2 articles to cover the relevant material. --BwB (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Things were not stable. There was a dispute over whether the lede should say, "The TM technique is" or "TM is a technique and a movement". Editors have been strongly in favor of an article that was focused on the TM technique. So that's what we have. It's been very stable since then.   Will Beback  talk  18:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I would classify the TM article as stagnant, not stable. --BwB (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

What's the difference?   Will Beback  talk  19:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I (Edith) lost my access to my account, but just wanted to share that I feel the main issue is how do we use the high visibility of the term "Transcendental Meditation". The discussion must acknowledge the importance of this visibility. Any content that is often expected when one search that term should be included in the article. Though it seems clear that Transcendental Meditation as a name is always used in practice to mean the technique, I to say that no one is seeking info about the movement when they search "Transcendental Meditation" would be an exaggeration. This visibility needs to be shared. It cannot be reserved to the technique. The main issue is what is the correct balance. 67.230.154.115 (talk) 14:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

• Move "Theoretical concepts" section and the "Characterizations" section to Transcendental Meditation technique.

Comments

I'm opposed to doing so but am making this proposal for discussion purposes. I think the Theoretical concepts underly more than just the technique. The Characterizations mostly refer to the generic "TM" and it's often unclear if the sources are referring to the technique or the movement, or both. Further, moving these sections to the TM technique article would make it too long. For those reasons I support keeping those sections here.   Will Beback  talk  22:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Will that it would be best to leave these section where they are. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is a good idea to discuss what should be moved out of the main article at this stage without also discussing what should be moved in. Any proposal should present the big picture since it is hard to evaluate sections without the overall context. I am interested to see a proposal that would present the big picture. I invite people to boycott this proposal, not reject it, but not accept it either, until we see the big picture. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like to make an alternate proposal then that's fine too. But asking other editors to boycott discussions is probably not a good way of working towards consensus.   Will Beback  talk  00:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I make the proposal that we focus on the big picture. It is time that we stop avoiding the main issues. Doc James destroyed years of work that were necessary to determine what should be the content of the main article (for Transcendental Meditation). It is obvious that he did not like the overall structure of the main article, but instead of discussing it, he acted unilaterally, without consensus. Now, we need to discuss it. Unlike others, I do not care about renaming or merging, I only care about the structure of the main article, which will naturally suggest a structure for the other articles. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 01:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, so you reject this proposal.   Will Beback  talk  06:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

All outside editors who have commented have supported the changes I have made. Yes those who practice TM do not agree but please see WP:COI. The term is used nearly equally for the technique and the movement per google. The current layout is only logical. Even Little Olive said she wanted an article about the technique. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Adding another proposal previously considered, and a few comments to begin the discussion and to clarify for Edith some of my comments:

I agree with Edith in saying a lot of editor work was undone with out discussion, but the only way we can start to deal with that is to listen to everybody, what they have to say, suggested proposals. So in my mind all proposals are legitimate and have to be considered.

Creating something can be done by moving from the holistic to the specific and reversely from the specific to the holistic. I also prefer to deal with the big picture-the holistic, then deal with specifics. A merge is a broad stroke after which more specific changes of each section in the article can be considered. One of the broad strokes is to deal with two main articles, TM (restored by merging TM ad TM technique) and TM movement, rather than the three, TM technique, TM movement, and then TM. I think there are redundancies and also significant lacks with three articles. In the past the TM article was designated as the technique article. Transcendental Meditation (TM) is just what the name says a meditation technique, so, initially adding the word technique wasn't necessary. The words later came to be used to encompass anything and everything that related to the technique and we had dealt with that in an article called TM movement.

The merge was suggested to return the TM article to its pre split state, thereby saving a lot of that long laboured-over editor work. Renaming was a proposal for the pre split TM article, not for the TM article we have now.

Will seems to be suggesting more specific changes and is discussing how those changes will affect the bigger picture.

Maybe what we have to decide first is, do we want two or three TM articles.(olive (talk) 03:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC))

We have about twenty TM articles. Do you reject or accept this proposal?   Will Beback  talk  06:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Twenty TM articles? There is only on TM technique so only 1 article on the subject. --BwB (talk) 09:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

@ James: Its not accurate to say I wanted a technique article. We had a technique article and per the outside editor and myself there was agreement to rename that article Transcendental Meditation technique. We were waiting for editor input on that when you split off content to create another article. Nor is it accurate to say all outside editors supported your change. One had suggested something completely different which you ignored, and another was not aware that your changes did not have agreement or discussion behind them. COI was presented at the arbitration and no charges of COI were part of the arbitration case. I'd ask that you assume good faith and do not bring discussion back to your perceived and personal opinion on some of the editors here.(olive (talk) 03:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC))

I think I have said what I needed to say. The key point is to focus on what should be the content of the main article for "Transcendental Meditation". Focusing on whether we have two or three articles will just appear as we focus on secondary issues. What is the big deal in distributing the content in three or two articles? However, the content of the main article is a big deal. Anyway, I will not provide further inputs because the atmosphere is too much on attacks. I just received a warning of Personal attacks because I said that Doc James has destroyed years of work. I had only in mind his edits, not him personally. Anyone should be able to see this. I believe the policy makes the distinction between this kind of comments and true personal attacks. I consider that I received a personal attack from an administrator. So, sorry, but I am not doing further work for Wikipedia in this kind of atmosphere. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 03:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No material was deleted, so yes, saying that work was "destroyed" was hyperbole.   Will Beback  talk  06:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I've clearly from the beginning been in favour of 2 rather than 3 so called "TM" articles and I defined what I meant earlier, but I may not have been clear so I'm happy to clarify. I'd like to see a Transcendental Mediation article that is used as a technique article and encompasses all content we have on the technique. It can be called TM (technique) or not. Per the RfC adding "technique" would be fine. I've suggested merging the TM article we have now and the TM technique article we have now to salvage content and editor work from the TM article we had in the past. That article (past), although not named technique had been designated by editors as the technique article. Then we can leave in place the TM movement article we have to catch other content that does not specifically refer to TM technique but that in the sources references "movement". Until we clarify and can agree on what articles we want to have, this proposal seems premature.

• TM, TM (technique), TM (movement) + action to merge or combine TM and TM technique=TM (technique), TM (movement) (olive (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC))

I think that the current structure of the various articles is fine and entirely consistent with Wiki guidelines and policies on article content and structures. I would not support changing them. That is not to say that these articles, like every article at Wikipedia, cannot be improved. They are in need of substantial improvement. But I very fundamentally disagree with the characterizations of how we got from one to twenty or so articles, fundamentally disagree with the assertions that anyone's work got destroyed or undone, and fundamentally disagree with the various proposals being floated to merge or eliminate articles. Now, if someone wants to propose, as has been repeatedly proposed over the past few years (most recently by David Spector, IIRC) that we chuck the whole lot and basically translate the German Wikipedia TM article into English, I just might be able to get on board for that. But, without rehashing years of archived discussions on this talk page, I have read these same arguments, with minor variations on the theme, at least a dozen times, participated in them at least half-a-dozen times, and I do not agree at all with the objections nor the proposals. Fladrif (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

To clarify: Nothing in this discussion has to do with how we got to 20 articles. Will, I think, was objecting to my use of "TM articles" to refer to just the two or three articles we're talking about here rather than to all of the articles( ie 20)-a fair criticism and lack of clarity on my part.(olive (talk) 15:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC))

Seems to me Will's proposal is a partial merging of content. What holds us back from merging the rest? What use is there for this third article (beyond TM technique and TM movement). I don't se the point. (olive (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC))

I don't see the need for three articles (TM,TMT and TMM) I propose we go back to the two articles we had (TM and TMM) there was no practical reason for the split of the TM article. There is nothing on the subpage I created that argues for a third article. Just because the technique of Transcendental Meditation is also used as an adjective (TM teacher, TM student, TM center, TM movement etc.) does not make it an ambiguous term. The split of the TM article into two articles does not serve Wikpedia or the reader and it would be best if that split was reversed.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you find one or two Wikipedian who do not practice TM who agrees with this statement? Yes we know what those within TM think. Wikipedia is however based on independent third party sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

James I'd ask you again to stop your lack of good faith comments and just deal with the edit/comments. You in fact don't know what anyone really thinks. Broad opinion-based assumptions really can't help this discussion. Thanks.(olive (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC))

In all fairness James that comment was a bit gratuitous. The people involved in this article have an interest in the topic that is true. there si not rule that says that their opinion is less valuable. But if there was it would apply to pretty much everyone here. That being said, I also think that three articles on the same topic are way too much. Splitting was a unilateral decision I was not with, I said so at the time, and I still feel the same way. I think these articles should be returned to the pre split state. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You think we should merge the "TM movement" article into this article? As for going back, that's not really an option because of the many intermediate edits. Whatever we do, we need to move forward. Since this is the thread on a proposal, do you endorse moving the "Theoretical principles" and "Characterizations" section to the "TM technique" article?   Will Beback  talk  20:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• For the record, not a single editor here has endorsed merging the contents of this article into Transcendental Meditation technique. Nobody wants "Theoretical concepts" or "Characterizations" added to that article. So if that material is kept here instead of being merged there, and if that article remains focused on the technique, then I don't see what else there is to discuss.   Will Beback  talk  00:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Whoa there. In no way does merging two sections of this article equal merging the entire article. I was suggesting a merge of the content now in this article into the TM technique article and then editing to clean it up since yes, it has been edited into. And the question was not whether anybody wanted the sections you suggest in the article, but whether they wanted the content moved from this article. These are very different scenarios. In merging the articles we would indeed move the content you suggested along with, the rest of the article.

We do need to move forward and maybe the best way to do that is to decide if, and why, if we do, need the TM article in addition to the TM technique article and the TM movement article. That is a fundamental issue and concern. The remedy which I suggested was a merge. Since about half the editors would support a merge while about half don't we need to try something else, first to visit the concern and establish why we need the TM article and then decide from there how to proceed. I did ask why we need this third article. I'd like to ask again, why do we need the TM article. What is its use and purpose? Unless I can see why the article is necessary, its difficult to think about how to deal it.(olive (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC))

What is in this article other than those two sections that would need to be merged? The other three sections are just short summaries of other articles. Nobody wants to merge the actual content of this article, based on the responses here. As for the "TM technique" article, it's there to cover the TM technique. Seems pretty obvious to me.   Will Beback  talk  01:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Nah. Five editors like the idea of the merge. Merging removes an article we may not need, and content we don't need after the merge can be edited out. The question is still why do we need this third article. I can't see its use myself. Maybe someone else can. Can we establish this first so we can move on?(olive (talk) 01:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC))

All I can really say is WOW. We just talk past one another. My recommendation to Olive and others to get outside support was not gratuitous but only attempting to help settle the matter. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I support the proposal to merge the current Transcendental Meditation and TM technique articles into one article called "Transcendental Meditation" that deals with the TM technique. After the merge, we can do all the editing required to clean it up. The other article Transcendental Meditation Movement can remain and then also be cleaned up through our collaborative efforts. --BwB (talk) 08:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

An article about the "Transcendental Meditation technique" should be named "Transcendental Meditation technique". I don't know why five editors find that simple logic to be so hard to accept, but it's how Wikipedia works.   Will Beback  talk  09:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Will, you have been involved in the editing of the TM article for quite a long time, as have I. It was the common understanding among editors, until the fairly recent split, that the prime focus of the TM article was the TM technique. Up to this point, you have not been insistent that the name of the TM article be called "TM technique". The "simple logic" did not seem to apply before. --BwB (talk) 11:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The technique vs. movement dispute predates my involvement. But we're making progress.   Will Beback  talk  12:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Would it make sense to move the Transcendental Meditation movement article to Transcendental Meditation? If it does not then it should not make sense to move the Technique article to TM Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The suggestion is to merge TM technique and TM movement so that the result is to have a TM technique article and TM movement article, but not a TM article. No one is in this discussion suggested an article named just TM. Although I just see that BWB did which I personally don't support. (But five editors? Nope), Although an article called TM is what was in place before the split.

Lets get back onto discovering the reason for a TM article in addition to a TM technique article and TM movement article, the fundamental issue in this discussion. (As an aside about semantics: Having an article about the technique called TM instead of TM technique is also fine since the semantics of the phrase Transcendental Meditation is of a meditation technique, and therefore "technique" is a given understanding implicit in the phrase Transcendental Meditation. Adding the word "technique" is a modifier and so a clarifier separating out the technique from some other aspects of TM. So to summarize: We seem to need one article about the TM technique created by merging the present TM article and the present TM technique article named either TM or TM technique. Either name is accurate per the semantics, and then one article about TM movement. Please note there is a distinction between what an article is about and about how we choose to name that article. And progress? Probably not. As long as we have so much misunderstanding about what is being said I'd say progress in not being made.

The fundamental issue is: Do we need the TM article as it presently stands, and if so why? If we can't discern what the reason is, seems there is no reason and the article can be merged into the TM technique article, then the resultant article cleaned up. Perhaps the question needs to be, is there a reason for that merge not to occur, per the fact that there is so far no reason for the existence of the present TM article not equally served by a merge of its content into the present TM technique article.(olive (talk) 14:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC))

I (Edith) lost my access to my account, but just wanted to share that I feel the main issue is how do we use the high visibility of the term "Transcendental Meditation". The discussion must acknowledge the importance of this visibility. Any content that is often expected when one search that term should be included in the article associated with that term, irrespectively of its title. Though it seems clear that Transcendental Meditation as a name is always used in practice to mean the technique, to say that no one is seeking info about the movement when they search "Transcendental Meditation" would be an exaggeration. This visibility needs to be shared. It cannot be reserved to the technique. The main issue is what is the correct balance. A balance was obtained after years of work. I think it was inappropriate that it was undone without consensus in the recent splitting. 67.230.154.115 (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, it is the purpose of a disambiguation link to share the visibility of a term while preserving the logical organization of the different articles. So, I admit that I cannot find a fundamental reason why we should mix the movement and the technique in a same article. They can easily be separated into two distinct articles. 67.230.154.115 (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

This conversation seems to be going nowhere. After 5 days many pages of discussion I do not see a single point of agreement that we can build upon. This is a complex issue with several editors weighing in and I think a moderator is needed in order for this discussion to progress. Therefore I suggest we proceed to mediation.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Truly, I a a bit disappointed in us, indeed, we all seem to hold on to our own side of the argument. That is natural, in a way. However, in our 'recent' Arbitration they did ask us to work towards consensus building whenever possible. there was no consensus in creating Three TM articles. There appears to be more consensus in merging at least two of the articles into one. Reasonably, there is no need about THREE articles on the same topic. If this is really not possible, then, yes, we do have to go to mediation. I am still hoping, perhaps against hope, that we can agree, but I am open to mediation if necessary. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I am astonished by the claim that there is some consensus to merge articles. Based on what? I've read comments from at least half a dozen editors - some involved, some uninvolved - who disagree strongly. There is a good reason why the conversation is going nowhere: other than complaining about the irrelevancy of how the TM article got created, I haven't read a single sentence by anyone advocating a change that explains why they don't like the current article structure or specifically what they want as a repacement - just bald assertions that they want to eliminate the TM article. You can't have a reasoned discussion if no-one can explain what they want and why. Fladrif (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree there was no consensus to merge. There was no consensus to split either, and there was clear editor objection. In an RfC you just do not make unilateral edits especially after an arbitration binding on all of us that demands collaboration. I have asked multiple times why a third article was and is needed and there is no answer. If no one can tell us why an article created as a unilateral edit in the face of editor objection was and is needed then what else is there to say. Had the third article been created in an RfC with editor consensus this discussion wouldn't be occurring. Now, while I agree that reliving past history seems a waste of time in this case past history has left us with something no one can or chooses to explain. Why is that? If thearticle is needed tell us why so we can move on it. If its not lets deal with that. The concern with the TM article is implicit in this discussion. What does it do that was not being done by the original TM article. If there was no reason to create a split then fix it and lets get on with cleaning up the merged articles. My fix was to merge and then cleanup what we had, anybody else have any other suggestions.(olive (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC))

Complaining about how the article got created is a non-starter. No-one needs anyone's permission, no-one needs anyone's approval, no-one needs consensus or agreement, to write a new article. We have gone through this before, when the same people who are now complaining about three articles were asserting that there was no such thing as the TM Movement, and that a new article on that subject shouldn't be written, or that if it was, there had to be prior consensus on the article and its scope. But, I have no interest in rehashing those discussions. The burden is not on the author of a well-sourced article on a notable subject to justify its existence; the burden is on those proposing that it be merged or deleted to defend and justify their proposal. I have yet to hear a single reason why anyone thinks that doing so is a good idea. Fladrif (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree no one needs permission to create a new article. Unilateral forks and splits during a dispute resolution process is a very different scenario. The split is a red herring in terms of discussion except that it provides background. The issue is what to do with an article that seems to have no clear purpose.(olive (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC))

A wide range of activities on Wikipedia count as dispute resolution. There's no policy of which I'm aware that says editing should stop during dispute resolution. While I don't want to rehash the past, the dispute that the last RfC concerned your insistence that the lede say "The TM technique is..." rather than "TM is a technique and a movement". You appear to still be insisting on that. My view is that if the lede says "the TM technique is..." then the article title has to be "TM technique". Otherwise it's a WP:COATRACK.   Will Beback  talk  00:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Reason why we need three TM articles

• 1) The meaning of TM is ambiguous. It can either refer to a technique or a movement and google uses the terms about equally.
• 2) We thus need a disambig page or a short introduction page
• 3) As a number of aspect of TM relate to both the technique and the movement ( such as history and underlying proposed mechanism ) it makes sense increasing the disambig page to a short introduction page.
• 4) If we did not have an introduction TM page / disambig where were the TM redirect go to? It would not be WP:NPOV to redirect to either of the 2 main pages as these terms are used equally for these two meanings.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Disagree that we need 3 articles. The history of the TM technique is not the same as the history of the TM Movement - TM started before the movement, and the actual TM technique has not changed at least since the early 1970s, while the Movement has gone through many changes. Can Doc please clarify what he means by "underlying proposed mechanism"? I do get his point here. If we have an article titled "TM Movement" and one titled "TM Technique" these can cover all the topics. --BwB (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You are suggesting a disambig page than? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not suggesting anything right now, just bringing up some points about your reasoning and trying to understand what you mean by "underlying proposed mechanism". Great if you could clarify. Thanks.--BwB (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Theoretical concepts Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the many reasons why the current arrangement is preferable is the "Characterizations" section of this article. Many sources say things like "TM is a religion", and it's not at all clear if they're referring to the movement, the technique, or both. This article can handle those ambiguous topics that don't clearly belong in any of the more specific articles.   Will Beback  talk  22:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

That is an excellent point especially as we have had a number of issues with trying to determine where we should put quotes from scientists regarding TM.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

So we are proposing an encyclopedia article for all of the bits and pieces in sources that are unclear as to what they are referring to. Does this sound like we are dealing with significant content appropriate for encyclopedic article inclusion when we're not even sure what the source is referencing? I do agree with James that TM has become a rather ambiguous term and thank him for efforts to move this discussion along. (olive (talk) 02:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC))

TM is an encyclopedia topic. It has many elements, too many to include in one article, or even two or three articles. Per WP:SUMMARY, it's appropriate to split articles when they get too long. Editors can't agree on what the primary meaning of "TM" is, or how to word the lede sentence of a TM article, to cover those different aspects. Editors also don't want to merge the significant content of this article into the current TM technique article. I don't see anyone saying what the problem is with this arrangement, beyond "I don't like it" or "No one asked me first". Olive, since you've been the leader on this can you explain more clearly what your objections are to the current arrangement?   Will Beback  talk  07:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• There is a distinction between what is expected when one search for "Transcendental Meditation" and the meaning of that term. The Google count argument is valid to discuss what is expected when one search that term, but it says little about its meaning. This is because a Google search includes all uses of the Transcendental Meditation technique as an adjective: Transcendental Meditation teacher, etc. When we read the actual text, we see that Transcendental Meditation is almost always used to mean a special kind of meditation - Transcendental is a qualifier for Meditation. This is just common sense and most people go by common sense. The true meaning of a term is determined by how it is used. Even Encyclopedia Britannica, the reference proposed by Doc James to discuss that issue, always use "Transcendental Meditation" to mean the technique. It defines it in a way at the beginning, but then always use it to mean a technique thereafter. It is natural to respect the meaning of a term when we determine the main article, the primary topic, that should be attached to it. Based on the pre-split state, plenty of links have been created in the Internet toward that Wikipedia term. We should not have totally changed the primary topics attached to that term in one big important split that did not even respect the natural meaning of the term.

• Detractors of TM did not respect the natural meaning of the term "Transcendental Meditation" or made it ambiguous when they used it in sentence such as "TM is a religion". This is a fact that can be sourced. However, this is only within sources from detractors. We cannot undo years of work only to please a few sources, which are detractors of TM. There is room for this kind of viewpoints within a TM article (about the technique), but it should not become the central viewpoint that determines the entire structure of the article and appear in the first sentence of the article. Certainly, there is no need to split the article and remove important material (scientific research, etc.) to make room for this kind of viewpoints. In particular, the section "Characterization" was there in the TM article before the split. Therefore, Will Beback's argument, which is based on the section "Characterization", is not valid. I am not saying that the content of that section respects WP:NOR, etc., but this is a different issue.

• As a compromise, I propose to go back (by moving blocks of text that do not discard edits) to the pre-split situation and then add a disambiguation link toward the Transcendental Meditation Movement article. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Per Will's statement above: (Will's comments in bold.)

TM is an encyclopedia topic. It has many elements, too many to include in one article, or even two or three articles. Per WP:SUMMARY, it's appropriate to split articles when they get too long.

• Content has been split off the main TM article many times. These splits are subtopics within the topic TM. All of the splits in my history were carried out with discussion and editor agreement because they were major changes in contentious articles. Splitting off chunks of content to create yet another TM watershed article did not and still doesn't have consensus.
• That the TM article was too long at this point in its history was suggested after the split, and is an opinion that one editor added to the discussion as a reason for the split. There was no consensus that suggested the article was too long, and no consensus for doing something about.

Editors can't agree on what the primary meaning of "TM" is, or how to word the lede sentence of a TM article, to cover those different aspects.

• The TM article was designated by agreement/consensus over time to be the article for the "technique" content. What that content is, is subjective and has given rise to numerous discussions. The lead of the article pre unilateral edit by James described the technique, and the article was about the technique. James added "movement" to the opening sentence of the lead which changed the emphasis of the lead and the article in a major way. James also linked spiritual to religion, giving spiritual per this article a hidden POV meaning. Further, there was no agreement to create this kind of change in the fundamental meaning of the article. You Will opened an RfC to discuss the lead. On the second day of the RfC a massive unilateral edit split off content, not a split of a sub topic area , but a split that created a watershed, and primary article. The article lost all of the TM research, although oddly James came back and added the statement in the lead that serves to negate the research, despite the fact that there is no research in the article which contains reviews on both the positive and negative aspect of TM. This is a POV move and helps create a non NPOV article.

Editors also don't want to merge the significant content of this article into the current TM technique article. I don't see anyone saying what the problem is with this arrangement, beyond "I don't like it" or "No one asked me first". Olive, since you've been the leader on this can you explain more clearly what your objections are to the current arrangement?

• You are trivializing my attempts to explain when you say things like, "I don't like it" or "No one asked me first". No one said anything like that. My concern is simple. I don't see don't need for a vague TM article that is used to collect all of the content in the sources which is ambiguous in meaning. I think James made an attempt to suggest why we did need the article, but I don't see the logic jump in, we could use a DAB page and we need to expand that to an article.
• Massive changes were created with the split. The primary focus article became a sawed off POV version of the original TM article. The technique article was changed with out agreement. Content was moved back and forth with out agreement.

James stated he was a "bold "editor.

• If you're going to make the kinds of changes that hugely restructure, possibly towards a POV , in a contentious topic area with contentious articles, and you do it despite what other editors are saying, then expect discussion and lots of it.
• The suggestion seems to be that honoring the process implicit in an dispute resolution, in this case an RfC, of respect for other editors in the discussion process, which takes time, can be dispensed with, and other editors should be fine with that. This discussion has a history that plays largely in the resolution. When something is done against generally accepted standards, both the act and the result may need to be examined to arrive at a solution that satisfies everyone.

The only solution I can see so far is to try and return the two articles to a pre split version, a neutral ground version and to take the discussion from there.(olive (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC))

(olive (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC))

Thanks for that lengthy response, but it's almost all about the process that happened in the past rather then the situation we have at present. Let me ask again. What is wrong with the current arrangement of articles? Not what is wrong with how they got to this point, but what is wrong with them now?   Will Beback  talk  21:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Will that there has still been no rationale offered by anyone as to why they think that there is something wrong with the current structure of the articles. All I read is complaints about process, which Olive admits is a "red herring". If it's a red herring, why keep repeating it?

If we're going to discuss process and rehash the past, the repeated assertion that there was agreement and consensus that the TM article was about the "technique" is patently false. A core group of TM Movement affiliated editors claimed over and over "this article is about the technique" as a justification for their repeatedly deleting over the course of many years reliably-sourced material from the article, against the objection of an ever-changing cast of unaffiliated editors. But, there was never any consensus or agreement with that position.

But, again, we are where we are, and how we got here isn't all that relevant to this discussion. Which is why, unless someone can acually articulate a substantive reason for changing the current structure, this entire discussion has been pointless and might as well be closed. Fladrif (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the reason that Olive mentioned is: "[The split created] a vague TM article that is used to collect all of the content in the sources which is ambiguous in meaning." I would add that making such an article the main topic for "Transcendental Meditation" is a real problem. If it was a secondary article, not the main "Transcendental Meditation" article, then perhaps it could make sense. Another reason that was mentioned is that the Transcendental Meditation article should be about the technique because the meaning of "Transcendental Meditation" is the technique: it is a meditation with the qualifier "transcendental" - simple common sense. It was also mentioned that we can make room for special cases where "Transcendental Meditation" does not have its natural meaning, as long as we have reliable sources for it. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

If editors really believe that the clear, obvious meaning of "Transcendental Meditation" is always a meditation technique, then there's no reason why those same editors have been changing the text of this and other articles to insert "technique" after mentions of TM. Apparently they believe that it's necessary to include "technique" to make it clear what is being talked about.   Will Beback  talk  01:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course, semantics has nothing to do with belief or with the language needed to delineate for the reader the possible common usages of a word or phrase.(olive (talk) 01:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC))

Olive, is there anything currently wrong with the article, other than that the contents appear miscellaneous to you? Is that the main complaint about the current content? It'd help if we can pin this down.   Will Beback  talk  07:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Will. I'm reluctant to start in on discussion of the article itself at this point which would veer off into a discussion we're not ready for, as far as I'm concerned, since we can't even decide if we need such an article whether or not what is in that article is Wikipedia compliant. Such a discussion seems secondary to the primary discussion which is why does the article exist. There have already been too many side discussions here with still no resolution in sight. At the same time I don't see any roads opening up that point to resolution so, bringing in a mediator might bring in some further insights. (olive (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC))

The additional "technique" is only to bring out that this particular meditation is really a technique, a well defined procedure with a checking process, etc. Other meditations are more vaguely defined. The fact that "transcendental mediation" is so often used alone without the extra "technique" to mean the procedure itself supports this point. Any other interpretation is far fetched, kind of nonsense. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 02:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

So when sources say something like "the latest TM project is a housing development" or "TM is a cult" they are engaging in far-fetched nonsense, since a technique can't be a cult and can't buy real estate?   Will Beback  talk  07:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

In the former case, TM is used as an adjective, as in TM movement, TM teacher, etc. In the second case, just to clarify, I was not trying to evaluate what is in the mind of those who wrote the sentence "TM is a cult". People that have something against the current business that exists behind body workout could say "Body workout is a business". I would like to emphasize here that I am not arguing that there is no room for these special uses of the TM term in a TM article. I already pointed out that we can make room for special uses of the tern TM. I am only arguing that to change the meaning of TM so that we can create a third article with all these sentences and make it the main article for TM is far fetched. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

My own guess is that "technique" kept being added to TM in these articles because the MUM Press Style Guide [7] mandates it. Fladrif (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

At this point, seeing that we are still not progressing, I am supporting KeithBob suggestion of a mediation. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

What would we be mediating? A merge request? It hasn't even been proposed and discussed here yet. Mediation isn't the first step in dispute resolution. When it comes to content disputes, formal mediation is the last step.   Will Beback  talk  07:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The request to return to a pre-split state (moving back blocks of text without undoing edits) was clearly stated more than once. It's a more accurate description of what could be done to remedy the situation than a merge. The meaning of "Transcendental Meditation" would be an important part of that mediation because it seems to have been the main argument for the split. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hasn't been discussed? A formal merge request with template is not necessary to make a merge, and the discussion here on a merge has been extensive going nowhere. However I would think the issue to be mediated is not the merge since the merge was only one possible solution to the another concern. I believe the issue is about how to deal an article some editors feel is not necessary while others feel it is. This discussion is an extension of the RfC discussion [8]. Wouldn't another RfC be beating a dead horse over the head with.... another dead horse. I'm always surprised at the lack of willingness to ask a mediator to look in on these discussions.(olive (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC))

Yes, I do not always agree with Olive, but reading the discussion in the Rfc, it is clear that the situation here is a continuation of that discussion. The Rfc was about the meaning of TM, and it has been used as an argument for a sudden split that was executed before we could agree on anything. I would add that the main issue as presented by Olive takes all its significance when the article is made the main TM article. If we had created an article for ambiguities, etc. without making it the main TM article, it would not have been as problematic. The fundamental question behind the issue is what should be the content of the main TM article. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Question

What is this article meant to be, summary article, forked off content...something else. What purpose is it serving?(olive (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC))

Good question. Neither this nor that. --BwB (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It is basically a summary article, including summaries of the three main articles that have been split off from it, and two sections that do not obviously belong anywhere else. See WP:SUMMARY for more information.   Will Beback  talk  19:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The only new article that was created by the split is the one entitled "Transcendental Meditation Technique", so it is not accurate to say that three articles were split off from it. Before the split, the content about the technique was in the main TM article (because it was the technique article) and the new article was used to remove the most important content about the technique from it. If we can all acknowledge that the content of the main article for the term "Transcendental Meditation" is the main issue, then it will become clear that any decision to change this content by redistributing it into different articles should have been discussed carefully. This did not happen. There was not even an agreement to create a split. Even if there had been such an agreement, the next step should have been to discuss the new content of the main article carefully. I did not agree about the split, I certainly did not agree that the new content should be a summary and even less about the current content of that so called summary. This important split was essentially the work of one or two editors. We need to proceed in steps: first we see if there could be a consensus for the split, then we see if there could be a consensus that the new content should be a summary and then, if we succeed to go that far, we have to discuss the content of that summary. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

No, three articles (at least) have been split off from this article: Transcendental Meditation movement, History of Transcendental Meditation, and Transcendental Meditation technique. As for how those splits happened, you can read through the talk page archives and contribution histories.   Will Beback  talk  23:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I did not realize that you were speaking about old history. I think we should be concerned about the (recent) split. What point are you trying to make by going so far in the past? Please don't answer. It is a rhetorical question. Focus on the remainder of my comment instead. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It's all history.   Will Beback  talk  23:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the key issue is that the recent part of that history was done without consensus. It is thus a current affair. I think it will help a lot to acknowledge that. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, I'm not interested in rehashing the same split indefinitely. It's beating a dead horse. If you'd like to discuss the current articles then I'm interested.   Will Beback  talk  00:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, that is what we are doing, but the context is crucial. To make a step ahead, you need to have a foot on the ground. If editors say that important edits that change the complete structure of the main TM article without consensus are OK, then we don't have a foot on the ground. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

If we all have to agree on interpretations of past activities before starting new discussions then we'll never get anything done around here.  Will Beback  talk  00:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Even from that perspective (in which we would ignore how we get to the current situation), we already explained what's wrong with the situation. The main article is denuded of the important content. It does not reflect the fact that "Transcendental Meditation" means the technique. Also, irrespectively of the meaning of TM, most links to this article that currently exist in the Internet are based on the previous content, which was about the technique. Also, irrespectively of the past, we should agree that the content of the main article (for the term "Transcendental Meditation") is the main issue. In particular, this would invalidate the principle that moving information around is not a big deal because it is available somewhere else. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 01:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The article makes it quite clear the TM is a meditation technique:

• Transcendental Meditation (TM) is both a specific form of mantra meditation, the Transcendental Meditation technique,[1] and a spiritual movement, the Transcendental Meditation movement.[2][3]

Is that unclear?   Will Beback  talk  01:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, so we are back at square one: what is the meaning of "Transcendental Meditation"? Is it an ambiguous term that can be used by itself, i.e., as a name, to mean either the technique or the movement? This is the very point that was the subject of the Rfc. If "Transcendental Meditation" by itself naturally means the technique, not the movement, then the main article should be about the technique, as it has been in the past. I don't know what others think, but I would accept that we focus on that issue. This time, let us not confuse the use of the term "Transcendental Meditation" an an adjective, as in Transcendental Meditation Movement, with its use as a name. In particular, let us distinguish between all the content that can be found when we search "Transcendental Meditation" in Google and the possible meanings of "Transcendental Meditation". A Google search locates the use of a term as an adjective as well and so is not a good way to determine the natural content of an article. For example, if we search Pepsi in Google, PepsiCo is the second entry in the results, but yet the main Wikipedia article for Pepsi is about the beverage and there is a separate article for PepsiCo. There is no summary article for Pepsi and PepsiCo. They simply use a DAB link so that people interested about PepsiCo can easily locate the article. If there are reliably sourced viewpoints about the transcendental meditation technique that mention the movement, they can be included in this article, but we should not completely organize the article around these viewpoints. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 03:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is part of the Religion wikiproject. There have been attempts to convince some of us that TM is just an non religious technique. Some of us are not convinced after reviewing all the evidence. We understand what you are saying but disagree with your conclusions. Much scholarly work also disagrees. Thus repeating yourself will accomplish little. This is not a problem of misunderstanding. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a perennial issue: technique vs. movement. Plenty of sources can be found to support both sides. The simple truth is that it's both, plus more. A classic example of a good summary article is World War II. That's huge topic, and the edges aren't all clearly defined. Almost every section is simply a summary of other articles, many of which have summaries of yet other articles. But there are also sections which help give the big picture or include details best left there. It doesn't decide whether WW II was fought mainly in Europe or in Asia, it includes both major theaters of war. Likewise, this article does not need to decide which term is foremost, it includes both. It also includes summary sections that link to long articles. And there are sections that fit best here (no one wants to move them to the technique article). So although the subject matters couldn't be more different, the article structures are similar. So let's get back to the opening sentence. Is there anything unclear about it?   Will Beback  talk  09:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I had to read it twice, which is not a good sign. At the moment: Transcendental Meditation (TM) is both a specific form of mantra meditation, and, the Transcendental Meditation movement.[2][3]. Rumiton (talk) 10:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

How about The term Transcendental Meditation (TM) can refer either to the technique[1] of Transcendental Meditation, which is a specific form of mantra meditation, or to the spiritual movement based on this meditation, the Transcendental Meditation movement.[2][3]. Hhmm, except that it's rather complex looking, and now we look like getting into a disambiguation situation.

I still find it clearer, though. Rumiton (talk) 10:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's better in some respect. How about "Transcendental Meditation" (TM) refers to the Transcendental Meditation technique, a specific form of mantra meditation, and to the Transcendental Meditation movement, a spiritual movement?   Will Beback  talk  10:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

That works pretty good for me. Short and clear. Rumiton (talk) 11:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Before we discuss details of sentence structure, we should actually look at the sources and see the exact sentences that use "Transcendental Mediation" by itself (as a name) to mean the movement. We never did that systematically. I looked in Google for sentences with "is a religion" and found sentences such as "Global Warming is a Religion", "Evolution is a religion", "Software development is, and has always been, a religion", etc. In all these cases, what is actually meant is either that the belief in the process is a religious belief or that the organisations teaching the process are like religions. We cannot use these sentences to change the meaning of "Global Warming", etc. We need to understand why we would do that with "Transcendental Meditation". We also need to see what kind of sources use "TM" to mean a movement. Irrespectively of the sources, we should also estimate what percentage of the sentences that use "TM" as a name use it to mean a movement. Is it 10%, 20%, 30%? If it is that low, then the main article should still be about the technique, not the movement. We can easily incorporate these special use of "TM" in the article. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 11:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

We can keep discussing the big issues. But we can make small improvements while we're doing that. The draft there has the identical meaning to the existing text, but is easier to read. Any objections to swapping it in while we continue to ponder the major issues?   Will Beback  talk  12:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I object. Let's resolve the major discussion first, then we can clean up the article. --BwB (talk) 12:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not a serious objection, considering you've been editing the concerned articles yourself. I don't see any objection to the text itself, which is just a minor copyedit of what we have already.   Will Beback  talk  20:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

A key section that needs to be considered is this one [9]. As it stands now, it seems that there is not even a single source that uses "TM" as a name (by itself) to mean the movement. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

(undent) How about "Transcendental Meditation, also called TM, spiritual movement that was founded by the Indian teacher the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi" EB? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

That version leaves out the eponymous meditation practice at the core of the movement. Why would you wish to do that? Rumiton (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This is just a quote from the encyclopedia britanica that uses TM to mean spiritual movement. I am not suggesting we do the exact same. We should explain both meanings as we do now. This was just a reply to Ediths question above.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

My concern is that, in beginning to deal with an article that several of the editors here do not think should be in existence, those editors and their opinions will once again be marginalized. If there is a possibility an article will be deleted/merged/moved why work on it?Thanks Rumiton for you outside input.(olive (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC))

@Rumiton, Doc James found that definition in Encyclopedia Britannica Online. As you point out, there is something curious about it - it omits the most common and natural meaning: the technique. Fortunately, the remaining of the EB entry clarifies the situation because thereafter TM is constantly used in this entry to mean the technique, not the movement. Actually, we do not have yet a single source that uses TM to mean the movement. There is this EB definition of TM as a movement, but in practice TM (as a name) means the technique. It is used as an adjective in TM movement, TM teacher, etc. but TM alone means the technique. There are sentences such as TM is cult, but we can also find sentences such as "Global Warming is a religion", "Evolution is a religion", etc. - it does not mean that the meaning of these terms is ambiguous. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

@Olive, I totally agree. If one or two editors can totally change an article content, years of work, without consensus and then say it is history, we don't discuss that, then why work on it? Let me clarify that I am not working now on the first sentence of the article, which confuses the meaning of TM. This first sentence is an important issue, but I am working on the overall structure of the TM article, proposing that it goes back to its pre-split state, which is a more important issue. It turns out that the meaning of TM plays a role in that other issue as well. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

(indent) So, let us go back that section [10], which is still empty. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The phrase Transcendental Meditation is defined as a technique of meditation. This is verified in multiple dictionaries and encyclopedias. [11] It is a noun. However it can also be used as a adjective. Just like the word olive. Olive pit, olive oil, olive colored shirt. This doesn't make the word olive ambiguous in its meaning. The Transcendental Meditation article was redefined and split without need and did a diservice to Wikipedia and its readers. In my opinion that action should be reversed. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The core issue we are discussing is the split of the Transcendental Meditation article into two articles based on a redefinition of the term to mean two things instead of one. It is clear in this week long discussion that there is no clear agreement about the definition of the term and hence the content of that article. Several editors have indicated that the split was a mistake and should be reversed while several other editors say its in the past, leave it alone. However, Wikpedia is a river not a rock. Anything can be created, changed or reverted with editor consensus. The problem is how to we get a consensus? Since a week long discussion has not yielded any items of agreement and an RfC was already initiated on this very topic (definition of the term and two articles (TM and TMT) instead of one. I am in favor of meditation which will provide a structure and order to this discussion which we can't seem to achieve ourselves.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The section "Definition of TM as a movement" was deleted and its content moved into the previously empty section "Use of TM as a movement" [12]. This is inappropriate because there is a fundamental distinction between definitions of a term in dictionaries and its uses in practice. Dictionaries are tertiary sources whereas the uses of a term in practice can be found in secondary sources. Wikipedia recommend that we favour secondary sources over tertiary sources. In any case, even if we consider tertiary sources, as pointed by KeithBob, TM is defined as a technique in the majority of dictionaries and encyclopedias [13]. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Question: It seems we have a group that definitely wants to merge this TM article into the TM technique article and a group that definitely doesn't want do that. Is that correct? If so, is there some kind of middle ground that maintains the kind of article that was presplit with an article that satisfies those who don't want to have that presplit article. We've had suggestions from both sides but so far no resolution. I've also suggested a mediator to help us on this, but that idea wasn't particularly well received by some. Any other thoughts?olive (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC))

@Olive, I really think that you should start to state the issue in terms of merging into the Transcendental Meditation article (the main article for "Transcendental Meditation"), not in terms of merging into the Transcendental Meditation Technique article, which is naturally interpreted as the new article, not the main TM article. I do not want to merge anything in this new article, unless it becomes the main article after redirection, but it is simpler to leave out the possibility of a redirection for the time being. We can discuss redirection later. It is a distinct issue. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I am OK for mediation. IMHO Transcendental Meditation is a form of meditation and this should be the prime focus of the main article on the subject. --BwB (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The main article on the subject of the "Transcendental Meditation technique" is Transcendental Meditation technique. Having an article with the same name as the subject seems like a good idea to me.   Will Beback  talk  21:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, the main issue now is the main article for the (search) term "Transcendental Meditation". This search term will always exist and we are now discussing the main article for it. What happens with the search term "Transcendental Meditation Technique" is not currently the issue. Later on, if needed, we will be able to achieve this good idea and yet respect the fact that TM means the technique by redirecting TM to TM technique. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

So you don't think that the article about the Transcendental Meditation technique should be named "Transcendental Meditation technique"?   Will Beback  talk  22:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)s

I did not say that. Let us focus on the main article for the search term "Transcendental Meditation". It is the content that matters and, IMHO, its prime focus should be the technique. This leaves open many possibilities: using a redirection this main article could be named "Transcendental Meditation Technique" or otherwise, there could be an extension to that article with yet another name, etc. I agree that the term "Transcendental Meditation Technique" should be directed or redirected to this main article also because it is less confusing if two synonymous terms are directed to the same article, even if one of the terms emphasizes the technique aspect. However, can we simplify the issue and focus on the main article for "Transcendental Meditation" without discussing a possible move of that article into a different name. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, so you care about the content rather than the name. The name is "Transcendental Meditation technique" and the content discusses the Transcendental Meditation technique. What is the problem with the content of that article that you'd like to address?   Will Beback  talk  00:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I care about the content attached to the search term "Transcendental Meditation". How many times will I have to repeat that? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "search term" - do you mean "article title"? The article titled "Transcendental Meditation technique" contains a full description of that technique. The article titled "Transcendental Meditation" contains a summary of that technique along with summaries of other topics that fall under Transcendental Meditation. Is there anything that's inaccurate in this article?   Will Beback  talk  00:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not mean "article title". Unless you have a different configuration than me, on the top right corner of a Wikipedia page you have a search bar. A search term goes into that bar and then you get an article or a DAB page. If you get an article, it is the main article for the term. If there is no main article, then you get a DAB page. In the case of the search term "Transcendental Meditation", we currently get the article also entitled "Transcendental Meditation", but that name can change with redirection. I propose that we do not worry about the name of that article at this point, but focus on the content of the main article for the search term "Transcendental Meditation", irrespectively of its title. I hope that it is now clearer. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 00:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I still don't get your issue with "search term". We're not here to manipulate affect the outcome of Wikipedia's search engine. The first sentence of this article makes it clear that "TM" refers to two things, a technique and a movement. It has links to articles on both topics. I don't see how readers are bing confused by the Wikipedia search engine. If they want to learn about "Transcendental Meditation" then this article is a good starting point.   Will Beback  talk  01:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I explained here [14] why I cannot reply to this last comment. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Changed words, but same meaning. Reply or not as you see fit.   Will Beback  talk  01:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

(indent) If there were no possible redirection, I would simply say that we should be concerned directly with the content of the article entitled "Transcendental Meditation". If it is too complicated for you, just take it that way. However, redirection is possible and it is not excluded that eventually "Transcendental Meditation" would be redirected to "Transcendental Meditation Technique" and we would have no article left entitled "Transcendental Meditation". I simply do not want that our discussion is dependent upon any particular redirection. This seems just a good thing, more general, less dependent upon issues that we can discuss later. A redirection, if any, and the title are also important, yes, but we can discuss that separately. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

We can't just make this into a redirect because there's significant content here. I asked if anyone wanted to merge that content into the TMT article and no one did. Is there another article you propose merging or splitting it to?   Will Beback  talk  02:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

In my last comment, I am not proposing merging, redirecting or anything like that. For simplicity, as a first approximation, just assume that I propose that we focus on the content of the article entitled "Transcendental Meditation", but without excluding a possible redirection that I do not want to discuss yet. There is no way you can force in the discussion that forever there will be no redirection. In that context, I am also proposing that "Transcendental Meditation" means the technique and the article should primary be about the technique. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 02:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I asked you before if there's anything inaccurate in this article, but I'm not sure if you ever responded. Is there anything in this article that's incorrect?   Will Beback  talk  02:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It's prime focus is not consistent with the title. We actually had a long discussion about it, discussing about the meaning of the title. This shows that we need mediation so that this particular discussion can bring us somewhere. You also asked a similar question about the article entitled "Transcendental Meditation Technique", the problem with this other article is that its title is synonymous with "Transcendental Meditation" - two articles on the same subject is a problem. We asked several time why do we need another article on the same subject? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying that there's no such thing as the Transcendental Meditation movement? That when people say "TM is building Peace Palaces" they mean that practicing the meditation technique will result in the construction of two-story buildings? That's one view and I don't mean to convince anyone of anything here. Anyway, no one can identify any inaccuracy in the text of this article, no one wants to merge the unique text in this article into the technique article, and no one has proposed any other way of arranging the information. It sounds like the sole issue with the 5 editors is the name of the article. Is that right? Is that the only issue here?   Will Beback  talk  09:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue is that we need help so that this discussion can start to make sense. Your last comments put words in my mouth and in the mouths of others that as far as I can tell we never said. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

But the issue is just about a merge, right? Nothing else?   Will Beback  talk  10:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

My chosen mode of Wikipedi-ing over the last few years has been to flit happily around among several hundred articles making small suggestions for the way they are presented, hoping to remove ambiguities and make them more enjoyable to the reader. About a quarter of the articles I look at are under stress from editors who believe (arguably wrongly) that their article is in a parlous state which must urgently be corrected. I don't usually get involved, it's an unrewarding business at best, but I am personally interested in the subject of meditation so here goes... First, I agree with Will Beback that even when big changes are under discussion, the existing article must continue to evolve. Wikipedia would grind to a halt if it were otherwise. Second, (if I have understood this view correctly) I can appreciate that editors who value the TM techniques of meditation would wish them to be covered in the first article that a searcher finds. But given the way the articles are currently organised, which seems a logical way, it is hard to see how this could be achieved without some artificial naming or shifting of content for alphabetical purposes. This would not be stable, and would violate Wikipedia neutrality. Third, the three sources I have, Partridge, Hunt and Hummel, all switch quite freely between writing about the meditation and about the way the meditation evolved and was promulgated (the "movement"). IOW, they use the term TM to mean both the techniques and their history, so the main article as it stands is correct in this approach. Given this, I can only suggest you ensure the techniques are fairly covered in the first TM article, and expanded upon in their own article. Rumiton (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. The pre-split state of the TM article made sense and was logical and stable for a long time. It had room for aspects of the TM movement. The split was motivated by a length issue, which has nothing to do with logic - there was no problem in any browser, and on a new definition of Transcendental Meditation that is not supported by the vast majority of dictionaries and encyclopaedia. So there is not much logic supporting it. Your point of view could made sense for other meditations, especially those for which we do not have as many reliable and independent sources about the meditation itself - I noticed that you are involved in another article about meditation. We have much more reliable sources for TM than for other kind of meditations. The articles must follow sources and be logically organized accordingly. I thank you for your call to follow logic. That is all what is expected here. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

There have been over 300 edits to this talk page in the past week plus, and so far no-one has articulated a single substantive reason why there is anything whatsoever wrong, inaccurate, or misleading about the current arrangement of articles, notwithstanding repeated requests for someone, anyone, to state a reason why a change should be made. At this point, more than a fair opportunity has been afforded. Any further discussion, absent some sea-change in approach to this non-controversy, is nothing more than tendatiousness and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT Fladrif (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Flad there are two side to this discussion so commenting as if the "blame" for the length of the discussion belongs to some editors and not others is a trifle one-sided. In fact there have been objections to the current situation and suggestions to deal with them. Fair opportunity for what? I have asked multiple times why there is objection to the pre split article, and don't remember any clear reasons given. Multiple editors have suggested mediation to help us reach a consensus. There seems to be reluctance on the part of some to bring this discussion to a close with outside help. and that is a curious situation for editors who say they want a solution to long drawn out discussion.(olive (talk) 00:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC))

Nice try, but you don't get to turn this on its head. You are the ringleader for those wanting a change. Neither you nor anyone else has articluated any substantive reason whatsoever why the current article structure should be changed. The burden is on you. Fladrif (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Ringleader? That's offensive. Turn it on its head? I'm stating a fact. There are two sides to this, neither side is right or wrong so wording that suggests that there was a group effort to somehow manipulate here is offensive and wrong. You as an editor have one opinion I have another. And yes there are reasons for a change and they have been articulated here, and whether they are substantive or not is your subjective opinion. Consider reading the following thread to update your information.(olive (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC))

Annoying though it may be, it seems to me the ante-the split people here would be better occupied in looking for ways to improve the current articles. Several have been suggested. In cases like this, mediation can help sometimes, but not always. Likewise comment requests. It may sound harsh, but splitting up large or multi-faceted articles is pretty normal, and this article splitting is now a fait accompli. I would say, Accept and get on with it. Rumiton (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

@Rumiton, I have two concerns regarding your proposals. First, if the opinions of so many editors can be marginalized up to the points that the structure of an article can be completely changed while ignoring the logic of their position, how can you expect that these editors get interested in working on that article. Second, even if we decided to ignore this and continue with the article, we would need to agree on the meaning of the title so that we can structure the article accordingly and I see no interest being manifested here in discussing logically the meaning of the title using reliable sources, which are being compiled in this page. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Rumiton. Many of the editors here were part of the TM arbitration and as such all of us were cautioned to work in a collaborative manner.The TM article has indeed undergone multiple split offs of content, but those splits given the contentious area were carried out with editor input and agreement. RfC's are meant to solve problems and to further collaborative processes not hand editors the environment to preempt the RfC and carry out unilateral edits in the face of editors who do not agree. As well the split that was carried out has some interesting POV elements to it. None of this jives with the spirit of the TM arbitration. The present TM article is a hodge-podge of different kinds of information and if it stays needs to take on some clearly defined boundaries. I have yet to be given a clear reason for its existence and since its creation was contentious, I have been very cautious about holding on to it. As well editors where marginalized in the discussion following the creation of the article so editing into it now may not be an obvious next step in dealing with it. Before your comment I had made a suggestion below as an attempt to compromise. I am only one editor so no telling where that will go with the other editors here.(olive (talk) 15:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC))

Discussion on the meaning of Transcendental Meditation

Most dictionaries and encyclopedia defines TM as a technique (see [15]). In practice, TM as a noun is used most of the times to mean a technique (see below) and only in some occasions to mean a movement, a religion or a philosophy (see [16]). Moreover, we can also find statements in the Internet such as "Global Warming is a religion", "Evolution is a religion", etc. and these special cases do not mean that these terms are ambiguous. The same is true for "Transcendental Meditation". Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

On what basis do you says "most"? An assertion like that requires checking all of the dictionaries and encyclopedias and then assessing their view. All we can say is that "most citations to dictionaries and encyclopedia posted by an editor..." define TM in a certain way. The ways in which evolution might be considered a religion and the ways in the TM are considered a religion are quite different. I don't think it's a helpful comparison. TM is considered a religion by just about everyone who writes books about new religious movements. Some even call it a "cult". No scholar of religion calls evolution a religion. Since Olive tells us that a technique can not be a cult, those references are all to the TM movement. Will Beback talk 11:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

?   Will Beback  talk  12:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Below I propose that we consider more reliable sources and more external opinions to help us draw a conclusion from these sources. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 13:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Support for current arrangement of content

We have a number of recent comments that support the current arrangements

User:John Carter [17]

User:Rumiton [18]

User:Hordaland [19][20]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

And there still seems to be a number of editors that do not. --BwB (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The list that Doc James posted is of otherwise uninvolved editors. I don't see any uninvolved editors supporting merging the articles.   Will Beback  talk  09:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little baffled here - 3 new editors show up and make 1 or 2 comments on the talk pages and we are supposed to immediately abandon weeks of discussion on the topic and adopt their opinions without discussion? Is this what Doc is suggesting? --BwB (talk) 09:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The purposes of RfC is to get outside input. FWIW, John Carter is the 31st-most active Wikipedian,[21] and has edited almost 70,000 unique pages.[22]   Will Beback  talk  09:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Mr Carter is a very experienced Wiki head, but I was referring to their very limited participation in the discussion of TM article. --BwB (talk) 10:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

That's what "outside" means, as in "outside input", the purpose of WP:RFC.   Will Beback  talk  11:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"One swallow does not make a summer, neither does one fine day; similarly one day or brief time of happiness does not make a person entirely happy." Aristotle. --BwB (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

What do three swallows make?   Will Beback  talk  11:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

A gulp! --BwB (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Doc James must have in mind some statements of these editors, which he interprets in favour of "the current arrangement". However, to the contrary, as pointed out below, these editors have expressed various opinions suggesting different "arrangements". For example, John Carter suggested a DAB page, which is not the current arrangement. Moreover, a support for the "current arrangement" would not necessarily mean a support for the current choice of titles, which is a fundamental aspect of the current issue. As BwB points out, it seems too early to draw a definitive conclusion. A discussion based on reliable sources on the meaning of the different titles (especially "Transcendental Meditation", but also "Transcendental Meditation Movement") is needed before we can evaluate an organisation of the articles on the movement and the technique. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I've proposed a DAB page as a solution. See below.   Will Beback  talk  12:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Summary and suggestion

• John Carter suggests a dab page... but is unaware that the present situation was not reached by "extensive previous discussion".

"...this sort of short dab page is probably the best way to go. I say that because this seems to have been the decision reached after extensive previous discussion of this issue and it seems, at least to me, unlikely that things have changed significantly since then."

• Rumiton supports the present configuration with the stipulation that "I can only suggest you ensure the techniques are fairly covered in the first TM article, and expanded upon in their own article."

• Hordaland suggests:

"The solution which seems obvious to me is to have two articles:" Transcendental Meditation methods (or techniques or program or methodology),Transcendental Meditation movement where each refers to the other in the first line.

And:

He questions why there has to be a parent article but if one is necessary it should be short

• Several editors suggest mediation

So it seems we have several different suggestions.

• if I understand Edith she suggests a dab page is not the way to go because TM is not used to mean different things and is not ambiguous, but rather the words like "technique" are definers or adjectives ( I hope I have that right)

• From Will's comment I'd say the article is neither DAB nor parent article but something in between.

Another suggestion:

• A summary style article that links to TM movement and TM technique, and any content in either of those two article that has its own article should be summarized in a section and linked to the "master"article.(olive (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC))

FYI, if we want to use the term, I consider this a "parent article" that covers the entire topic of TM. Some parts are covered in summary, with links to fuller treatments in separate articles, and two parts are covered here in full. Those could be moved to separate articles as an alternative. But in either case this is the main article that covers all parts of TM, the technique, the movement, the history, the theoretical background, etc.   Will Beback  talk  10:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that if the TM/parent summary article is to stay there needs to be clear boundaries about what it includes or doesn't include. And I am making a suggestion here, but do not speak for any other editors.(olive (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC))

Pasted from above: "It is basically a summary article, including summaries of the three main articles that have been split off from it, and two sections that do not obviously belong anywhere else. See WP:SUMMARY for more information. Will Beback talk 19:30, 29"

@Olive, I wrote a brief statement regarding the meaning of the term "Transcendental Meditation" here [23]. I think you got it right. It is based on dictionaries, encyclopaedia and practical uses of the term. The wordings is mine and it could be better. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Transcendental Meditation is a meditation technique - this should be the parent of all articles on the subject. This is my considered view. --BwB (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

That seems so natural. In addition, anyone is free to create a parent article with a larger subject that will include Transcendental Meditation, the technique, as long as it has a title that matches this larger subject. I agree hat this can be a natural organisation, but to entitle this parent article "Transcendental Meditation" is obviously an attempt to redefine the term "Transcendental Meditation", to make it more vague. As it is now in the current TM article, it seems a notion that is larger than the technique and the movement, perhaps a philosophy. A summary? A summary of what? Not even clear what it is. This could make sense if the term "Transcendental Meditation" would very often refer to this mysterious concept in reliable sources. However. this is not seen in reliable sources. Almost all the times, TM is used to mean the technique. When it might not seem clear, it is in situations similar to "Global Warming is a religion", "Evolution is a religion", etc., which actually do not make the corresponding terms ambiguous. I did not see yet a discussion on this issue that was based on logic and reliable sources. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me add that the TM article can contain a link to the parent article and it can also have content about the movement that is directly relevant to the technique. This is not about hiding information. The information is accessible in both cases, pre-split or post-split, and in that sense, it is not about how things are organized. It is about not creating confusion about what the term "Transcendental Meditation" means. In the pre-split way, the term "Transcendental Meditation" respected its uses in reliable sources. This is not true anymore after the split. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Edith 2, you just applied POV tags to the article. I'm curious to know what you think the first sentence of the article titled "Transcendental Meditation" should look like instead of its current text. Could you show us what you want it to say?   Will Beback  talk  23:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Any sentence that respects the natural meaning of "Transcendental Meditation" would be fine. There is a current dispute on whether TM alone can mean a movement, but no one questions that it means a technique. To have a sentence that put the two meanings as if they are both natural, when one of them is perhaps just an interpretation of some editors here, is not NPOV at all. In addition, to do that in the first sentence is totally undue weight. NPOV does not mean to put all POV at the same level. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

TM has two meaning. There is so much evidence to support this. Thus removed these POV tags as they make no sense.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

TM fundamentally means a meditation technique.That is the semantics of the phrase. TM has also become the cliche driven slang for the organization that teaches the technique and deals with other related programs. We have sources that us TM to mean movement, and the use of "TM movement" in sources including within the TM organization itself. As such we have no choice but to use TM to mean TM movement and TM technique. I think dab page would be fine to do that.(olive (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC))

I disagree that "TM has also become the cliche driven slang for the organization that teaches the technique and deals with other related programs." I don't see this use in reliable sources. What are the examples that made you think that way? I don't see sentences such "I work for Transcendental Meditation" or things like that. The only cases I see are sentences such "Transcendental Meditation is a cult", but this means nothing. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I had a second thought. Even though "Transcendental Meditation is a religion" seems a shortcut for a sentence such as "[The belief system behind] Transcendental Meditation is a religion", if this usage has become relatively common, then it is the same as saying that TM has become a "cliche driven slang" for a religion. Fine, but it is still an exaggeration to have two articles on Transcendental Meditation because of that. This slang uses of TM was already incorporated in the original article on TM and there is no need for a separate article. We could still have one article entitled Transcendental Meditation where TM primarily means the technique and yet include this slang when needed. I also think that to give equal weight to this slang in a single sentence is not NPOV and to do that in the first sentence is totally undue weight. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

With regard to a DAB page, it should be used for unrelated meanings that cannot naturally fit together. It does not seem appropriate to disambiguate in separate articles these two related meanings. It contradicts Rumilton's point, which says that we can pass from one meaning to the other in one paragraph. It contradicts that it is not really a completely different meaning: it is just a shortcut for something like "The belief system behind Transcendental Meditation." Therefore, the DAB page does not address the issue. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)