Jump to content

Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 36

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38→Archive 40

Proposal: Disambiguation page

One alternative is to merge the existing, unique contents of this article (namely: "Theoretical issues" and "Characterizations") into Transcendental Meditation technique, and then turn this page into a pure disambiguation page with links to Transcendental Meditation technique and Transcendental Meditation movement and nothing else. This is would implement the proposal made by user:John Carter. While I don't think it quite as good as the current arrangement, for reasons I've discussed above, I think it could be a workable compromise.   Will Beback  talk  10:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I interpret the suggestion of John Carter to mean that usually people do not get a consensus on the meaning of terms. However, each case is different and I suggest that we try to have the opinions of more uninvolved editors about the meaning of the term Transcendental Meditation based on reliable sources, not just personal opinions or feelings. We can also ask a mediation. You seem to believe that the list of dictionaries and encyclopaedia considered is not representative of all of them. I was not aware that there were that many, but if that is the case, let us consider more of them. More importantly, let us consider how the term is used as a noun in practice in reliable secondary sources. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
So is that a "yes" or a "no"? I'm guessing "no".   Will Beback  talk  13:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Don't put words in my mouth. I respect a lot the opinion of John Carter. I can see what he was talking about. I only said that each case is different and (before we consider a DAB page) let us first try to have more external opinions on the meaning of TM as seen in reliable sources. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 13:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Your comment of 21:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC) above seems to reject the DAB solution. Let's see what other editors have to say.   Will Beback  talk  21:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
OK.
In "New Religions: A Guide" Christopher Partridge starts off, Transcendental Meditation (TM) was founded by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in 1957 and claims to be a modern form of of the techniques taught in the Yoga Sutra -- attributed to Patanjali (2nd century BCE) etc... So this is about the technique. But then he talks about the life and work of MMY and his founding the "Spiritual Regeneration Movement" and the "International Meditation Society", and then his "World Plan" for creating one teaching centre per million people. These refs are all about the movement(s). They are all under the heading of TM. Then he talks more about the technique and its effects.
Stephen J Hunt in "Alternative Religions: A Sociological Introduction" starts, The organisation associated with the technique of Transcendental Meditation (TM) was founded by the Maharishi... After also discussing the World Plan(s) and other programs, he goes into the technique and its effects. He then returns to the movement and whether it can claim to be not a religion.
Reinhardt Hummel in "Indische Mission und Neue Frömmigkeit im Westen" (Indian Missions and (the) New Piety in the West) discusses the religious and philosophic antecedents of both the movement and the techniques without drawing a hard distinction between them. Rumiton (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that research. It shows that "TM" is used by scholars to refer to both a technique and a movement. A "parent article", like we have now, is one solution, and a disambiguation page is another.   Will Beback  talk  21:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Edit conflict: And another solution is to have two articles one on each which we had. However, if we need a landing article, a summary article as I suggested, and as did Will did first... or a DAB page that deals with TM technique and TM movement seem to be the current suggestions which I'm fine with.(olive (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC))

(indent) So, I see two options here:

  • A disambiguation page that separates the two meanings. This means two articles: the Transcendental Meditation Technique article where TM never means something else than a technique and the Transcendental Meditation Movement article for other meanings of TM and other aspects of the movement.
  • An article entitled "Transcendental Meditation" that will include these two meanings with due weight and still a "DAB link" at the top toward the article "Transcendental Meditation Movement" for aspects of the movement that are less related to the technique.

Will, can you tell me why you prefer the first option? Or perhaps you had a third option in mind when you offered a compromise. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

In your list, Option #2 is the current situation. I'm fine with keeping it as it is but I gather that a few editors object. So I proposed Option #1, merging the remaining content into TMT and making this a straight DAB page with simple links to TMT, TMM, and perhaps the history article.   Will Beback  talk  22:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd support a DAB page because I think it will tidier and easier to discern what goes where, less contentious discussion. I understand, I think Edith's concern with TM movement which in a sense is an artificial term, but we have many sources that have been presented in the last year or so that use that terminology, and we'd are compelled at this point to deal with those sources and that terminology somehow.(olive (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC))
@Olive, I do have a little problem with "Transcendental Meditation Movement" when used to refer to the organization. I prefer "Transcendental Meditation Organization" in that context because "movement" can mean a new tendency as in "new age movement". However, I do not have a problem with "Transcendental Meditation Movement" for the title of an article. This is not the issue. I will explain the issue I see later on. I was just asking a question. I really need to see what people are expecting.
@Will, the second option was not intended to mean the current situation. In this option, the Transcendental Meditation article does not exclude any aspect of the technique (research, etc.) - this is what it means to cover the two meanings. It would be natural to delete the Transcendental Meditation Technique article in this option because the content would already be covered. As a small variation on this second option, we could move all the content of Transcendental Meditation in Transcendental Meditation Technique, but then we would need to redirect "Transcendental Meditation" to this Transcendental Meditation Technique article. In both variations, we do not need a DAB page because the two meanings of TM are covered in the article. Also, very important, the first option implies a cleaning of the Transcendental Meditation Technique article of all content that is not about the technique - nothing about TM is a religion, TM is a cult because the purpose of the DAB page is to separate these meanings.
So, in that context, why do you prefer the first option? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I misunderstood the proposal. With your new explanation it appear that your Option #2 is the merge and rename proposal that has been made all along. Is that right? In that case there are (at least) three options, the third option being the status quo. That's the option which I prefer, but Option #1 is an acceptable compromise. I prefer #3 because some material isn't really exactly about the TMT or the TMM, and moving that material to TMT makes for a very long article. As I and others have said countless times on this page, "TM" refers to both a movement and a technique, which is why putting one or the other at "TM" is inappropriate. That's why Wikipedia has DAB pages.   Will Beback  talk  23:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the merge of TMT into TM and the optional subsequent renaming and redirection of TM into TMT would be a natural part of option #2. So, just to be clear, you prefer the statu quo, but will accept option #1 including the cleaning of all content that relates to TM is a religion, TM is a cult, etc. out of the TMT article because you prefer it to option #2. Is that correct? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I think my proposal (option #1 in your list) is clear: merge the existing, unique contents of this article (namely: "Theoretical issues" and "Characterizations") into Transcendental Meditation technique, and then turn this page into a pure disambiguation page with links to Transcendental Meditation technique and Transcendental Meditation movement and nothing else.   Will Beback  talk  00:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, but doesn't "Characterizations" contains stuff about TM is a religion? I don't understand. We make a big deal about the two meanings, one being exemplified by TM is a religion, etc., and the need to disambiguate these two meanings, but then we don't disambiguate these two meanings - they would be still both in the TMT article. If we don't disambiguate them, then we should not need a DAB page and we could have both meanings in TM as in option #2. No? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not really following your argument.   Will Beback  talk  00:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

(indent) Which part? I understand that the compromise is to get rid of the summary and replace it with a DAB page. This is easy to understand. However, I see two problems with this proposed compromise:

  • It says that one of the meaning of TM is synonymous with TMM. However, special cases such as "TM is a religion" or "TM is a cult" are no argument to say that TM is synonymous with TMM. These special cases are only shortcuts for sentences like "The belief system behind TM (the technique) is a religion". They can be easily covered in an article about the technique without having to add a completely different meaning to the term. (For the record, I personally disagree with these sentences, but if they are sourced, we can include them.)
  • The suggested disambiguation is not done at all. If we actually did the disambiguation and put each meaning in their respective article, then it would at the least be consistent. For the record, I don't even think this disambiguation should be done. I think there is nothing to disambiguate and I am sure that it will never be done, as we can see in Will's replies.

I can see that Olive is happy to get rid of the summary, but in terms of respecting the meaning of "Transcendental Meditation", there is no improvement at all. There is a DAB page, but it is used to disambiguate between one meaning, which includes "TM is a technique" but also special uses such as "TM is a religion", and another meaning, which is the TMM. This other meaning, which goes much beyond the special slang, is not seen at all in reliable sources. This is a serious problem. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 07:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the proposal is not clear. This article would say something like:
"Transcendental Meditation" may refer to:
*History of Transcendental Meditation
That's all. The two sections of unique text would be moved to the TMT article. That's the proposal.   Will Beback  talk  08:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good, but why the link to "History"? This can be covered either in the TMT and/or TMM articles with links to "History of Transcendental Meditation" article where appropriate. The history of the TM technique is different than the history of TMM, so their particular history should be covered in the individual articles. What to others think? --BwB (talk) 08:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not attached to having the "history" article in there. Issues with the history article itself should be discussed on that talk page - we've got enough to deal with here.   Will Beback  talk  08:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
The issue in this proposal is that there is no main article TM anymore. This is not consistent with the non ambiguous meaning of TM. It unnaturally forces readers to decide which of TMT or TMM they want. Because it is an improvement over the current statu quo, I cannot oppose, I have to go with it, but the current issue regarding the meaning of TM is still there. There should normally exist a main article about TM because TM does not have any meaning synonymous with TMM. It only have some special uses such TM is a religion, which can be included in this main TM article, but not have as much weight as TM is a technique. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 12:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, I just read the guideline regarding disambiguation pages and the different entries should correspond to different meanings of the term. So, I consider that the current proposal is against the guideline. It is still better than statu quo. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I do not think that a DAB page is the solution. Nor will it reduce disputes over content, or "what goes where", as can already be seen from the comments above, advocating de-emphasizing this point or moving that point. And, I have in mind as well the history of the talk pages and positions that many of the current editors have taken about content issues. The current arrangement of articles is the way to go, where the parent article covers all of the main points in summary form, points readers to more detailed articles on technique, movement, history, leaders, organizations, theories, etc..., and serves as a place for material that does not obviously belong in article A or B or C, but straddles all of them. Arguments about what people expect to find in an article strike me as fundamentally misguided. Isn't the point of an encylopedia to serve as a reference for information that they don't already know, as opposed to simply satisfying their expectations or confirming their incomplete and uninformed knowledge? I don't know about anybody else, but I consult an encyclopedia to learn what I don't know. Fladrif (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
We should make it easy for readers to find new information, but I don't see how an organization of content that does not respect the meaning of terms can be useful for that purpose. Wikipedia is not the place for a propaganda for new meanings of terms. The entire issue here is that some editors feel that TM vs Religion/Cult should be the central scope of the TM article and others feel that the TM article should be about the technique with room for the aspect TM vs Religion/Cult, but without undue weight. Those who want TM to be about the technique have accepted the special uses "TM is a religion", perhaps as some slang, but still they have accepted it. Those who want to make TM vs Religion/Cult the central scope of the TM article have achieved this goal by moving all important content about the technique under TMT, leaving the other meaning under the TM article. So, let us go back to the main issue: what is the natural meaning of TM in accordance with sources and let us have a single article about TM that respects this meaning, including special uses - this is not about hiding information, but about respecting the meaning of terms. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Transcendental Meditation is a meditation technique - this should be the parent of all articles on the subject. --BwB (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean by "this"? Not to be glib...OK, to be glib...there are plenty of reliable sources that say TM is just a meditation technique in precisely the same sense that Scientology is just a personality test. TM is used by a multitude of reliable sources, as has been repeatedly documented, to mean the technique, the movement, the theory/philosphy/religion/science/belief system (whatever you want to call it) behind it, the organization, the full panoply of practices espoused by the TM organization, etc. MMY used TM interchangably with SCI. The MUM Press Style Guide distinguishes between the TM technique, the TM program and the TM movement. The parent article should give readers information about all these things, because there is no way of knowing what the reader may be interested in when they look for information on TM. Fladrif (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
"This" means the Transcendental Meditation technique, the meditation technique called Transcendental Meditation. --BwB (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Transcendental Meditation is a technique, and it is also a movement. Do you deny that?   Will Beback  talk  21:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I do deny that. It is not because we say TM movement that TM is a movement. For example, it will make no sense to me that a TM teacher would say "My employer is Transcendental Meditation". If TM meant the movement, it would sound right, but it does not. This is because TM in TM movement is used as an adjective. In contrast, "I practice Transcendental Meditation" makes perfect sense. This is because TM means the meditation, the procedure. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that reply, but I was asking Bwb.   Will Beback  talk  22:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
You are welcome, even if you did not really thank me. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Transcendental Meditation is a meditation technique. I do not deny that there is something that people call the "Transcendental Meditation movement". But they are not the same thing.--BwB (talk) 11:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I assume that "do not deny" is the functionally same as "admit to be true". Nobody has said they're the same thing, so that's irrelevant. There exists a Transcendental Meditation movement or organization. It's referred to by reliable, scholarly sources. The sub-entities are mentioned even more commonly, though no one denies they are part of the movement inspired and led by the Maharishi, under the TM umbrella. The movement itself blurs the boundaries, as can be seen by how the research studies are cited to support so many different technologies and projects.   Will Beback  talk  11:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
@Will, I know you want the opinions or questions of others and it is wise - we need more people, but still new elements are brought in the picture and all opinions or questions matter. Here is a comment/question. It seems that your argument is that "Transcendental Meditation" "Transcendental Meditation" alone as a noun is now obsolete and therefore its actual meaning is irrelevant. You suggest that we only consider and compare the two terms "Transcendental Meditation Technique" and "Transcendental Meditation Movement." where it is used as an adjective. Is that a correct understanding of your position? If not, could you clarify. For the record, I think that "Transcendental Meditation" "Transcendental Meditation" alone as a noun is very often used in TV program, news paper, etc. It is very far from being obsolete and it still has kept its original meaning. It is not us, Wikipedia editors, that must do propaganda against the use of "Transcendental Meditation" alone as a noun. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I confess to being baffled trying to discern what it is that you are trying to ask. What do you mean by "'Transcendental Meditation' is now obsolete"? What do you mean by "doing propaganda against the use of 'Transcendental Meditation' alone as a noun"? Are olive and I correct in surmising that English is not your first language? That may be part of the problem here. I do not understand Will to be arguing anything of the kind, nor do I understand him saying that we only compare the TM technique and the TM movement. As I have pointed out above, the term is used more broadly than those two options, even within the TM organization. Fladrif (talk) 14:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It is better the way it is IMO. No need to change it as no reasons to change it have been put forth. Some have a desire to present the topic in a non NPOV manner with TM meaning only the technique in line with statements of official TM material. This is not going to happen and it is uncertain if anything else would be accepted as a compromise. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Who are these editors? Did not see anyone pushing for a TM article with no opening on TM vs Religion, etc. Certainly, myself I said several times that sentences such "TM is a religion" have a place in a TM article as long as they are sourced and presented with due weight. I did not ask that we exclude content from the TM article. On the other hand, there are editors that actually removed important content about the technique from the TM article and moved it in the TMT article. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
This is a compromise and points to the two most general ways in which TM is used in the sources. Why would you say no one will compromise when several editors have obviously moved towards this solution from their initial suggestions. Your comment above "in a non NPOV manner with TM meaning only the technique in line with statements of official TM material" is another assumption of poor faith and personalizes comments to some editors. (olive (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC))
@Olive, the DAB page is better than the current situation and I support it. However, I disagree that the DAB page "points to the two most general ways in which TM is used in the sources". The most general way in which "Transcendental Meditation" is used in TV programs, News papers, etc. is still itself alone as a noun, not as an adjective for Technique or Movement. This is why I have a problem with a DAB page - it should not be needed - but I am supporting it because it is an improvement. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Bug in this talk page

In one of my edit, a bug duplicated a large part of the talk page. It is not possible to simply remove the duplicate, because both the original (at the top) and the duplicate (at the bottom) have been edited. I will simply move the edits from the original (top) to the duplicate (bottom) and then remove the original (top). Please make sure that you edit the bottom because otherwise your edits might get loss. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 15:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I saw only one edit to move. It was an edit from Rumiton. I will now remove the top part, which is a duplicate. If I inadvertently remove an edit that was in the top part in this way, I apologize. Please simply put it back in the bottom part. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Done ! I also moved an edit from TimidGuy.. I apologize for the mess, which I hope is now taken care of. I don't know what did that. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Change in RfC

What happened to the RfC posted by James. I'd like to see that text returned to what James had posted originally. This is a complete muddle. (olive (talk) 02:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC))

If someone wants to post another RfC we can wait until this one has come to some resolution, but rewording the RfC posted by another editor is not appropriate. (olive (talk) 02:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC))
(edit conflict) @Olive, I did that because it follows guideline: a RFC must provide a neutral statement in the forum. Before that, only the first option was presented in the Rfc forum and it was also a complete muddle. The Bot should cut at the first signature, but it did not. Perhaps the neutral statement could be shorter, different. I am not sure it is true that we cannot edit the Rfc initiated by another, especially when it does not respect guideline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edith Sirius Lee 2 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I've added a category to take care of the comment. Lets try and keep the initial RfC in place as this respects the editor who originally placed the RfC, and lessens confusion. (olive (talk) 02:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC))
I don't think we should be adjusting someone else's RfC post. What James posted was neutral. It may not be what you considered the problem to be, but that doesn't make it overtly non neutral. We have to be careful of changing the text of other editor's post, its just not good in terms of respect and collaboration. Its just all too confusing and I'm afraid I'm not in agreement with it. My opinion anyway.(olive (talk) 02:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC))
Until I see that you address the specific point that I mentioned, I will feel that you missed the point. What was presented by the Bot at the Religion/Phylosophy forum was a mess: the first suggestion only and it was arbitrarily cut after TG comment. How could it be neutral when only the first suggestion is presented? That is not the way it should have been done. Any way, I am waiting for the opinions of others. I feel that we will agree that we need a brief neutral statement at the beginning, which should be signed so that it is picked by the bot. I have no problem to admit that what I wrote might not be ideal, but at the least it is a statement that covers all suggestions. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 03:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (indent) OK, I accept that, despite the fact that a brief neutral statement is definitively needed, it is not me that should write it. So, I moved it here (and only left a brief sentence so that the Bot does not pick everything in an arbitrary way until the first signature):

The question is what should be under the title "Transcendental Meditation", not how to present all material related to TM. Consider the suggestions below. Suggestions #1 and #5 both propose a TM article that summarizes other articles: the TM movement article, the TM technique article, etc. In suggestion #1, the TM article stays as it is: the "summary" focuses on what cannot be covered in these other articles. In suggestion #5, the TM article has a summary for each of these other articles and perhaps a very short Intro for itself. The summary of each article is similar to its own Intro [1]. Suggestion #2 is that the TM article is primary about the technique (because TM means the technique), but it covers the TM movement and other subjects as much as needed and has a DAB link to the TM movement article at the top. Suggestion #3 is like #2, but we redirect TM to the TM technique article. Suggestion #4 is that TM goes to a DAB page for the other articles. Other suggestions might be added.

02:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This is nothing more than tendatious disruption. Fladrif (talk) 03:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually I think this motive on Edith's part was meant to clarify so I understand that motive, but I would prefer another way of doing it. I don' think there was intent to disrupt from what is being said.(olive (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC))
Thank you Olive! We often disagree and I feel we will continue to disagree often, but most of the times I realize after that I was partially wrong. I am doing my best to realize it before I reply or act on it, not after. In particular, I realize now that even though suggestion #1 should have been more clear about what "leave it as is" mean, it was not wise to clarify it after it has received some "votes". This might actually create more confusion. Instead, we need to clarify how the editors themselves interpreted the suggestion when they placed their "votes". Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 03:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I can see this going on forever. With goodwill and open minds, the most difficult articles can be worked on to produce a result that everyone can at least live with, however strong their personal views. All I'm seeing from one editor here is repeated tendentious verbosity and something like triumphal incomprehensibility. I am not sure if it is intended, it might reflect genuine muddle-headedness or a poor command of English; but OTOH, it might be wilfully planned to chase away anyone trying to help. Either way, the editing process cannot survive it, and editors who care about this subject need to take a stand. I'm outta here. Rumiton (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go Rumiton. I agree that Edith needs to stop the long edits and provide short, clear and precise comments. --BwB (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Rumiton@ You should stay. I am going to take a leave of this article for a while, at the least a month. When I come back, I will reduce the amount of comments as this seems requested by few editors. Others often write long comments, as long as mines, but it is not the length only - I wrote many comments and they are not short. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Being succinct is a good practice for us all, I would guess. So would coming to some agreement so we cam move on.(olive (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC))

One more

This may be too late to count, but I have finally waded through this discussion and support suggestion #2. However, I would settle for #5 as a second-best compromise if #2 is not possible.

I do not see the need to have separate “Transcendental Meditation” and “Transcendental Meditation technique” articles, and especially not if Transcendental Meditation becomes a kind of subordinate article. I think its obvious that Transcendental Meditation refers to the technique, as Rumiton explained nicely, at one point way back there. I don’t see how a small number of refs in books and magazines, to the effect that Transcendental Meditation is also a movement, makes it necessary to have two articles. I fear that this split has diverted internet traffic from the meaty and substantial article—including interesting material on scientific research on TM—that the Transcendental Meditation article was. The material is there in the TM technique article, but has taken a lower profile since people now come to the TM article first, if they Google Transcendental Meditation, which is less substantial in this department.

However, good editing of the Transcendental Meditation article, as it has been defined below, will definitely help.

I did grow weary of all the discussion, but I am totally unsurprised that it happened. It was a natural response to a huge restructuring that was carried out unilaterally, without consulting editors who had been working hard and long to improve the article. And what made it worse was that this unilateral action took place just after an arbritration hearing that counseled more collaborative behavior in these articles! These editors justifiably felt, as one of them put it, “marginalized” by this action, and naturally let their feelings be known—though I note that other editors poured in quite a few words also.

Having said that, I do congratulate everyone for working out major differences and coming to a compromise solution. Really quite commendable.

I support Will’s idea of cutting down the length of the existing intro. First para seems fine, but then it drags. And is it necessary to have the History section first? It seems rather academic and removed from practicality to me. Most people would be more interested in the technique section, in learning what TM is actually all about, in a more practical sense, IMHO (as I notice you saying around here!).99.241.140.220 (talk) 03:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Early morning person (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Parked content

==Possible Health Risks ==

TM has also been linked to possible health risks, such as mental health problems including psychosis, anixety, depersonalisation and depression. One major german study looked at this (ref to follow). Also many personal accounts of the TM experience include people who had mild or severe reactions to the technique, many of these accounts can be found at www.trancenet.net and at other places on the internet via a google search. The TM movement denies these claims, but many people had stated they had negative reactions to the technique. (ref to follow)

Per recent consensus, non compliant content. As well, non sourced, POV content. Lets park this here until this can be discussed. Check [2] for recent consesus.(olive (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC))

Agree --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree. --BwB (talk) 12:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Moving on

We have with a raw count more support for 5 than for 1. They are pretty similar as well. Would there be any objections to adopting 5 so we could move on. I can't see where else this could go but to mediation, but it would be nice if we could manage to deal with this ourselves.(olive (talk) 16:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC))

Done moved as described. No content deleted. Might require further rearrangement. A bot will come around and fix the refs. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks James . I hope everyone else is OK with this. That was kinda fast. I was about to summarize 5 so we have it for reference. See below.(olive (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC))
The point of an RfC is to get outside input. WP:RFC. The comments of involved editors are interesting, but the views of the outside editors are what matters. I'm as anxious to move on as the next person, but I don't see how the numbers add up. Two outside editors support #5, while four have expressed support for #1. Does anybody else see a different outcome?   Will Beback  talk  22:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm against ignoring input from inside editors. There positions are more than just interesting, and deserve consideration in deciding on the suggestions for an article they will have to edit and deal with. How can we ignore them. As well, in this case JN supports #1 as a second choice while he also supports # 5 presumably a first choice... Rumiton also supports #5 although, its not clear which is his first choice. James moved his support from #1 to #5, a compromise for him, as he states. I was asking for objections and was at the point of summarizing the suggestion that seemed to have the most votes when James went ahead and made the changes as outlined by #5. That's the history. What do you want to change? (olive (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC))
If we don't want to go in this direction I'd say we are once again at an impasse. Many editors have compromised to get to this point and I'd be happy to move with what we have now, rather than either have more dragged out discussion or go to mediation.(olive (talk) 23:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC))
I am not OK with this. Will is exactly correct - the point of an RFC is to get outside input, and that input was overwhelmingly in favor of leaving things as-is. I am exhausted just reading this page, and sympathetic with the outside editor who threw up his hands in disgust, wondering if this incomprehensible deluge of tendatiousness was deliberate. Fladrif (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not true Flad. If Rumiton meant #5 to be his first choice then the vote of the outside editors on #1 and number #5 is equal. We could always ask him, but I also do not agree to ignore the input of the involved editors almost all of who compromised to come to some agreement here. If this RfC is overlooked then we need to go to Mediation. What I can see is that finally we had compromise and adjustment by multiple editors with multiple views to make this work, if that's not good enough we need outside help. If the RfC was finalized too fast we can also reopen it, although that hasn't been the protocol here in the recent past. Whatever is done, there was a fair effort here by many editors involved to to make this work and I'm not going to negate that effort in anyway.(olive (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC))

Are you saying that by heeding the outside input, sought by the RFC, we'd be ignoring the RFC? That's seems contradictory. You also seem to be saying that if we do it the way you prefer then we can have peace, but if we do it the way the outside editors prefer then we are at an impasse? If so, why was there an RfC?   Will Beback  talk  23:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say any of this and your misrepresentation of what I said and did is troubling.( Will Beback quoted in bold from his above comment)
  • Are you saying that by heeding the outside input, sought by the RFC, we'd be ignoring the RFC?

I said we need to consider input of both inside and outside editors, both have valid input and suggestions.

  • You also seem to be saying that if we do it the way you prefer then we can have peace, but if we do it the way the outside editors prefer then we are at an impasse?

2 outside editors agree with #1. 2 outside editors agree with #5. That's an impasse if we look only at outside editors. If we look at outside and involved editors we have more in agreement with #5 than with #1.

  • The way you [I] prefer. That's insulting. This process included multiple editors with multiple views. I preferred a pre split situation but I compromised as did most other editors.

I also did not close the RfC but was in process of asking for objections and of summarizing #5 to make sure every editor had a chance to relook at the possible outcome of the RfC before it became final. James made the edit. I assumed that if he had made that edit too fast editors would ask him to revert it. I also asked you, what you wanted to change.

  • We have some choices now. You revert James' edit or ask James to. We can reopen the RfC with the edit in place, and continue discussion or continue with the reversion in place. Given our history and the length of time we've already spent discussing this , I suspect we are in for another long harangue with out relief in sight, so I would suggest if that is the case we have outside help.
  • Do not mischaracterize my actions on any of this. I don't appreciate your inaccurate slant on my actions.Thanks.(olive (talk) 00:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC))
Let's discuss this RfC calmly before making any further major changes or accusations.
Under #1, I see "Support" comments from four uninvolved users: Literaturegeek, Guerillero, Rumiton, and JN466. Am I counting wrong?   Will Beback  talk  00:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm calm. How about you? I didn't make accusations, I told you, you misrepresented what I said, which you did, and I didn't make any changes of any size.
So. This discussion need to be simple. I'll just lay out the obvious.
JN 's frist choice is #5. Rumiton voted support for #1 Nov.8, and support for #5, Nov 9. I have no idea which is his first choice as I said earlier. We could ask him. We either have outside editors at 1 to 3, or 2 to 2. Then. Neither of those situations is an overwhelming majority. Total count of editors puts #5 ahead of #1. And again as I said, I don't agree that outside editors should be alone in controlling what happens to any article. Now you can do whatever you want with those numbers but those are the numbers. I suggested every possible way I could think of, of moving forward out of this situation. If you have other ideas please suggest them. (olive (talk) 02:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC))
Right, you accused me of misrepresenting and mischaracterizing you. Bold formatting makes things look imperative.
Do "second" choices not count at all? If it wasn't an option editor would accept then they could have deleted their comments. I don't understand the math.
One option is to ask an outside admin to come in and close the RFC.   Will Beback  talk  02:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I've asked the admin SJ if he would look at and then close the RfA if needed.(olive (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC))
The usual procedure is to post a request on ANI, but that's fine.   Will Beback  talk  03:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
It looks like SJ has only made one edit in the past two weeks. Let's wait a few days and if he doesn't respond then we can put out a general request.   Will Beback  talk  03:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Quick thoughts: this looks like an example of reasoned discussion leading to a successful resolution :) Everyone who opposed option 1 supports option 5, which has no opposition. That is a great outcome for an RfC - a formulation everyone involved can support (even if it is just rewording or repeating an earlier idea). Currently #5 has broad support, and the other options are unsupported or controversial. If you feel too few people have weighed in, you may want to leave a few more days for discussion. (As for Literaturegeek and Guerillero, they supported #1 but might have supported #5 as well -- the latter option wasn't yet written when they commented.) There also seems to be some confusion about the differences between #1 and #5 - you might edit them for clarity, and link the description of #5 to the comment by Will that you reference. –SJ+ 06:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out. Just so you know, my lack of opposition comments isn't representative of a lack of opposition. I was only posting "support" comments, to stay on the positive side. I'm not sure that inferring what folks might approve of is a solid basis for action.   Will Beback  talk  12:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Also, SJ should be aware that the involved editors in this topic tend to fall into two groups. The largest group of editors here do not represent what would typically be considered the majority view in the world at large. That's one reason why simply counting votes among involved editors may lead to a skewed result.   Will Beback  talk  19:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
This is a strange comment, because it is assumptive of, what editors personal views are, that an entire group of editors have the same view, that that view, is a singular homogenized view, and then, is not held by the world at large, whatever that is, and that those views are prominent in skewing what is for the most part the language of an article and so implies non neutrality. Whew!(olive (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC))
@Will Beback: If I am allowed only a short sentence, I'd say such an ad_hominen could be used against both sides ! Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 01:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
It's a responsibility encyclopedia editors to present material so as to give greatest prominence to the most widely held views (among reliable sources). See WP:NPOV:Weight.   Will Beback  talk  01:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree but gosh. I don't think there's any indication that any one of these suggestions is better than others in terms of the predominant view.(olive (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC))
Point being that the range of views among involved users here is not representative of the broader community or society. That's why merely using a majority vote would not necessarily satisfy NPOV.   Will Beback  talk  05:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
At no time, can or should a single editor speak either for this community as a whole or for a society. Further, to bring that assumption here in context of a RfC vote is inappropriate.(olive (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC))
Nor should five editors. I raised this because there is a question over how much weight to give input from involved editors in an RFC. I think RfCs are intended to generate outside input. The other view seems to be that it is a poll of involved and uninvolved editors alike.   Will Beback  talk  22:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you so much for you input SJ, and for responding so quickly. I think its a good idea to to leave the RfC open unless others are ready to move on. And thanks. Its a contentious article, but I think you're right, we did pretty well keeping it even and reasonable.. :o)(olive (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC))

It appears we have consensus for suggestion 5, and the change already made by Doc James so I suggest we close down this discussion, finally, and move on to working with the TM article.(olive (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC))

As Will pointed out we do not have consensus. Thus I have changed back. There is still more support for number 1. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Summary of guidlines for rebuilding TM article

Summary:

  • Move out content that does not link to its own article
  • Possibility to summarize and move in content that has its own article
  • Do not add content unless it has its own article

(olive (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC))

Huh? What's this about? Are we closing the RfC and this is the conclusion?   Will Beback  talk  22:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
See explanation above.(olive (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC))

Summary:

  • The main TM article will provide an overview of the History, Movement, and Technique articles.
  • Move out content that does not link to its own article
  • Possibility to summarize and move in content that has its own article
  • Do not add content unless it has its own article

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

External editor support is still primarily for option number one. Thus reverted to that per Will's comments.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC: How should we present the TM material

The question is what should be under the title "Transcendental Meditation." 03:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion 1

Leave it as it is with a short introduction page at Transcendental Meditation addressing the two main uses of the term ( the Transcendental Meditation movement and the Transcendental Meditation technique) with links to these two main topics. The introductory page would also have some material that deals equally with both main topics.

Involved editors
  • Support I support this layout as TM is used to mean the technique and the movement about equally by google. Technique 244,000 [3] Movement 155,000 [4]. These two meaning are also used extensively by academic sources. This is thus the most WP:NPOV solution.
Note that in the first instance, your search string is malformed. You used "transcendental meditation technique free". TimidGuy (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes thank you. I only get 24,400 for the technique when corrected. [5] while I get 162,000 for the movement.[6]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Could accept, but not as it is It is not possible to cover the important aspects of any of the two subjects in a short summary or introduction. At the end of the short article, in the current situation, the reader may have the impression that he has the big picture, the essential, but actually important material is missing - it has been removed. Removing material that fits within the scope of a title is not NPOV. To improve the situation, we would have to add important content about the two subjects and in doing so we will get back to an article as we had before TMM forked out of TM, but it could be much shorter since we have two extra articles for the details. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are not two main uses of the term "Transcendental Meditation." There is one main use, and one rare usage. Look at the data: 10 out of the first 10 search results in the LexisNexis newspaper database use the term "Transcendental Meditation" to refer to a specific type of meditation; 9 out of 10 for the Lexis/Nexis magazine database; 10 out of 10 for the Lexis broadcast transcript database; 10 out of 10 for Google Scholar; 8 out of 10 for Google Books; and 9 out of 10 for Google News Archive. Per WP:UNDUE, the use of the term "Transcendental Meditation" to refer to something other than a meditation technique is minor, and should be treated accordingly. The article on "Transcendental Meditation" should be about the meditation technique. It can mention in the context of the article that the term is sometimes used in a broader sense. And of course there can be a link to the article on "Transcendental Meditation movement," the term sometimes used to refer collectively to the organizations associated with Maharishi. TimidGuy (talk) 12:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Where were these searches discussed?   Will Beback  talk  03:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm interested in reviewing this data. Can anyone explain how these figures were determined?   Will Beback  talk  02:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose The phrase 'Transcendental Meditation' is defined as a technique of meditation. This is verified in multiple dictionaries and encyclopedias which I have cited here. [7] It is a noun. However, like any word, it can also be used as a adjective. For example the word olive. Olive pit, olive oil, olive colored shirt. This doesn't make the word 'olive' ambiguous in its meaning. Therefore the argument that Transcendental Meditation is sometimes used as an adjective before the words center, teacher, movement, project etc and that this usage makes its meaning ambiguous is a false logic. I due concede that on rare occasions the term by itself has been given alternative usages, but these instances comprise only a few percent of the overall number of usages and to redefine the term based on an occasional misuse of the phrase is inaccurate and a disservice to Wiki readers.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
No one here is arguing that the term is not used to mean a technique. Thus providing further references to show it means a technique adds little. One would need to convince us that is does not mean a movement ( even a percent or two is sufficient if the refs are solid ). This would mean convincing us that the Encyclopedia Britannica is not a reliable source or we have misinterpreted it ( this would also need to take place for the few dozen other solid refs put forth ). A ref saying that it does not mean a movement would maybe needed which I assume does not exist the rest is original research :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
This section is not the place for discussion or criticism of editors who are casting their "vote". Doc James could you please moved your comment to the Discussion Section? Otherwise we will have discussion here too. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Transcendental Meditation is first and foremost a meditation technique introduced my Maharishi sometime in the 50s. Later, an organization formed around the teaching of this specific technique, now referred to as the Transcendental Meditation movement. We only need 2 articles to cover these topics in Wiki - the first and main article, either to be called "Transcendental Meditation" or "Transcendental Meditation technique", but exclusively about this form of meditation. The other article can be call the "Transcendental Meditation movement" which cover the organizations - past and present - that teach this specific technique and related programs. --BwB (talk) 19:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per a more comprehensive version of this in Number 5 below. As well as TG points out TM used to mean a technique is more predominant than TM as a movement. Our articles must reflect this per WP:WEIGHT.(olive (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC))
  • Oppose As I have said before, I was never in agreement with the forking of the original article and the creation of three separate articles. Transcendental meditation, as I and many others already said, is a term referring to a technique. That is what an article on TM should be mainly about. Of course, there is an organization that promotes and teaches such technique and relevant points about that should be covered also, we all agree about that, I beleive. However, three articles, as they stand are an exaggeration and no longer on point.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 05:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Uninvolved editors
  • Support. This seems the most sensible option. This article should be a general overview, or summary, of TM, with the other two articles giving more detailed infomation for our readers.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. This seems to be the fairest way to go about doing this. If a person wants to know more about either topic under the broad umbrella of TM then they can visit the separate articles noted in a hatnote above the short summaries. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support for the above reasons. The scholars I quoted here [[8]] all considered the movement that arose around the techniques to be of interest, and covered it under the same name of TM. Rumiton (talk) 12:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Searching the Internet and counting hits is not a valid way of determining notability. We need to look at what the best sources say. Rumiton (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, but second preference. I think it would be better to cover the "Theoretical concepts" and "Characterizations" in either the technique or movement article, whichever the relevant material best fits into, and then include these aspects here in the summary article as part of the summaries for these subarticles. Checking google books, there is no question that TM is understood as the movement in some quality sources, [9][10][11], but book sources using the term to refer to the meditation technique are in a clear majority, and the same will be true in google scholar, given the amount of peer-reviewed research on the technique. Perhaps this should be reflected in the summary of the technique article being somewhat longer than the summary of the movement article. --JN466 03:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion 2

Merge the TM Technique article in the TM article to bring it back as it was before the split. This will bring back content that naturally fit within the scope of the title "Transcendental Meditation". Before the split, the TM article was the only article about the technique. As pointed out in the last Rfc, there was no need for another article on the subject [12][13].

Involved editors
  • Support (First choice) Having one article per subject allows that we explain each subject carefully. Dab links can insure that information is easily accessible and well organised. No need for an introduction to help the readers see that Transcendental Meditation Movement is about the movement - Dab links are perfect, simple - they do the job better than an Intro. We can include content about the movement as needed in the TM article. Overlaps are natural. Suggestion 1 also has overlaps between TMT and TMM. Nobody mentioned any problem with this option, except to exclude content that naturally fit within the scope of the title "Trancendental Meditation". Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support This is my first choice.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Uninvolved editors

Oppose for the reasons why I supported the first option. Rumiton (talk) 12:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion 3

Same as suggestion 2, but, in addition, redirect Transcendental Meditation to Transcendental Meditation Technique. This was the most supported suggestion in the last Rfc (see diffs above).

Involved editors
Uninvolved editors

Suggestion 4

Per Discussion: Create DAB page

Involved editors
  • Accept as a compromise (third choice). It avoid the unnecessary short Intro that is too likely to be biased because some content is excluded. It still has the problem that, in reliable sources, "Transcendental Meditation", except within "Transcendental Meditation Movement" and similar expressions (TM group, etc.), is, of course, almost never used to mean the movement. Dab links are therefore more appropriate. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Second choice The main benefits of this solution may be that it is the most neutral and that it pushes all of the content issues to other articles. It has two weaknesses: one is that it requires merging text into an already long article and the other is that the TM article may not be the target for the material anyway. Perhaps splitting it off into a "TM theories" or a "Maharishi Vedic Science and related theories" or a "Philosophy of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi" article would be better. If we go with this option we should add a section on the TMM to the TMT article, so that the cross reference each other.   Will Beback  talk  13:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't believe it solves anything and could create further confusion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Uninvolved editors

Oppose but only mildly. Disambiguation is intended for articles that have little or nothing to do with each other. The examples given in WP:DAB conform to this; eg Mercury (planet, metal, mythological figure.) This is more of an expansion of a single topic. No harm would be done by DABbing, but I doubt if it would be stable for long. Rumiton (talk) 12:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per Rumiton. --JN466 03:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion 5

Per Discussion: TM article as a summary article for TM technique and TM movement with sections linking to topics that have their own articles Further explanation: I'm suggesting as a compromise basically what Will suggested earlier in the discussion: moving out of the TM article both the "Theoretical Concepts" and "Characterizations" for which there are no main articles, leaving only the sections that are summaries of and link to other articles, TM history, TM technique, TM movement, with the additional stipulation that we not add in content unless that content is a summary of another article. This is close to Number 1 but with the added suggestion by Will, and a stipulation that basically would prevent adding back in the content we had just removed.(olive (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC))

Involved editors

*Support Yes leave the summary of the three main sections ( history, movement, technique ) and move the other stuff to one of the sub articles. A fair compromise. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Agree First choice as a compromise to my original thinking. @James:Only summaries of topics that have their own articles not as a place for content as suggested above, there is no other place for, a sure-fire way to create contention, hopefully keeping it simple, clear, and neutral.(olive (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC))
  • Support I support this as my second choice. My first choice is to revert the article split and the mis-definition of the term Transcendental, (Suggestion #2)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Sounds like an acceptable compromise. But eventually we're going to have to deal with the issue of weight regarding usage of the term "Transcendental Meditation." TimidGuy (talk) 12:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Uninvolved editors
  • Support. Rumiton (talk) 10:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. (I've made a half dozen (?) edits in the topic area, and commented at the arbitration case a few months ago; if you feel this makes me involved, please feel free to move my vote to the involved section). --JN466 03:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - It seems to me, as a bit of an outsider, that while the technique predates the movement, they have since become so intertwined that they are vitually inseparable. The technique seems to be primarily if not exclusively practiced by the movement, and the movement seems to have as one of its primary purposes, if not its only purpose, the advancement of the technique. So having the main article be about both those topics, as well as the history involved in the eventual intertwining of the two, seems to me anyway to probably be the best way forward. John Carter (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion 6

Make the movement page the main page located at TM. Turn the TM technique page into a subpage of that. The technique is just park of the movement well the movement goes on to deal with architecture and the running of fundraising / a university, etc.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Add clarification per Doc James: "...get rid of the TM page and redirect to the TMM page." (olive (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC))

Involved editors
  • Support We would have a paragraph about the technique in the main article at TM that would cover the movement. People do not care about the technique unless the understand the whole religion behind it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. The technique predates that movement and there would be no movement without the technique. TM technique should be the primary article. --BwB (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment This suggestion is much too big to be presented as a new option in a Rfc that has been around for some times now. I created a specific Rfc below for it so that the issue is presented more precisely to the community. It deserves that. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Well, the statements supporting option 1 suggest that the two other articles are for extensions, for those readers who want more. So, the Transcendental Meditation Movement article would be a complement and the essential about the movement should be be covered in the main article. Similarly, the Transcendental Meditation Technique article would be a complement and the essential about the technique should be be covered in the main article. This would require that we duplicate some content because each article would need to also contain the essential: an article is not like a section of another article - it needs to be self-contained. This is not a problem - it happens all the times that articles with a general scope overlap on the essential with articles that have a more specific scope. I can see why people might want to do it this way. It will be like going back to the situation before we forked TMM out of TM, but with two other articles that go more thoroughly in each subject. That can make sense. It does not respect the most common definition of Transcendental Meditation, but I can see that people, because they fear that we hide content, feel that the article entitled Transcendental Meditation should nevertheless cover the movement as much as the technique. Before the split the movement was covered as needed in the TM article, it covered scholar opinions that need to pass from one to the other (as Rumiton points out), but somehow beyond logic more seem to be needed. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

  • You need to clarify the options. For example, "Bring it back as it was before the split, but without discarding recent edits." means nothing to an outside editor looking in, trying to help you guys out here. --JN466 06:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
As a minimum, an outside editor should be aware of what did happen in the last Rfc - the split despite the fact an external editor clearly suggested two articles, not three, not a split, one on the movement and another on the technique, which he said should be called the "Transcendental Meditation Technique" article [14][15]. We don't want to start from scratch every time we do an Rfc, do we? You are right, though, the option 2 should have explained a little bit more. I will add a sentence to clarify. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 08:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I think it is equally important to make sure that we understand what the external editors really have in mind. One wrote "the summaries". What does that mean? As it stand now, it seems that we have two external editors that want a TM article that deals equally with TMM and TMT, but this is also the idea of suggestion 5.Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 09:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Question 1 for external editors supporting option 1.

Isn't it the purpose of the Intro in each of the two articles, TMM and TMT, to summarize the content of their respective article, to allow our readers to get the essential and let them decide if they want to get more information in the body of the article? It is very important to note that the Intro of the technique article naturally covers the movement as needed and, similarly, the Intro of the movement article naturally cover the technique as needed. What is gained by doing it again in the TM article? A summary that would focus only on material that is not a part of one or the other would totally fail its purpose. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 09:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I would say that the leads need to refer to the bigger picture, but not "cover" it. Rumiton (talk) 12:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
To cover the big picture seems a good idea. Removing material that is published in reliable and independent sources and which naturally fit in the big picture is against NPOV. Anyway, this is very abstract. Could you be more concrete? Perhaps, you did not meant that we should exclude some sources.Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 13:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
We are talking about the leads. No article lead can contain every fact about the subject. The lead should hold the most important points, the essentials, as you say, and the tone of the lead should reflect the general thrust of the article. Rumiton (talk) 13:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ok, I just read Wikipedia:SUMMARY, but this is suggestion 5, not suggestion 1. Doc James and me too, we did not understand suggestion 5 and the difference with suggestion 1 at first. Suggestion 1 says that we leave it as it is, which means that it is for content that do not fit well in either subject - it's completely different - night Vs day. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
The existing intro might be a little long, given the length of the article. It's a bit of a holdover. Perhaps it'd be best if it essentially had a paragraph or sentence to summarize each section.   Will Beback  talk  13:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Question 2 for external editors supporting option 1.

Does option 1 means that we should totally exclude from the TM article material that regularly make the news about TM: scientific research, school programs, etc. as well as the procedure itself? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment regarding the meaning of Transcendental Meditation (TM)

The meaning of the term TM has been and is still central to justify suggestion 1. For example, Will Beback provided above an example where TM is used in practice (not just defined) to mean the movement: "TM is building peace palaces". We have perhaps no other evidence of this kind to support that TM means the movement: a special case. Will, could you please add this in the subpage [16] and provide the reference. I could not find it anywhere. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

@Rumiton, you misunderstand, TG did not count hits in a superficial way. He looked at how the term TM is used in practice. You can take a larger sample, as large as you wish, you will get the same conclusion. This is better than what dictionnaries or encyclopaedia can tell us: language is not fixed in dictionnaries or encyclopaedia. Besides, the large majority of definitions in dictionnaries or encyclopaedia respect this usage in practice, perhaps all of those who aren't written with a religious view do. The most funny thing is that I looked at the TM entry in Encyclopaedia Britannica [17], written by the religious expert John Gordon Melton and, except in the definition itself in the first sentence, all occurences of TM means the technique - he uses TM in a way that contradicts his own definition. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't misunderstand. It doesn't matter how he did it, that was his own original research. If he was a professional with a reputation to lose if he got it wrong, his research would be admissible. Encyclopedias have been found to be not particularly good sources either, as they are tertiary sources and their articles are not generally compiled by specialist experts. We need to go straight to the scholars. I have given you three that look at TM simultaneously as a technique and a movement. Do you need more? Rumiton (talk) 05:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


Thank you for your reply Rumiton. There are two things to consider here: first, the question that we ask and, second, what we intend to do with the answer, our objective in asking the question. The question asked here is what is the meaning of the term "Transcendental Meditation" or "TM" and our objective is to determine what should be under "TM". i.e., to choose one of the suggestions that are given above.
A different objective would be to determine the specific content under a given section, say a section on Religion Vs TM. For this last purpose, you are definitively right that we must rely on the best sources and avoid original research. The meaning of TM is not so relevant here. To follow sources, but also simply by common sense, an article on the technique, irrespectively of its title, has to include paragraphs where we pass from the technique to the movement and vice versa all the times, as you pointed out. However, we had paragraphs like that before the split and we still have them after the split. It makes sense that the TM technique article includes paragraphs like that, even if its primary focus is the technique. To my knowledge, nobody has objected to that. This is not the problem that we are discussing now, unless we are, but then I missed something.
We must distinguish between these different objectives because the meaning of TM might not have the same significance and the policy may apply differently in each case. Our objective now is to decide what should be under the title "Transcendental Meditation" (DAB page, article with DAB links, etc.). In this case, the policy/guideline says explicitly that we can agree amongst us on the best tools to use, including google count, etc [18]. This is not against WP:NOR. Every one seems to agree that the meaning of TM is an essential ingredient here. So, in accordance with policy/guideline, we are using the best tools we have to agree on it. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 10:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
If we are using a disamiguation page, that guideline might apply. That option has not been chosen. Rumiton (talk) 12:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Just had a tought. I hope your point was not that you have given us the best sources to cover entirely the subject of TM and that the entire subject should follow these sources. Was that your point? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 10:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course not. Rumiton (talk) 12:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh good! Otherwise, we would have been very far from a possible resolution of the dispute. I assume that you did not mean either that all the sources should be by religious scholars. I am not asking this time. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Let's keep this as simple as possible.   Will Beback  talk  11:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
An honorable goal. Rumiton (talk) 12:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Sure, but not at the cost of misunderstanding guideline. In particular, the guideline that I cited is to be used to determine whether a DAB page or a DAB link should be used. Please read it again [19]. It applies exactly to our situation to help us determine which suggestions is the best. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Discussion on suggestion 1 and related comments

@TimidGuy, Valid point. An organisation that respects the usual meaning of "Transcendental Meditation" is so natural. I only given up on it because I feel that some misinterpret it as if it was hiding TMM content, which has nothing to do with logic. It does not hide TMM content - it only organise it better. No one wants to hide TMM content. So, I focus on the most important: no well sourced material about TM should be excluded from the TM article and the article should be well organised with a summary for each topic per WP:SUMMARY as in suggestion 5. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

@JN466, your third reference, at the page you gave, uses "Transcendental Meditation Movement", not "Transcendental Meditation", to mean the movement. Not a big deal - your conclusion is still valid: some sources use it, at the least some times, to mean the movement. They are specialised sources about religions (Handbook of the sociology of religion) or mostly about movements (Dictionnary of the 70's).

Changes to the lead

We have one paragraph for the movement and one for the technique. The movement is hardly something that just developed around the technique. Thus returned these to the way they where before. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes the movement developed around the technique...Did the movement come first? How is that possible or logical? Mason clearly describes the progression in Maharishi's life from leaving his master to eventually speaking, teaching and then the first organization created around the technique, Spiritual Regeneration Movement. Do we have other sources that pinpoint the "movement's" beginning earlier than that?
I think its a good idea to organize the lead in terms of the technique and the movement as James suggested. However, we also have the history of the technique /movement so we'd need to include a paragraph on history as well. Right now the lead is a mish mash of points and information, content which should not be in the same paragraph in terms of grammar, all of which I was attempting to clear up, a least in a preliminary way.
That something is "better" is an opinion. Can we work on this lead in a collaborative way until we get something we all like rather than turning this either into a revert party or having long tedious discussions. I'd like to try that approach.(olive (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC))
In looking at the lead again, I think we might have to consider how to integrate "history", whether to include a paragraph devoted to the subject or integrate history into the other two paragraphs on technique and movement. Thoughts.(olive (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC))

Inaccuracy in the lead

  • A a spiritual movement. The wording in the article suggests that all define TM movement as a spiritual movement which of course isn't true. If we add the preliminary " had been described as" we imply that some see this as a spiritual movement, some do not. I had reworded the lead this way, but the wording was reverted.
  • B The TM technique and TM movement were introduced in India... Do we have a source for this. The first official movement organization seems to have been the Spiritual Regeneration Movement. This was an American org that didn't begin in India.
  • C Independently done systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation or health education. We've been through this before, but we have two reviews here. The wording inaccurately suggests all reviews have found these results, which isn't true. We should name the reviews
  • D Sceptics have called TM or its associated theories and technologies a "pseudoscience". This refers top two skeptics, but the wording implies all skeptics. We should name the "skeptics here

(olive (talk

A - Do we have sources that call it some other kind of movement? Many sources call it a "new religious movement", but I think that "spiritual movement" covers that.
B - The MMY bio says:
  • The Maharishi travelled around India for two years.[40][41]At that time, he called his movement the "Spiritual Development Movement", but renamed it "The Spiritual Regeneration Movement" in 1957, in Madras, India, on the concluding day of the Seminar of Spiritual Luminaries.[5]
Is that incorrect?
C - I can't believe this is being rehashed again. We had a consensus on this, let's leave it.
D - Naming critics in the intro gives the matter excess weight. If Olive thinks that it's necessary to modify the text, then let's just say, "Two sceptics have called..."   Will Beback  talk  23:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
WRT C we had a RfC to determine the current wording. Thus I am not inclined to go through this again. I agree with Will on A, B, and D. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Reply:

  • A There are multiple ways of describing this organization. We aren't arbitrarily confined to the word movement, spiritual, religious, or otherwise. We have some sources that describe the organization as a spiritual movement but by no means all. In fact, many sources, as discussions here point out, just call it TM. Its pretty easy to rectify this by just saying, "has been described". I'm not sure why there is resistance to this. This seems obvious, easy and indicates the range of what's in the sources. We don't actually have to say its called anything for that matter.
  • B I thought there was concerns about using the MMY bio. I was referring to Mason which seemed to have more acceptance. I'm fine then with saying in India as per the MMY bio.
  • C There was no consensus. One editor declaring consensus does not a consensus make. This sentence is highly problematic since it misrepresents the TM research implying with two reviews that there are no health benefits. This isn't accurate per the other reviews. If we want a statement in the lead about the research it must be accurate.
  • D Naming the critics gives excess weight? I don't think I understand that. Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV "Biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution and not as if they are facts." If we don't want to attribute properly, lets just remove it. (olive (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC))
Edit restriction where put in place over the refusal of some editors to accept the consensus. Consensus can change. But with no new evidence this is not likely. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
No. That's not true. You declared a consensus before the RfC had closed. There was no consensus. If we need to go to DR over this we should, because what's in place now is false and jeopardizes the quality of a Wikipedia article as any inaccuracy does. The fact that serious and legitimate concerns have been raised is a further impetus to make sure we have this right, otherwise we are implicated in the inaccuracy of the content. Consensus can't override a blatant and obvious inaccuracy.(olive (talk) 02:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC))
You have not provided a single ref that indicated that anything in the lead is inaccurate. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
We're discussing C. I would assume you are aware of the range of the TM research. As well, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". The statement in the lead added by you clearly implies that none of the TM research is effective. Two reviews does not have that meaning and extrapolating that meaning from only two reviews is not in any way, logically accurate. You need to provide a source that says in effect, All (implied) "Independently done systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation or health education.", otherwise the statement is Original Research. "All" is a big word. Even if there was such a view it would be an opinion Since the sheer number of peer reviewed studies indicates there is support for the quality the research, and repeated NIH grants indicates interest in the effects, the statement would have to be attributed, and as well, content added to show the other side of the story, and to provide NPOV. (olive (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC))

(undent) While we have two reviews and no independently done ones disagree thus... Anyway the RfC supported the current text.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


A - What are some of the other descriptions of the movement for which we have sources?
B - The direct cited source for the the start of the movement in India is the L.A. Times obituary. I'm not sure what you mean by the "MMY bio" - Wikipedia bio of MMY, perhaps?
C - I disagree with changing this again, but if editors are looking for fights over stable, long-discussed material then please start a fresh thread about it rather than bundling it in with other changes.
D - The view is already attributed to "skeptics". We can give their names, colleges degrees, work histories, and mother's maiden names where appropriate, but all of that is too much information for the intro.   Will Beback  talk  10:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
D Two skeptics call TM something and so we must include it in the article? Does not seem enough to justify it's inclusion. --BwB (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
D We just cite two. There are more.   Will Beback  talk  13:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
How many swallows doth a summer make? --BwB (talk) 13:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Fights? What I'd like to do is go through in a systematic manner this "new" article. I started with the lead and listed areas I wasn't sure of. I'm sorry you consider that a "fight" rather than request for input and discussion.

  • A The simplest and most neutral way of defining the movement is, as the organizations and programs connected to the technique. We can add, it has been or is defined as a spiritual movement. Is spiritual movement the only definition of the TM movement. If its not and its not, then a slight shift in syntax gives that sense. Why the resistance to make that slight shift towards accuracy?
  • B I'm fine with this as I said, since we have a source.
  • C This is a new article. Doc removed the research section of the original TM article and later moved back in this sentence which is improperly used to negate the research . As well, I stopped editing this article until we'd come to some agreement on its structure. That's not stability. We're revisiting this article and its content. The body of the article has changed, the article's focus has changed, and the lead may have to change to fall in line with those changes.
  • D The wording is not appropriate per Wikipedia as I said above. Skeptics implies all skeptics when in fact we have two here, and who knows what all of the skeptics think. Since that's the case we'd need inline attribution. Its a simple Wikipedia standard. If you want it that way, I 'm not going to argue for something so obvious and so simple. I don't agree with it, though. Its a straight up Wikipedia violation. (olive (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC))
A - We could add "has been described as" to almost every sentence in the article.
  • Transcendental Meditation technique,[1] has been described as a specific form of mantra meditation,
  • TM has been described as one of the most widely practiced, and among the most widely researched meditation techniques.
  • The TM movement has been described as having programs and holdings in multiple countries.
I think it's pretty much a weasel-type phrase. Again I ask for examples of the other descriptions that have been mentioned here.
C - Start a new thread on it. It's too complicated to deal with in this omnibus proposal.
D - That's why I suggest the simple solution of saying "Two sceptics..." That is a brief attribution and takes care of the issue you raised.   Will Beback  talk  22:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
We could describe the technique as one component of the movement. The movement also deal with architectural design. Raising money. Running a University. Really the technique page should be a subpage of the movement page as the technique is just a single component of the movement. Will add this to the RfC above.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussions on suggestion 6

The idea that the movement subject is a parent of the technique subject is all perfect and I think it is usually understood this way. It means that the TMM article can be seen as a parent article for the technique article. However, the title of the movement article should not be "Transcendental Meditation" because "Transcendental Meditation" usually means the technique, not the movement. Moreover, articles are not naturally organized in a tree structure and there is usually more than one parent for an article. For example, the meditation article is another parent for the TM technique article. One reading about Transcendental Meditation should be informed about these parents, but links are sufficient. The meditation article itself refers to the Transcendental Meditation article as the main article for this brief paragraph [20]:

The Transcendental Meditation or TM technique is a form of mantra meditation introduced in India in 1955 by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (1917–2008). Taught in a standardized, seven-step course over 4 days by certified teachers, it involves the silent use of a sound or mantra and is practiced for 15–20 minutes twice per day, while sitting comfortably with closed eyes.

Clearly, what is being expected here under the title "Transcendental Meditation" is the technique article, not the movement article. Changing this particular reference to Transcendental Meditation technique is not the solution because there can be many more references like that all over the Internet. This is just common sense: we cannot play with the meaning of words just because we want to take content out of an article. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 01:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

TM usually means the movement as a whole. The technique is part of the movement. The movement article should be at TM. People than get an overview and can look at the specifics of the technique in more detail if they wish. This is the most logical. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Not logical. Transcendental Meditation is a meditation technique introduced by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in the 1950s. It came first. Movement is secondary. If we had kept thing the way they were before the split we would not be going through this rigmarole again. We need 1 article on Transcendental Meditation which focuses on the technique, and another on the TM movement to cover the organization that teaches TM and related programs. Plain and simple. --BwB (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the approach is logical. The movement and the teaching arose at the same time, because the first initiate became the first member so the movement. Also, the movement is much large than just TM, and if TM stopped being taught there would still be many other elements. OTOH, without the movement there would be no TM, as only movement-certified teachers can teach it. However I'm not convinced of the practical wisdom of the proposed re-alignment. Even if there was support from a majority of uninvolved editors, I'm afraid that pro-TM editors would never accept it and would complain endlessly against it, as has already happened with the current alignment. Due the nature of Wikipedia, it's sometimes necessary to compromise the ideal in order to accommodate noisy minorities.   Will Beback  talk  23:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

What are these two last comments about? Are we concerned about whether or not TMM should be a parent to TM? If this is the issue, then I don't see the big deal. There are plenty of logic to make TMM a parent of TM - it is a parent of TM, but it does not mean at all that the TMM article should be renamed to TM. Some editors here seem to feel that it is important that readers learn all about the movement before they can find out about the research on TM, etc. I do not reject that readers should be informed about the movement article early in the TM article in a normal way. However, they should be as much informed about the research on TM and other well known aspects of the technique. Changing the meaning of the term Transcendental Mediation with the purpose of removing preventing content that pertains to the technique out of to be added in the TM article is simply not NPOV. This should be obvious. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I expect that Option #6 would include at least the same text about the technique that's in the article now.   Will Beback  talk  21:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea what is option #6. Are you saying that is another way to suggest that we "keep it as it is" as in suggestion #1? Can you make a clear statement about what is suggestion #6. I see it as a renaming of TMM into TM, but Fladrif says that it is not that. What is it? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
It the TMM content is moved to TM, that makes it the "parent" article for the TMT article. The parent article should contain a summary of the child article. Currently, this article is the parent for TMT and TMM, and has summaries of both.   Will Beback  talk  23:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
All the content of TMM would be moved to TM? In that case, those searching for TMM would be redirected to TM. This is the key point to clarify. Is suggestion #6 keeping TMM and TM as two separate articles or not? If it is not, it is a much too big suggestion to be presented as a new option in a RFC that has been around for some times. It concerns the TMM article as well. It's big. External editors need to receive a precise Rfc on this important proposal, not just a vague Rfc that asks the general question what is under the title "Transcendental Meditation". Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Sorry to sound like a broken record - 2 article will do, one on the TM technique, another on the TM movement. The TMT article will cover the technique, research, etc., and the TMM will cover the orgainzations that teach it, etc. These are the only 2 article we need to cover the topic. No need for any overarching article. --BwB (talk) 09:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I would be okay with this as long as TM redirects to the article on the TMM. This is what I have suggested in option 6... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Why is the redirect necessary? --BwB (talk) 11:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
@Doc James: So, you suggest a renaming and merging of TMM into TM. Thanks, finally, for the clarification. This is too big to be presented as a late suggestion in a general Rfc on TM, which has been considered almost closed by most involved and non involved participants. Rfc are dynamics, not frozen, which means that the late contributions are often given more weight. In this context, when a new suggestion is presented it is legitimate to ask whether the community has been properly informed: we do not want to have what seems to be an Rfc on this specific issue, but in fact is not because it was vague about it in the public forum, asked late, etc. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 11:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Because if we get rid of the TM page and decrease to two pages (TMM and TMT) as you suggest we will need to redirect TM to something.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
But why redirect to TMM and not TMT, which is what TM is - a meditation technique introduced to the world by Maharishi in the 1950s. --BwB (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Because TM is actually a religious movement of which a meditation technique is a part. Linking to the movement page will give info on both with more detail on the technique subpage.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Wrong - Transcendental Meditation is a meditation technique. The TM movement is the organization that teaches it and has been called "religious" by some. --BwB (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I disagree which is why we have a RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why the religion issue should have anything to do with a renaming and merging of TMM into TM. TM means the technique and this remains a fact whether or not we see the TMM as a religion. We have many examples of this type of situations. For example, the Buddhist meditation is clearly considered a meditative practice that is associated with the religion, but it is not itself the religion. The term "Transcendental Meditation" (without the "technique" after) is almost always used to mean the meditative practice. The true issue here is whether or not it is NPOV to mis-define the term Transcendental Meditation to strongly push a religious POV on it and then prevent content that pertain to the technique from being added in the TM article. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Rfc: Should the Transcendental Meditation movement article be renamed

An editor has suggested that the Transcendental Meditation movement article should be renamed and merged into the Transcendental Meditation article. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Involved editors
  • Oppose This is an attempt to remove content pertaining to the technique from the Transcendental Meditation article, especially research on TM. This mis-definition of the term "Transcendental Meditation" is used to push a religious POV on the technique. This term is used almost all the times to mean the technique. In particular, it is used in this way in the Meditation article [21]. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment This is already part of the RfC that is still open above. We do not really need a second RfC on the same thing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
This comment should have been placed in the discussion below. See my reply there. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
No here is good because this should be dealt with in the above proposal. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Non involved editors
Discussions

@Doc James, I disagree. This request is too big to be presented as a new option in a Rfc that has been around for some times now. With a specific Rfc, the issue can be presented more precisely to the community. It deserves that. In fact, it should have been a completely new Rfc in the Transcendental Meditation movement article, because it primary concerns this other article. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

  • No-one suggested that. This fundamentally misrepresents what Doc proposed. The misrepresentation, the attribution of bad faith to what he actually did propose, and starting a new RFC on those false pretexts is not borderline disruption; it crosses way over the line of tendatiousness and disruption. This pattern of relentlessly tendatious editing has already driven away one uninvolved editor who tried to be helpful on these articles, only to throw up his hands in frustration. If this does not come to an immediate end, this will go to AE. Fladrif (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
If really Doc James did not suggest that the TMM article and the TM article should become a single article named the Transcendental Meditation article, then I can see how you might feel. So let us clarify this for the benefit of every one else here. Because, I sincerely believe that Doc James suggested that and it seem that he agreed indirectly when he wrote that this Rfc was already a part of the previous Rfc, but I would be very happy to be wrong here. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I started this new Rfc in good faith because I really think that the suggestion 6 is a renaming of the TMM article. However, in view of Fladrif's interpretation, I removed the Rfc tag and will not put it back if it is clarified that suggestion 6 above does not imply a renaming of the TMM article or anything else that will merge the TM article and the TMM articles into a single article. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this additional RfC helps the discussion. If necessary, I'll start a new RfC to get input on whether this RfC should continue instead of the current RfC.   Will Beback  talk  22:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

(indent) Until I know what suggestion 6 is about, I cannot have any opinion. What I see is that suggestion 6 is a renaming of TMM into TM, but Fladrif has a different interpretation. So, instead of discussion of Rfc over Rfc, could we get to the heart of the matter and clarify what suggestion 6 is about. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

And how does this RfC help clarify option 6?   Will Beback  talk  00:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
This Rfc is not active anymore. I removed the Rfc tag because I felt we should first focus on clarifying what suggestion 6 is about. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
We had a consensus as identified by an outside admin. However, the RfC wasn't officially closed so another suggestion is a legitimate possibility. I'd like to suggest that we either wait a few days and see what the response is to the new suggestion (#6), then unless there is significant support for the new suggestion go with the consensus version. We could also wait for the full thirty days an RfC is open then see what the situation is. The muddle here is so extensive my thought was to go for a mediation, but maybe we can clean this up ourselves.(olive (talk) 01:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC))
This is wrong. Adding a sixth option under an almost closed Rfc about the general question "what should be under the title Transcendental Meditation?" cannot count as an Rfc about the renaming and merging of TMM into TM. Just because it is presented as a suggestion within an Rfc does not mean that it fits there. It does not. It concerns two articles, not just Transcendental Meditation. It is conceptually a new Rfc and it must be presented as such. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 01:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
All of the suggestions have to do with the structure of the group of the three TM articles, and none have too much to do with the title of the RfC. Another suggestion has as much legitimacy as any of the suggestions offered before. We have to wait and allow editors to input into that suggestion if they want to. I don't see that we have the right to exclude any suggestion. At the same time the suggestion with consensus is what we go with. An RfC legitimately has 30 days before closure, and to be fair we may have to keep the RfC open for that period of time. (olive (talk) 01:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC))
I will not go against consensus, but I need to further explain the problematic that I see here. What would we do if only a single outside editor shows up and say that the TMM article should be renamed and merged into the TM article? People tend to consider that the last contributions are more relevant. If we consider that this last contribution prevails over the previous ones, then I see a problem. In this context, the question whether the community of outside editors is properly informed of this new important issue must be raised now. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transcendental_Meditation/Archive_36&oldid=1137264648"