Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:52, 22 November 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Transcendental Meditation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43Auto-archiving period: 10 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative views Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: New religious movements Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Transcendental Meditation movement Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Transcendental Meditation on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Transcendental Meditation movementWikipedia:WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movementTemplate:WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movementTranscendental Meditation movement Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Transcendental Meditation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43Auto-archiving period: 10 days

Other subpages Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Sources Talk:Transcendental Meditation/religion Talk:Transcendental Meditation/promotion of studies Talk:Transcendental Meditation/341 studies Talk:Transcendental_Meditation/Technique or Movement?

NPOV-Title and NPOV-section (intro) Dispute

The NPOV-title tag was used because this is a dispute over the subject matter within the scope of the title: what should be under "Transcendental Meditation"?

Summary of suggestions

• A summary article about the technique and the movement (current post-split situation)
• A full coverage of the technique without excluding anything that is related, including content about the movement. There is no need for an extra article about the technique. (pre-split situation)
• Same as the previous option, but after a redirection of Transcendental Meditation to Transcendental Meditation Technique.
• A DAB page with entries for "Transcendental Meditation Technique" and "Transcendental Meditation Movement" (compromise)

Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Some context

• This situation started in September 2nd when, without consensus and after very very little discussion, important content was taken out of this article and moved into a new article entitled "Transcendental Meditation Technique". .
• A related NPOV dispute was going on before the split with regard to the content of the Introduction . Those who created the split argued that only some reviews published by some agencies deserved to be reported in the Intro. This excluded the conclusions of many reviews published in independent peer-reviewed journals. After all attempts to compromise, an NPOV-section tag was added for the Intro section. This tag was removed at the time of the split without any discussion. However, the Intro still has the same controversial content regarding the research.
• Few days ago, the NPOV-section tag was reinserted and a new NPOV-title tag was added. However, the tags were again removed without discussion.

I just reinserted the NPOV-section tag for the third time, the NPOV-title tag for the second time. I will bring the previous removals of NPOV tags to the attention of the relevant forums. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

To me, the above 1000 words or so are almost incomprehensible. I would still like to help here if I can, but not at the expense of my sanity. Verbally bludgeoning other editors like that is not acceptable in Misplaced Pages, and until editors agree to voluntarily edit and clarify their own contributions no one is going to want to help you. In communication, more is not better, and the above borders on deliberate disruption. Rumiton (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I will proceed step by step. So, I will remove some material. It is understood that your statement applies to what was there before. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope it is better. Now, I must say that one of the issue with external contribution is that the so called non involved editors are often not aware of the situation. It takes some times to see the context. It is impossible to do it in only few sentences. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

@Rumiton, is there anything you don't understand now? I agree with Olive that pretty much was said in the previous discussion and that we just need to come to an agreement. I just brought out the points again to formally complement the NPOV tags. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

September 2? Again? For the record, this didn't "start" on September 2. That assertion ignores the existence of the RfC, started because of the disagreement over the lede. But let's stop rehashing old discussions and keep our focus on the present and the future.   Will Beback  talk  12:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Edith, thanks for your quick cooperation. I'm sorry if I sounded extremely exasperated, but I was extremely exasperated. Yet I also agree with Will that these articles will progress when ancient battles are laid to rest and editors focus on finding superb sources to support what they know to be the truth (that's the Wiki-reality of it.) I would also suggest some concerted effort go into deweaselising some of the text. It isn't exactly a POV situation, but phrases like "TM has been reported to be..." and "as many as 6 million people" raise a fully justified red flag for many readers. Rumiton (talk) 13:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

If you should find these statements are not sourced please post the information here on this talk page. There are some concerns in the language of the article and content but I don't think you'll find that those those two statements aren't very well sourced. Reported may be a weasel word, and in fact one of the sources says "is" the most thoroughly researched so yes, the text could be more definitive than it is.(olive (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC))

Good. "Is" is much better, provided of course that the source said exactly that. Now about that "as many as 6 million". Did the source say, "6 million", or "more than 6 million", or "less than 6 million"? Rumiton (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The sources give numbers that range from 4 to 6 million. You can see some of the size estimates excerpted at Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 34#Order: TMM before TM technique?   Will Beback  talk  21:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

@Will Beback, Thank you for providing that additional diff . I think some editors want to understand the context and will find useful to look at this diff. It shows that the dispute was not about the overall structure of the article, but only about how the article is presented in the Intro, I mean, there was no specific complaint about the overall content of the article, for example, no one said that there we should remove the section about the movement or that we should remove the section about research. So, why this split, which removed so many sections and began something entirely new? If you don't find the context useful, just ignore it, but some editors can find it useful. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not interested in discussing that past action.   Will Beback  talk  21:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Summary

I wonder if we have enough input from the regular editors here and with the input of an outside editor to sum up what we have in terms of possibilities and editor support for those possibilities. I'd like to get on with editing the article but prefer not to until we can come to some resolution. We have support for a DAB page while some editors are happy with what we have now. If there are any other possibilities could we bring this up now in a succinct fashion, and then see if we have enough input and information to resolve this. The end of this discussion seems way overdue. (olive (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC))

I agree. There has been many editors involved in the previous discussion, but they moved away seeing that it was going nowhere. Seeing that all attempts failed and that we are still in disagreement, I added the NPOV tags. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see if we can come to some agreement without much further discussion. The issues have been layed out multiple times and I can't see we're getting any new information. Could we go ahead with this.(olive (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC))

OK Olive - sum it up and let's get on with it. --BwB (talk) 12:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

@BwB, What is wrong with the summary of the dispute that I provided? It focuses on the main options, which is what we need. It includes a compromise, which Will Beback proposed. It brings out that the pre-split state of the article was not excluding any related content, about the movement, etc., which is very significant in my opinion. What would you add to that summary? Anyone can add any other options, and we can get on with it from there. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

A succinct summary of options sounds like a good idea. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I just edited the summary at the beginning of the section to make it clear that it is a summary of options. Is there a need to start a new one here? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of NPOV tags: I sent a notice to the Incidents NoticeBoard about the NPOV tag removals Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Seems to me Option 1, the current situation, is the best. When I first saw Misplaced Pages articles starting to get split up I resisted the idea, generally because I smelled a POV rat somewhere. I now see that when an article reaches a certain size (I think 10 000 words has been suggested) it begins to encompass more than one theme. A reader Googling, in this case, "meditation" or "mantras" or "altered states" will find the TM Technique page, as well as a feast of other related articles. Another reader might be interested in the growing influence of Indian religious groups or philosophies in the West. Neither will want to plow through 5000 words unconnected with their subject, but if the articles are linked, they easily can do so. OTOH, disambiguation here does not seem appropriate. The subjects are subsets of each other, not entirely different subjects that might be confused. Rumiton (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Very strange. I am reading it again and again, and, except for the first sentence, this seems to entirely support option 3 with DAB links. There has been a fork of TMM out of TM for the very reason explained above. It says "...but if the articles are linked, they easily can do so" but the Dab links in the TMT and TMM articles do that. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Putting back the NPOV tags

The NPOV-title TAG (dispute about what should be under the title Transcendental Meditation) and the NPOV-section tag (dispute about the Research in the Intro) were removed by Doc James at a time where it seemed that we had a consensus for suggestion 5. This consensus did not include the dispute about the Research in the Intro and thus only the NPOV-title tag should have been removed. Moreover, the consensus for suggestion 5 has not been respected. Therefore, we should put back these two tags because despite all attempts to compromise we still do not have resolved the disputes and the article does not reflect a consensus, not at all. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose No outside editors have supported the concerns brought forwards by those involved in the TM movement. We have had a number of RfC on the above topics and thus adding tags after it has been settled without any evidence that consensus has changed is bordering on disruptive. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Its not disruptive to add tags if an editor has concerns especially with the way the RfC's were preempted. This comment, "No outside editors have supported the concerns brought forwards by those involved in the TM movement" does not belong on this talk page. You are violating the ArbCom instruction to, assume good faith and are personalizing comments.That said, I didn't add the tags and have no opinion one way or the other on them.(olive (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC))

Yes, we need to focus on the content of the article and the opinions and points brought to the discussion page by other editors, not the editors themselves. --BwB (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Since the discussions below, including the recent suggestion #6, are sufficient evidence that an important dispute about the overall arrangement of the TM articles is going on, that the TM article is central in that dispute and that all proposed compromises to resolve the dispute failed, the tags will be reinserted. I do not need approval to do that. It is sufficient that I have evidence to justify the tags. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what the dispute is with the current article. You agreed to Option #5, and that's what is now reflected in the article. Do you no longer agree to Option #5?   Will Beback  talk  00:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

In fact no. James moved the content back into the article originally moved in agreement with suggestion #5, I assume pending possible acceptance of his new suggestion, (#6). Even so most editors compromised one way or the other on suggestion 5, so may have concerns. As well the suggestions were for overarching considerations and not necessarily for more specific and possible POV issues. While I don't care about the use of tags to remedy anything, if another editor has concerns and want to use tags, I don't see a concern.(olive (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC))

The tags are used to inform the readers of a likey non-NPOV situation. I believe that this non-NPOV situation is not only likely, but obvious. However, we do not even have to prove that there is a non-NPOV situation to put the tags. The existence of a lasting dispute is sufficient. I want to avoid the tags because they are shameful. This is why I wait before I put them, but at some point the readers need to be informed. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you say exactly what issue with the current article has led you to add the POV tag?   Will Beback  talk  01:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly how this tag should NOT be used per "Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the following is the purpose:

The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight.

The goal is always to have more participation. I supported the mediation. I asked for another Rfc so that we have more participation. Of course, I expect that the readers will participate. This is why we want them to be informed so that they can go to the talk page. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 03:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to misrepresent the views of high-quality reliable sources in the subject. The personal beliefs of Misplaced Pages's editors are irrelevant.

Which views from high quality sources are misrepresented?   Will Beback  talk  03:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

So you understand that personal beliefs are irrelevant, including those that are used to exclude high-quality reliable sources from the TM article. Therefore the tags are entirely justified. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 03:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not an answer to my question. Since you are the editor who added the tag the onus is on you to explain the problem. The only problem that that template addresses are misrepresentations of highly reliable sources. This is the third time I've asked you to explain why you added the tag. If you can't describe the exact problem, then the tag should be removed.   Will Beback  talk  03:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It may not be so important, but currently the tags aren't there. To answer your question, I said many times that content pertinent to TM should not be excluded from the TM article, and, of course, I meant content that is well sourced. The content that was moved out was well sourced - this is not discussed I hope. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Edith states above "The tags are used to inform the readers of a likey non-NPOV situation." This is what tags are not used for.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like Edith wants to merge back the TMT, TMM, and TM history articles in here, so that no possible sources which is about some aspect of TM is left out. If so, I think that would be a horrible idea. This is currently constructed as a parent article. It shouldn't contain anything that isn't already sourced in one of the child articles. All this article has to do is summarize those correctly and briefly.   Will Beback  talk  10:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Will to bring back the discussion on the content and, hopefully, eventually on actions to rebuild the TM article. I am kind of exasperated of the recent misleading comments about my motivation in informing the readers, which I am going to address in the user talk page, not here. However, you misunderstood what I proposed with regard to content. I am still OK with the compromise of suggestion #5 as a way to rebuild the TM article. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 11:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean when you talk about "rebuilding the TM article". Please explain what it is you want to do.   Will Beback  talk  12:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought Suggestion #5 was reasonably clear. We still have to discuss what exactly are the best summaries. My feeling is that we might have to rely on Rfc to resolve issues that will be raised along the way, but at the least we would be all focusing on suggestion #5. At this point, we still have suggestion #6 in the way, and we do not know for sure what it is. Let clarify this situation first. Doc James did not yet clarify what he meant. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC: How should we present the TM material

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Religion and philosophy When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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 Movement 155,000 . 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. while I get 162,000 for the movement.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Leave current arrangement as-is. Fladrif (talk) 01:33, 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. 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)

• Support This proposal treats the Transcendental Meditation (TM) article as a parent to Transcendental Meditation technique and Transcendental Meditation movement, and I presume still History of Transcendental Meditation. A parent article contains summaries of sub-articles, per WP:SUMMARY, and World War II is an example of this style. It should be a relatively short overview of a large topic. It is more appropriate for a parent article than a pure DAB page because the various topics are closely related, whereas DAB pages often include unrelated topic with similar names.   Will Beback  talk  13:02, 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 ] 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, , 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 .

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)

• My Second Choice if Choice 5 not accepted. --BwB (talk) 19:24, 8 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)

• Oppose The section on characteristics apply equally to the movement and the technique. One cannot separate them. Thus reverted so that further discussion can take place.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:12, 17 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))

• Agree Per Olives comments above that draws distinction between Option 1 and Option 5. --BwB (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Agree (Second choice) Summaries of each topic, not just content that does not fit anywhere else, is a good idea. However, the stipulation that we cannot move back content needs to be clarified. It should be OK to bring it back in the form of a summary. This suggestion should not be about excluding content, but about having all content in linked articles properly summarized. The problem with this suggestion is the mis-definition of "Transcendental Meditation". Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

  Comment FWIW, this seems to be the same as the proposal I made on October 25. Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 34#Proposal. At the time, no one agreed to it.   Will Beback  talk  02:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

  Comment Yes. I said that above. Its a compromise for me to go with this. Its not my first preference.(olive (talk) 02:31, 9 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 As this is by far the clearest, least messy option, and will hopefully lend some order and clarity to the garbled information representing the current state of these articles. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 05:30, 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)

• Support. Not my first choice, or my second, but if it achieves consensus I'll support this one too.   Will Beback  talk  01:13, 13 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 . 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 Misplaced Pages: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 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 , 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 . 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 . 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).

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 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)

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 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)

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.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.

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 Misplaced Pages 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" - Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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, 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 :

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 . 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)

Summary of RfC

• Pre suggestion #6, consensus was determined by an uninvolved admin (Sj) to be for suggestion #5. What number? --BwB (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
• Another uninvolved editor supported #5 following Sj's comments
• James has added another suggestion, #6.
• So far that suggestion has one support vote.
• RfC should remain open for a total of 30 days.

Summary of #5 consensus suggestion: TM article becomes a summary article for TM technique and TM movement articles with only the content included that has its own article.

Summary of 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.

Summary of Suggestion #6: "Get rid of the TM page and redirect to the TMM page."

(#6 is not, at this point, a contender for suggestions on how to make a change in the overall structures of these articles.)(olive (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC))

Comments

Please sign postings. --BwB (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

No that was not what #6 suggests. It suggests that we get rid of the TM page and redirect to the TMM page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is confusing. You say no, but then repeat what Olive wrote. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I do agree though that suggestion #6 was the opposite: merge the content of the TMM article into the TM article and then redirect TMM to the TM article. For simplicity, I say that suggestion #6 is: Rename and merge the TMM article into the TM article. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

(indent) This summary is reasonably clear until we arrive at suggestion #6 at which point it becomes a mess. So could we agree that suggestion #6 is: merge the content of the TMM article into the TM article, get rid of the TMM article and redirect TMM to the TM article, or simply, rename and merge the TMM article into the TM article? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Since this suggestion came from James the person who should clarify what is meant is James. Maybe he could clarify what he means since there seems to be some confusion.(olive (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC))

I agree. The statement of Doc James in suggestion #6 is "make the movement page the main page located at TM.", but later Doc James wrote that #6 suggests to "get rid of the TM page and redirect to the TMM page". These are two different suggestions. So he needs to clarify. However, they are not fundamentally different. In both cases, both TM and TMM will refer to the same article, the movement article. In both cases, it is a mis-definition of TM used to push a strong religious POV on it and then prevent content that pertains to the technique from being added in the associated article. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Chicken or Egg:Editor input requested

This same discussion comes up again and again. Although I'd like to continue with the points of concern in the lead, this seems more fundamental, and tends to sidetrack the discussion. Could we come to some definitive position on which came first, the technique or the movement or where they concurrent? Could we discuss this based on something more than opinion, and with out getting personal? Is there a source that says one came before the other. Maybe we could keep the statements short, see of there's some compromised position. This issue keeps coming up and smokes out any other discussion we have so lets settle it once and for all. Once settled maybe we could agree among ourselves not to bring it up again. Because this is so fundamental to how the articles are arranged we also could take this up the DR ladder if necessary. (olive (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC))

Discussion

• The Vedic Tradition predates the movement. The knowledge of the technique in the Vedic Tradition was practically lost. The movement predates the renewed knowledge of the technique as taught in seven steps, etc. However, I don't see how this could justify a mis-definition of Transcendental Meditation. Olive, I don't understand your emphasis on that issue. When the movement started and when the technique took its current form (taught in seven steps, etc.) cannot justify a mis-definition of TM. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think that this is helpful. It isn't for us to decide and we can't bind future editors with a decision here anyway.   Will Beback  talk  22:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

This also applies to whether the TMM is a religion or not, but yet editors here have entirely restructured the TM article based on their personal view about it. Why not include all content that pertain to TM in the TM article, including research on TM, and let the readers decide for themselves? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Religion? Are we discussing that too? I don't think that abstract discussions accomplish anything. If someone wants to make an edit, then we'd have something concrete to talk about.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Per my specific discussion point above: We're not trying to bind anyone and of course we can't bind editors who come into this later on, but we sure could point to reasoned discussion and ask they read it for insights. This comes up again and again and references both the second line of this article, and discussion on which of the TM articles is the mother article. If we don't decide per the sources I don't know who will, but no worries. We can keep rehashing this as it comes up and move onto other points of discussion.(olive (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC))

I don't particularly like the second sentence. It looks awkward. I think it is simpler to say that MMY introduced the technique. The movement was indeed created along the way, but to say that MMY introduced both the technique and the movement is definitively awkward. I suspect there is some hidden message behind it that editors try to pass here, but I am not even sure what it is. Perhaps, they want to suggest that the movement was a separate hidden agenda of MMY or something like that. You are right, we should decide per sources and not give undue weight to a particular source that would have a special viewpoint to motivate this awkward sentence. I understand now your point regarding egg and chicken. The current form of the technique can be seen as the creation of the Movement, but of course, there was also a form of the technique that was taught in the early time by MMY before he structured a way to allow TM teachers to teach it. So, I conclude that it is important not to raise the question which of the two came first out of context. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Your continual attribution of bad faith to other editors is a direct violation of the TM:ARBCOM. You have been repeatedly warned about this, but persist in making accusations of bad faith. You are not going to get another warning. Fladrif (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Skepticism articles
• High-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• B-Class Alternative medicine articles
• B-Class Alternative views articles
• Mid-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• Mid-importance Religion articles
• B-Class New religious movements articles
• High-importance New religious movements articles
• New religious movements articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• B-Class Transcendental Meditation movement articles
• Top-importance Transcendental Meditation movement articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment