Talk:Orgasmic meditation

Needs editing

Yes, needs lots of editing. It's gushy and unbased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.118.129 (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that it needs a lot of editing, and also needs more references. Much of what is written sounds like hearsay. As the main author of Expanded orgasm entry on Wikipedia, I see many misrepresentations which I will do my best to fix. Expanded orgasm can be attained not just by DOing or Orgasmic meditation techniques, but through self stimulation, oral sex, intercourse and even without touching. Expanded orgasm already includes heightening your consciousness through the practice of sexuality (see definition of expanded orgasm). The extended discussion of the slow sex movement is not needed as you already have a link to the slow sex page. Expanded orgasm is much more than a technique for staying present. The use of expanded orgasm in the same sentence as orgasm is not required and confusing - even misleading (i.e. in the section "orgasm defined in context"). Expanded orgasm can be done without a partner. I think "likening" OMing to Mantak Chia's work should require a reference. (delicasso) --Delicasso (talk) 05:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have seen little progress on this site during the past week. I took the time to note some of the places where citations are required, or the text should be removed. The discussion of the connection between the limbic system and interpersonal relationships is not documented, and the Wikipedia page on "limbic system" does not address this point. This looks like another round of assertions without justification and this should be rectified. The link between orgasmic meditation and the use of manual genital stimulation for treating so called "hysteria" should be further referenced.--Delicasso (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I suggest removal of all non-sourced material, but that would eliminate the lion's share of the article.Rectitudo (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"the Wikipedia page on "limbic system" does not address this point." I think you'll find that the articles on limbic resonance and limbic regulation that are linked from the passage you're discussing do indeed address this point. If you are looking for good references you might begin with some of the works cited there. Voila-pourquoi (talk) 01:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The two references listed are a reference to a single source, "A General Theory of Love" and a book review of that same book. They aren't actually two references, and the second one probably needs to be removed. Rectitudo (talk) 04:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right that there was some confusion in that paragraph, it seems the second instance of "limbic resonance" indicated instead the related concepts of "revision" and "regulation." I've corrected it accordingly.

Regarding the references, there are a total of about 10 citations under the References section of those articles, in addition to "A General Theory of Love," which address the link between the limbic system and emotional connection between individuals and groups. These are the works I was originally referring to.

Thanks, hope this helps Voila-pourquoi (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Citing a book and a review of the same book as separate references doesn't count as two separate determining factors for notability. Rectitudo (talk) 13:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to establish notability for either this topic or the limbic articles, simply responding to an earlier point you made above, questioning the link between limbic system and interpersonal relationships. I suggested references which I believe will help clarify that point, such as references 2 through 11 cited under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbic_resonance, none of which are book reviews. Voila-pourquoi (talk) 19:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't the one questioning your statement about a link between the limbic system and emotional groups. I was saying that citing a book as a reference, and then a review of the same book that quotes it isn't a valid second reference. Rectitudo (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

On the removed link, you cited a reference to a magazine article that has no online presence, and presumeably is in a different language than the article itself. If the reader were to go to Italy and locate said magazine, unless he spoke Italian he'd have to take its contents on good faith. This isn't a Wikipedia quality reference, and specifically does not meet the guidelines on reliable sources or verifiability. Rectitudo (talk) 08:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Rectitudo (talk) Please put your responses to the current conversation where myself and others are discussing these points, under Requests for Comment, not as a response to my comment from 13 September last year.Voila-pourquoi (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Please see discussion at Talk:OneTaste#Proposed_merge. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Edits of 22 Nov.

Appreciate the hard work that's been done in an effort to improve the article by deleting much of its content. However, it appears the editor may have gotten carried away in a few instances.

The Safire article description and citation: This paragraph had not been flagged prior to being removed. The title and topic of Safire's column were based on an article that discusses Orgasmic Meditation. The deleted text is an accurate summary of the content of Safire's column in the New York Times and its relevance to the topic of this article.

Condensing information to yield a new lead that "Orgasmic meditation is a term coined by Nicole Daedone..." If it were a term, it wouldn't be the subject of numerous articles in the press. It's a practice.

While condensing information can in principal be an improvement, the end result here is misleading and, whether that's the express intent here or not, minimizes the significance of the topic of discussion.Voila-pourquoi (talk) 06:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

First, please note that this discussion is a continuation of the in-depth conversation at Talk:OneTaste#Proposed_merge.

Regarding Safire's column in the New York Times (here), that reference was removed because it does not apply to this topic at all. Safire dsicusses a cultural and linguistic shift in the use of the word "orgasmic" (as he writes, "from the clinical 'climactic' to the metaphoric 'joyful.' ") He mentions the term "orgasmic meditation" as one example among many without even defining it, referring in passing to a second article (here) that is already used in this Wikipedia page as a source seven times. Since his use has no content about this topic, there is nothing for it to support as a footnote. Also, even that second article does not focus on "orgasmic meditation" as a practice in general - the article is (quoting the Times web page) "about the One Taste Urban Retreat Center, a San Francisco commune devoted to the female orgasm".

If "orgasmic meditation" were a practice used more widely than by one organization, it would be discussed in more sources than just newspaper articles about that organization. If you have such sources that show the term, or the practice, is independently notable, please add them.

I'm not insisting that the proposed merge be completed, maybe it's better to have both articles, I'm not sure about that at this point and am open to that going either way. But I do think it's important that we show an accurate view of the way the term is used. The bottom line is, it's about verifiability. For now, we don't have any sources showing the term being used in other contexts. If sources like that can be found, then we can expand the article accordingly. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to address these issues in detail, and for being open to reconsidering your position. It's good to know that the proposed merge need not be completed, that it might be better to have both articles, and that the present article need not be deleted or merged.

Regarding the Safire column, I still think the text which was deleted from this article accurately described the relevance of Safire's column to this topic. However, I agree with you that the focus of Safire's column was not on the specifics of Orgasmic Meditation. I think that footnote still has a place in this article, showing the reverberations of the TERM in the language and culture at large, but we should determine the larger issues first.

Regarding whether this practice is discussed in more sources than just newspaper articles about that organization, as I've pointed out earlier, Orgasmic Meditation is discussed in several newspaper and magazine articles which focus on the practice, rather than the organization, although these articles also mention the organization. We've discussed whether establishing the notability of the practice REQUIRES that the organization NOT BE MENTIONED in any discussion of the practice. No one has offered any policy or rationale that this is the case.

I believe that when these issues of notability reach a grey area where reasonable people disagree, or are unsure, we should err on the side of inclusiveness, rather than focus our efforts on reducing the number of articles in the encyclopedia. I also believe that impending deletion or merging should not be used as motivation to improve an article. This article has certainly come a long way and will no doubt continue to improve.

So that leaves the question: what is the rationale for continuing to keep the Merge, Notability and Citation Needed tags at the top?Voila-pourquoi (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate the hard work that's been done in an effort to improve the article by deleting much of its content. However, it appears the editor may have gotten carried away in a few instances.

The Safire article description and citation: This paragraph had not been flagged prior to being removed. The title and topic of Safire's column were based on an article that discusses Orgasmic Meditation. The deleted text is an accurate summary of the content of Safire's column in the New York Times and its relevance to the topic of this article.

Condensing information to yield a new lead that "Orgasmic meditation is a term coined by Nicole Daedone..." If it were a term, it wouldn't be the subject of numerous articles in the press. It's a practice.

While condensing information can in principal be an improvement, the end result here is misleading and, whether that's the express intent here or not, minimizes the significance of the topic of discussion.Voila-pourquoi (talk) 06:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

First, please note that this discussion is a continuation of the in-depth conversation at Talk:OneTaste#Proposed_merge.

Regarding Safire's column in the New York Times (here), that reference was removed because it does not apply to this topic at all. Safire dsicusses a cultural and linguistic shift in the use of the word "orgasmic" (as he writes, "from the clinical 'climactic' to the metaphoric 'joyful.' ") He mentions the term "orgasmic meditation" as one example among many without even defining it, referring in passing to a second article (here) that is already used in this Wikipedia page as a source seven times. Since his use has no content about this topic, there is nothing for it to support as a footnote. Also, even that second article does not focus on "orgasmic meditation" as a practice in general - the article is (quoting the Times web page) "about the One Taste Urban Retreat Center, a San Francisco commune devoted to the female orgasm".

If "orgasmic meditation" were a practice used more widely than by one organization, it would be discussed in more sources than just newspaper articles about that organization. If you have such sources that show the term, or the practice, is independently notable, please add them.

I'm not insisting that the proposed merge be completed, maybe it's better to have both articles, I'm not sure about that at this point and am open to that going either way. But I do think it's important that we show an accurate view of the way the term is used. The bottom line is, it's about verifiability. For now, we don't have any sources showing the term being used in other contexts. If sources like that can be found, then we can expand the article accordingly. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to address these issues in detail, and for being open to reconsidering your position. It's good to know that the proposed merge need not be completed, that it might be better to have both articles, and that the present article need not be deleted or merged.

Regarding the Safire column, I still think the text which was deleted from this article accurately described the relevance of Safire's column to this topic. However, I agree with you that the focus of Safire's column was not on the specifics of Orgasmic Meditation. I think that footnote still has a place in this article, showing the reverberations of the TERM in the language and culture at large, but we should determine the larger issues first.

Regarding whether this practice is discussed in more sources than just newspaper articles about that organization, as I've pointed out earlier, Orgasmic Meditation is discussed in several newspaper and magazine articles which focus on the practice, rather than the organization, although these articles also mention the organization. We've discussed whether establishing the notability of the practice REQUIRES that the organization NOT BE MENTIONED in any discussion of the practice. No one has offered any policy or rationale that this is the case.

I believe that when these issues of notability reach a grey area where reasonable people disagree, or are unsure, we should err on the side of inclusiveness, rather than focus our efforts on reducing the number of articles in the encyclopedia. I also believe that impending deletion or merging should not be used as motivation to improve an article. This article has certainly come a long way and will no doubt continue to improve.

So that leaves the question: what is the rationale for continuing to keep the Merge, Notability and Citation Needed tags at the top?Voila-pourquoi (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comment

The immediate dispute is whether to merge this article under that of the organization One Taste. The underlying question is whether the subject of this article is a *term* used by a only by particular organization or a *practice* which is taught and promoted by that organization, but which also has sufficient notability to merit its own article.

Some editors involved have maintained that through television news reports, mentions in books, and international press coverage, including some that focus more on the *practice* of Orgasmic Meditation than the *organization* of One Taste, sufficient grounds for notability have been established. Others maintain that since all discussion of the practice also mention the organization, the article on Orgasmic Meditation should be merged into the article on OneTaste. Some editors have at various times expressed both opinions.

A lesser issue related to this dispute involves several sources that discuss or mention the practice of Orgasmic Meditation but are not primarily about it. Some editors have maintained that these sources merit inclusion in showing the breadth of cultural references to this phenomena. Others maintain that only sources that are principally *about* Orgasmic Meditation can be cited in an article on the topic. Voila-pourquoi (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This has already been discussed on Talk:OneTaste. Consensus was reached to merge. The term 'Orgasmic Meditation' was invented by, is only used within this group. Claireislovely (talk) 13:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

again, Orgasmic Meditation is not "a term used only within an organization," it is a practice taught by an organization and covered in over a dozen international news stories. The purpose of creating this Request for Comment is to allow other parties to comment on this issue, we're already familiar with your position. The next step would be requesting mediation. We can go ahead and do that right now.Voila-pourquoi (talk) 03:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Voila-pourquoi, being as you're the sole dissenting voice on this, you should either place the request for mediation yourself, or we should proceed with the merge and be done with it. Articles in the NY Post (which is a tabloid at best), and the Style section of the New York Times don't exactly count as reputable scientific sources. Rectitudo (talk) 07:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I did place the request for mediation myself, and you (and other editors) declined mediation. One editor said I need to place the request under AfD, but hasn't explained how to do so without first nominating the article for deletion. Is this a joke? I don't get it. Also, the criteria you're imposing of "reputable scientific sources" seems to go well beyond the notability requirement. This is not an article about science. Voila-pourquoi (talk) 07:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems we've descended into edit-warring to delete sources we don't agree with (apparently, a newspaper article is "not a reputable scientific source" and a magazine article is disqualified as a reliable source if it has the misfortune to not be online or written in a language other than English) I would be grateful if someone could come up with a constructive course of action rather than railroading this question to a "vote."Voila-pourquoi (talk) 08:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Decidedly not. I removed a source that is quite specifically covered in the verifiability requirement, specifically non-English sources, and burden of proof.

As far as an editing war, you undid my edit with a request that I document it on the talk page without actually checking to see if I had. Rectitudo (talk) 09:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note also that I nor any of the other editors in dissent ever made any mention of a "vote". You seem to be the only one bringing that up. The statement about the articles being less than reliable sources of scientific information stands; if you're relying on the New York Post and the NYT Style section as your primary sources of truth, people have the right to question their reliability. Rectitudo (talk) 09:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• The NYT says that "She changed the term “deliberate orgasm,” as it is called by other practitioners, to the more marketable “orgasmic meditation”.". This indicates that the topic is wider than the teachings of this one particular guru. So, if there were to be a merger then it should be to an article which discusses such techniques in a wider context. There seem to be several articles of this sort such as Neotantra and Expanded orgasm. Until the full range of articles covering these topics is considered, this article should remain unmerged. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, perhaps we should re-title the article "Deliberate Orgasm". That would allow it to encompass the other organizations that are practitioners and definitely give the article the expanded scope it needs for more notability. Rectitudo (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I also noticed you undid my edit, claiming that the cite doesn't have to be accessible, that still leaves the fact that it isn't in English, and that if it isn't accessible, then it won't stand up to a challenge if another editor does so. I took the liberty of removing it again. Rectitudo (talk) 11:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding non-English sources, when they are in recent magazines they can usually be found and translated with Google, for example Cometto, Maria Teresa "Vuoi fare OMing con me?". From the translation, it can be seen that the Italian article does not provide any new information, it's basically the same as the various articles about OneTaste that we already have in English. It does nothing to establish independent notability of the term, the article is all about the activities of OneTaste and the comments of Nicole Daedone. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Jack-A-Roe So you're supporting Rectitudo repeated deletion of the paragraph sourced to this article and of the source itself, not based on his reason that it's in Italian and doesn't have a URL, but based on your opinion that it is similar to other articles written in other languages? Please clarify the policy whereby a source can be deleted because it is not sufficiently original in relation to other sources, if it passes the criteria of reliable source? Thanks.Voila-pourquoi (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

To quote the guideline:"English-language sources are preferable to sources in other languages so that readers can easily verify the content of the article. However, sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available." So, can you explain to me how I'm interpreting this wrong? You're saying there are no easily verifiable sources aside from this article in an Italian weekly newspaper on this subject? If that is indeed the case, that would cast doubt on the subject's notability. Rectitudo (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not arguing for removal of that source in particular. But it doesn't add anything new. The magazine in Italy and the New York Times both ran similar articles, stories about the One Taste organization and the practice they call Orgasmic Meditation. There are still no sources showing that anyone other than that one organization uses that term. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• The existence of additional sources is quite material to establishing notability which turns on both the number and quality of sources. Again we seem to have a misunderstanding of the guideline here. I shall remove the corresponding tags. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Rectitudo When you undid the latest revert of your deletion, this time by Colonel Warden, clearly you did not read his Edit Summary before undoing. So that's the 4th time you've deleted the same source based on your understanding of verifiability and non-English sources. I'm going to hold off on reverting your deletion again myself, since I have already done so twice and do not think that an edit war is the solution to a dispute. However, it's pretty clear you're in error regarding policy here.

• Rectitudo is a single-purpose account with little experience outside of this and related articles and so it is to be expected that their understanding of our policy is poor. Our sources are not required to be scientific, online or in English and so none of these are reasons to remove the citation. I shall therefore revert this misunderstanding. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow. "We" and "our". Nice use of exclusionary language there. Nice of you to assume ownership of Wikipedia. Shall we have Jimmy Wales clean out his desk?

Sources are expected to be reasonably verifiable. A weekly periodical in a foreign language that I might add, isn't going to be accessible in a local American library any more than a copy of a Chicago weekly periodical is likely to be accessible in a public library in Milan. Rectitudo (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

What's not clear is your intention. Regarding your proposal that the current article be retitled "Deliberate Orgasm" -- is this instead of or in addition to the merge into OneTaste, a merge which you've been advocating, and which is the main topic of this conversation? Voila-pourquoi (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If the scope of the article was broadened to include the other organizations that practiced it, albeit under a different name, that would indeed expand it's notability, and merit it's own article. The statement from the Style article would indicate that "Orgasmic Meditation" is simply a branding of a larger practice. Part of the reason the merge was suggested is that it's only practiced by only one organization. Rectitudo (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

A search for "Deliberate Orgasm" shows zero results on Google Scholar, zero results on Google News, and on Google Books it shows only a few uses of the phrase - not as a defined term - but simply to indicate an orgasm that happened on purpose rather than spontaneously. The only place that phrase shows up in a similar context to this article is in the title of a DVD that appears in Google's regular web search results and in Google News Archives. That phrase appears to be used only by the author of that particular DVD program, to indicate an indea that seems similar to the topic of this article. A passing mention by one newspaper writer who believes they are the same thing, renamed for marketing purposes, is not sufficient basis for a Wikipedia article about either of those terms. Also, that newspaper writer mentioned it in generalities but did not name that DVD or its author. Unless sources are found that connect the two uses of those terms, it would be original research to do so here. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's see how it goes

I had restored the notability and references tags that were removed today, but then I self-reverted and removed them again. Let's find out how this article does without the extra pressure of those tags. Maybe in time the topic's notability can be established. But it's important to avoid synthesis and to keep the content verifiable. So far, there are no sources showing use of the term independently from the organization, and the only sources connecting the term with other kinds of sexual or meditation practices are comments by members of the organization. Those ideas must be used with attribution and not generalized beyond what the sources actually support. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Jack-A-Roe You stated earlier, "No, I'm not arguing for removal of that source in particular. But it doesn't add anything new. The magazine in Italy and the New York Times both ran similar articles, stories about the One Taste organization and the practice they call Orgasmic Meditation. There are still no sources showing that anyone other than that one organization uses that term." If you weren't in favor of removing that source, I don't understand why were you rebuking me for protesting Rectitudo's repeated deletion of that same source, all the while telling Rectitudo that their edits were good, they should just slow down on the edit warring... We'll see how it goes.

More importantly, when you deleted the William Safire citation, you stated that it merely referred to another article that had already been cited. The fact that the language columnist cited "orgasmic meditaton" and the New York Times article on the topic in a column devoted to the semantic range of the word "orgasmic" IS relevant to an article about Orgasmic Meditation. The column may not in and of itself establish the notability of this topic, but you really shouldn't be deleting sources simply because that source in itself does not establish notability of the topic. Or because it refers to, or is similar in some way to, other sources. It simply has to be a reliable source and relevant to the topic, which the Safire article is. For this reason, I propose to undelete that source as well. Below for reference is the source and the text.

William Safire, in his "On Language" column of March 29, cited "orgasmic meditation" in the context of the semantic expansion of the adjective "orgasmic" to extend beyond sexuality, and as an example of the word's expanded usage in mainstream discourse.<ref name="safire">{{Citation |last = Safire | first = William | title = "Orgasmic" | pages = MM14 | date = March 25, 2009 | url = http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29wwln-safire-t.html}}</ref>

If you feel that that my paraphrase of the content of that Safire article sourced is not "used with attribution and not generalized beyond what the sources actually support", which is a valid criteria to hold, please feel free to constructively edit the paraphrase text this time, rather than outright delete the source and text referencing it. Thanks.Voila-pourquoi (talk) 07:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No, the Safire article is not a valid source for this topic. Safire does not discuss this topic at all. He only mentions the phrase as one example among many that word "orgasmic" is being used more often in various contexts than in prior years. There is zero content in that source about the practice of "orgasmic meditation", zero information that can be used in this article.

If you want to improve this article, you've got to do more than just make a list of articles that have mentioned the term, you need sources that actually discuss the term, in a non-trivial way. Here's a question for you: Have you found even one news article or book that mentions the term "orgasmic meditation" and does not mention One Taste or Nicole Daedone? Any at all like that? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I improved this article by extensively rewriting it and adding material and sources that discuss the term in detail. I've already answered your question above by requesting that you point me to the policy in wikipedia that requires that A be covered without mention of B, else A must be merged into B. I used the example of Transcendental Meditation that is usually discussed with reference to its founder. Your response boiled down to "Transcendental meditation is a bad example because it is clearly notable." I don't understand why you continue to raise the same objections without pointing to the policy on which they're based. If there is such a policy, my question to you is: please tell me where. Then this discussion could actually advance.

William Safire is a language columnist. His column is relevant as an example of the cultural resonance of the term that is the topic of this article. I thought this was made clear in my paraphrase of its content. There are many articles in wikipedia that include a section entitled "references to (topic). These references do not in general provide "content about the source." Would it help if I pointed you to such examples elsewhere in the encyclopedia? Would it help if the Safire article was set apart from the rest of this article in such a section? Your predetermination that this topic is not notable seems to drive your resolve to exclude content and sources from this article.

Lastly, this start again/stop again merge has resulted in Orgasmic_Meditation with a capital M still being redirected to Onetaste while lowercase m is not. Was this your intention? Does anyone know how to fix a botched redirect? Thanks. Voila-pourquoi (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There's been no continuing work or new sources to establish notability. Merge completed. If new sources are found to establish independent notability, this can be reconsidered of course. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

THIS SHOULD NOT LINK TO ONETASTE. FIX! Clearly an Ad

This SHOULD NOT be redirected to OneTaste. WTF is going here. This linked from the article "sex positions" directing to this OneTaste wikipedia page. Seriously?!? Someone who knows more about wikipedia than me should probably fix this. 5/15 1:00PM -RT