Jump to content

Talk:Transcendental Meditation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Edith Sirius Lee (talk | contribs) at 23:49, 23 October 2010 (→‎Discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

RFC: Lead sentence

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

Comments from involved users

The lead sentence should make clear what the article is about. There is an article on TM movement. This article has been about the TM technique. Stylistically, placing both TM movement and meditation technique in the opening sentence must mean that the article is about both. In fact it hasn't been about both. Although there is content on TM movement, the article itself has not been on TM movement. Further, TM as a meditation technique is the most common usage. Literature on research on the TM technique dwarfs other literature. The primary issue here is what this article is about, once that has been established what goes where will proceed logically. The decision for deciding what this article is about can't be a unilateral one, but should be considered by all editors interested working on this page. And again before considering the sources... what is this article about? (olive (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
As well. The technique has a trademarked name. Should that name be used. If not, why not? Right now the official name of the technique has been omitted from the opening sentence of the article. What purpose does it serve to exclude the name of the technique?(olive (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
We at Wikipedia do not dictate word usage. We are here to reflect the usage of the scholarly community at large. So yes TM should refer to both the movement and technique. To do otherwise would be contravene WP:NPOV. If the article historically was not about both this is something that must change. As it stands now though it does appear to deal with both adequately. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So Doc it seems you've decided this article is to be about movement and technique, is that right?(olive (talk) 23:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
I have no idea how writing an article about a technique violates NPOV, or for that matter how writing an article about two topics is more neutral than writing an article about one. (olive (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
NPOV requires that we include all significant points of view on a topic. Artificially limiting a topic to only certain points of view would be a violation.   Will Beback  talk  23:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm not talking about a trademark I'm talking about common sense. The technique has a name...what is the objection to using it.(olive (talk) 23:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
I don't understand. Is the technique not called "Transcendental Meditation"? If so, that is also the name of the movement or organization, according to sources.   Will Beback  talk  23:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a servicemark, not a trademark. What is servicemarked is not the technique. What is servicemarked is the use of the term "TM" or "Transcendental Meditation" for the teaching of the technique. Taking at face value the claims of the Maharishi that the technique is thousands of years old and not his invention, the technique is not capable of being legally trademarked or servicemarked. Accordingly, anyone can teach the technique - so long as they don't call it TM. So, the argument based on the trademark has this exactly backwards; for purposes of trademark law, TM is not the technique; it is the method teaching of the technique, which is the TM Org and Movement. That being said, the argument based on trademark/servicemark misses the point entirely. Fladrif (talk) 00:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

To answer your question what we need is a TM technique article. Thus you would be happy yes? I will create one.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at the page you linked. In big letters at the top of the page it says, "The Transcendental Meditation Program". The url is "http://www.tm.org/meditation-techniques" - plural. According to this official site, it would appear that they call it a "program" covering more than one technique. Be that as it may, we aren't here to report just the official version. We're here to report all points of view, giving weight according to their prominence. This article isn't titled "Transcendental Meditation technique" or "Transcendental Meditation techniques" or "Transcendental Meditation Program". What it is called is "Transcendental Meditation", and sources say that phrase refers to the type of meditation taught by the Maharishi and to the movement founded by him. Therefore we should reflect both usages in the lead.   Will Beback  talk  05:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "reflect"? --BwB (talk) 08:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Include" may be a more direct way of saying it, as in "we should include both usages".   Will Beback  talk  08:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from uninvolved users

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

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

Thanks Hordaland:There is a TM movement article that was split off of this article... and this article had been designated as the the technique article or methods article. One concern is that this article will become another TM movement article, and of course Wikipedia doesn't need two.(olive (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
That's why the 2 names suggested above. (I know there is a TMM - I linked to it.) I don't see why there has to be a parent article to those 2 suggested. Most people will be looking for the one or the other of them (first). Is that the argument -- that there has to be a parent article? If so, it can be very short and summarize the other two, seems to me. Hordaland (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry I realized you had linked to the article after I'd already hit save. I think simply renaming this article would solve a lot of problems... there would be two distinct articles with your solution. I don't think having a parent article is an issue in this discussion. The issue for me is to make sure that the articles aren't duplicated as could happen if the opening sentence of the lead refers to both TM technique and TM movement equally. I think its fine to have TM movement mentioned in the lead as I've said several times, but placement is important. And TM movement does link back to this article.(olive (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Well then, you and I are in agreement. Where's everyone else?  :) Hordaland (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes think that is a great idea. I have moved much of the content to a subarticle. Some of the content overlaps and deals with both the movement and technique.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
James. You have mistakenly misunderstood the points made here. There was no agreement to create another article. Agreement in which you included yourself was to rename this article. I don't consider that three of us constitutes a consensus. However in the middle of a discussion and RfC as well as a request for mediation you made a huge unilateral change very much against what you and two other editors agreed on. I ask that you un do what you've done and wait for editor agreement on whatever will solve the issues here. I assume good faith and hope you misunderstood the conversation. Thanks.(olive (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Was this not what everyone was referring too? We have an article for the movement, now we have one for the technique. And we have one that acts a little like a disambig and provides an overview of both.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My goodness you move quickly, Doc James! But why? I can't see that there needed to be yet another article (to clean up). I could see an argument for a very short intro article, summarizing and presenting the other articles. But the article you are moving(?) stuff from is still waaaay long. Hordaland (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes a short intro article is what we are attempting to create. As we have an article on the movement and this article was getting too long, having an article on the technique was only fair for balance. I am unsure how to best split some of the remaining stuff. I guess the MVAH could be moved to the movement page. The school and corporate programs moved to the technique page.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who are the "we" you are referring to Doc in your statement "a short intro article is what we are attempting to create?" Is this the "royal we"? --BwB (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since no one here is a king or queen (or raja), I presume it's the editorial "we".   Will Beback  talk  23:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was asking Doc for his answer with respect to "we". --BwB (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving further material

I have split up much of the material. Anything else which should be moved? BTW a bot will come around and fix most of the refs.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


James. I suggest you stop. You are making massive changes in articles it has taken others years to create, in the first days of an RfC and with two mediations possible and in the instance of splitting off an article expressly opposite to what was being discussed. You are, as well as others here are bound by the recent arbitration. You do not WP:OWN these articles. There are other editors active on these articles and the changes you are making should have their input. Will do you support these unilateral changes. I f you don't perhaps you ought to say so rather than editing into the changes.(olive (talk) 22:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

You and Hordaland suggested the split. I just made a few simple edits to create it. Will referenced the summary. It looks like we are making excellent progress. Hordaland suggested we shorten this to a semi disambig which seems like a great idea.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No James we didn't.(olive (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Lets give others time to comment.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken, no existing text has been deleted or even altered significantly. It's just been moved around. The TM article was overlong, and there have been expressions in favor of an article focused on the technique. This seems like a logical split. I don't see any better proposals being offered. I think that editors who've made more edits to this article than all but one person should be careful about accusing others of ownership, as that charge may apply more to them.   Will Beback  talk  00:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will, your comment, very simply put, misrepresents what went on here. There was no agreement for Doc's extensive changes, and yes there was another proposal suggested by the outside editor.(olive (talk) 03:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
I could well be mistaken. It's happened on occasion. ;) Do you have a better suggestion for reducing the length of the TM article?   Will Beback  talk  04:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So I moved around some of the text to fit the titles best, and to group together like-topics. The "theoretical" stuff, is here, combined from a few articles. The old intro is split between the TM and TMT articles. Anyway, we've now got a "technique" article, which is what some folks wanted, and the overlong "Transcendental Meditation" article is brought back down to a readable length. Nothing has been deleted, and many improvements have been made. It's a work in progress, like always.   Will Beback  talk  10:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Was there a discussion here about the length of the TM article and consensus that it needed to be shortened? I did not see that discussion. I do not support the edits that Doc James has recently made to create the split of articles. --BwB (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The ideal size of Wikipedia articles has been discussed extensively over the years. At one time, the technical limits of browsers required that we keep articles under 32k. That limit no longer exists, so now we're using the limit of reader's interest, etc. The upper limit mentioned at WP:LENGTH is 10,000, and this article was about 9200 words.
Further, editors have been asking for an article focused on just the technique. The only legitimate way of getting that is with an article titled "TM technique", so the options were to split the article or to rename it. Since renaming it would not have dealt with the size problem, and would have caused other problems, this seems like the better solution.
Are there any specific problems that can be addressed by editing?   Will Beback  talk  23:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does the division of TM into TM movement and TM practice have social precedence, or are these categories superimposed for Wikipedia-related reasons? If the latter is the case, then readers might be confused, and believe that the former is truly the case. I think this confusion can be circumambulated in our edits. makeswell (talk) 10:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The movement distinguishes between the theory and practice of TM, a division that's reflected in the split between "Transcendental Meditation" and "Transcendental Meditation technique". Members of the movement refer to "the movement" or the "TM organization", as well as to specific elements of the movement. Outside observers routinely recognize the existence of a movement.   Will Beback  talk  19:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be absolutely clear - I did not support the split of the article and there was no discussion or attempt to create consensus of this major change to the TM article. --BwB (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any specific problems?   Will Beback  talk  23:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Specific problems? How about the fact that this is ridiculous: THREE articles on the exact same same topic? It makes no sense and was done out of the blue. This is very poor form, to say the least--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting merging all of the TM-related articles? I don't think they are the exact same topic. We've had one editor here say something to the effect that "a technique can't be a movement/religion/cult". The articles are about 3700, 6200, and 6000 words long. If we combined them we'd have an article with something like 18,000 words. Encyclopedia articles should not be books, in and of themselves. There is still plenty more to say about the general topic.   Will Beback  talk  05:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying that this was inappropriate and uncalled for. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the listing above I forgot the fourth spin-off article, History of Transcendental Meditation, which is currently about 3000 words but will doubtless grow to twice that before it's completed. 21,000 words is halfway to a novel. Anyway, I don't remember if you supported any of those spin-offs. Would you prefer it if we wrote less about TM?   Will Beback  talk  16:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will, I believe you were the creator and major author of both the TMM and the History of TM articles. --BwB (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome.   Will Beback  talk  16:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Wikipedia is based on reasoned argument. Please provide content based justification for your disapproval. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rearrangement of text

I must say these changes have made things much clearer and more compliant with WP:NPOV. Both the technique and the movement are given the equal weight they deserve.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You made these changes yourself despite other editor input except yours and Will's, and you ignored the RfC and misrepresented it as did Will despite the fact he had started it. Now you are saying NPOV has been served? Who are you trying to convince? You and Will highjacked these articles and that's not right or acceptable.(olive (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Nobody's hijacking nothing. ("Take me to Havana Fairfield.") It's just what was wanted; a special article on the Transcendental Meditation technique. It's all good.   Will Beback  talk  11:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead (or lede)

The lead has at the moment 5 paragraphs. IMO the first and last of these are sufficient. The three in the middle are way too detailed to belong in the lead. --Hordaland (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Someday, sensible people may spell it "leed").
You're right. there are a few rough edges to improve. Let me see if I can move some of that to better articles, like TMT, and improve what remains. It needs a summary of the theoretical material, too.   Will Beback  talk  09:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this is an improvement.[3]   Will Beback  talk  11:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Open discussion

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

  • This article Transcendental Meditation (TM) was created by splitting off content into another article, TM technique, despite clear editor objection on the second day of an RfC and with another suggestion on the table. Threads: [4][5] Is this an appropriate way to use an RfC, that should be a clearly collaborative, dispute resolution process. If not what can be done about it and this article?
  • I have serious concerns about the article itself. Does anyone else have concerns?(olive (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Who are you that speaks thus? Rumiton (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thank thee for thine notice.(olive (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article in indeed the left over of an important content fork, which was not properly discussed. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Olive, what are your concerns about the article, in its current state?   Will Beback  talk  21:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not bypass the most fundamental of the issues here. How was a split of an article created on the second day of an RfC when there was another suggestion, and when editors did not agree-desctinctly did not agree. Unless someone can show me how this split was legitimate in the first place, that is, how it was collaborative per the TM arbitration, how taking this action was agreed on by the editors taking part in the RfC, how this is an acceptable way to deal with an RfC , then the two articles should be merged and the split undone. If someone can show me how the split was legitimate and with editor agreement, then I'd be willing to take the next step and deal with the TM article itself and its multiple concerns.(olive (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
I'm interested in discussing the article. Whenever you're ready to talk about it I'll participate.   Will Beback  talk  03:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Are you recommending merging both Transcendental Meditation movement at 96,926 bytes and Transcendental Meditation technique at 85,763 bytes into this article at 60,883 bytes? The resulting article would just be to big.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. I'm suggesting undoing the split of the original TM article into TM and TM technique. I'm going offline for tonight but will continue later tomorrow. Thanks for the input.(olive (talk) 03:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
That does not make any sense as it is neither fair nor neutral thus I strongly oppose this suggestion. TM refers equally to both the technique and the movement.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can Olive explain why she wants to merge the two articles? There have been significant edits to both articles so we need to look at this from where we are today, not the past situation.   Will Beback  talk  04:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before the split there were two article - Transcendental Meditation with a primary focus on the technique, and Transcendental Meditation Movement covering more the organization around the technique. These 2 artilcle served nicely to cover the main themes. Now we have three. --BwB (talk) 09:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The vast majority of edits to the two articles were made by those who engineered and supported the split not by those who didn't. The discussion that followed the split effectively excluded input from editors who did not support the split. At this point for the purposes of dealing with this article, how this split was even possible is not the concern in part because it brings into the discussion editor behaviour. I'd like to just focus on the article itself. The real question should be why was the content split when there was another suggestion made by an uninvolved editor agreed on by both an involved and uninvolved editor to rename the TM article TM technique. Even then any action with out agreement would have preempeted the RfC. So editors were waiting for further input.
Merging the two articles and renaming the article TM technique was the suggested discussed solution of the RfC. The split was a unilateral edit but was supported by another editor. The question now is, which of these two solutions can be agreed on as supported by a consensus. By consensus I mean almost all editors from both sides of the dispute in agreement rather than stacking up editors on either side and calling that a consensus. I'd like to see a situation where both sides are happy with what we decide to go on with. If we can't get to that point on our own I'd like to bring in a mediator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs)
I don't see any point in constantly rehashing the past. Let's talk about how we want to improve the articles in the TM topic.   Will Beback  talk  21:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We first have to decide what articles there are to deal with.(21:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC))small>—Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs)
See Category:Transcendental Meditation movement. Since this is a multi-article discussion maybe it'd be better held on the project talk page. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movement.   Will Beback  talk  22:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Editor input requested

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

We have several possibilities:

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

2.) Merge Transcendental Meditation into Transcendental Meditation technique

3.) Some other re-configuration ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

4.) Improve the articles

5.) Delete them all and start from scratch

  • Olive: #2...I originally supported the renaming of the article from Transcendental Meditation to Transcedental Meditation technique and still do.
  • Bigweeboy - #2 I think the 2 articles we had prior to the split were sufficient. --BwB (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

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

Its not a vote but an indication of what people agree with and sets a bottom line on the discussion. Maybe we can all come to some agreement on how to deal with the article/articles in question. Discussion is ongoing and doesn't stop because we take a look at where we stand on this issue.(olive (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
What's the purpose of having a "bottom line" in a discussion? I don't know what that means.   Will Beback  talk  22:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have to be discussing the same thing. Right now we're not. You want to discuss an article others don't think should exist. Until we can agree on whether this article should be here or not a discussion has no focus. Per the arbitration far better to go to dispute resolution than drag on a convoluted discussion which is what occurs when groups can't even agree on what the discussion is about. If we can come to some understanding on what we are discussing we have a chance to resolve the issues.(olive (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
I still don't understand this "bottom line" concept. I said I'm not interested in rehashing this same old edit over and over, but you can do so if you want. I am interested in discussing improvements to this and other articles. If you don't want to that's fine too.   Will Beback  talk  22:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So there is somewhat of an impasse... I want to discuss improvements to the article but think we have to establish first just what articles we are talking about... You don't want to discuss what articles we are talking about but would go onto discussing improvements with out that background in mind. (olive (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Aren't we talking about Transcendental Meditation and Transcendental Meditation technique? Those are the subject of the poll. Are there other articles we're talking about too?   Will Beback  talk  22:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm discussing the original article and the split of that article into two articles. You seem to be discussing the articles that exist after the split. Those are the articles we are discussing. Well think about it. I'm going of line for the night.(olive (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
So is this basically a discussion over whether to merge the two articles? If so, please apply the relevant {merge} tags to the article and start a thread on that explicit topic. See WP:MERGE and Help:Merging.   Will Beback  talk  23:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A merge at this point would be a purely technical procedure, a remedy to a split that was not accepted, was not properly discussed, etc. What is the tag when a new article is created without consensus by article forking? This would be the only acceptable tag in the current situation. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transcendental_Meditation&oldid=392499101"