Talk:Transcendental Meditation

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)

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))

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)

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)

(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)

I hope this is an improvement.[1]   Will Beback  talk  11:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Open discussion

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

• This article Transcendental Meditation (TM) was created by splitting off content into another article, TM technique, despite clear editor objection on the second day of an RfC and with another suggestion on the table. Threads: [2][3] Is this an appropriate way to use an RfC, that should be a clearly collaborative, dispute resolution process. If not what can be done about it and this article?
• I have serious concerns about the article itself. Does anyone else have concerns?(olive (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC))

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editor input requested

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

We have several possibilities:

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

2.) Merge Transcendental Meditation into Transcendental Meditation technique

3.) Some other re-configuration

---

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

4.) Improve the articles

5.) Delete them all and start from scratch

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have already provided references that supported having separate articles on the technique and movement. Wikipedia is based on reasoned debate not a vote. TimidGuy says 99% of the time TM refers to the technique. Does he have a ref to support this opinion? The Encyclopedia Britannica disagrees with this position.[4] This change was done to increase WP:NPOV. No justification why it should not have taken place was ever put forwards.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In accordance with policy, we should evaluate if Transcendental Meditation usually refers to a mental procedure or to an organisation. It should have been evaluated before the split. Looking at the Encyclopedia Britannica [5] I could find many well structured sentences where "Transcendental Meditation" is used alone to mean the technique. We can find similar sentences all over the place, in newspapers, in TV programs, etc. I don't think that we have so many sentences where "Transcendental Meditation" is used alone to mean the organisation. There could be sentences that are in between, not so clear on the usage, such as "An adept of Transcendental Meditation". Anyway, what we need is to evaluate the most common usage in non ambiguous and well structured sentences, especially in popular media, which are most representative of the common usage. This was never done and thus policy was violated, but let just do it now. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transcendental Meditation; Technique or Movement?

It seems to to me that the central issue is whether the term "Transcendental Meditation" refers to a meditation technique, an organization/movement or both. It has always been my understanding that it referred to a meditation technique. Today I did some research on the web to see how it is defined by online dictionaries etc. I have posted my results here [6] on a newly created subpage of this talk page. I encourage others to also post their findings so we can have comprehensive overview of how the term is defined by reliable secondary sources. Once the definition is clear than it will help us to decide what the article of the same name should contain in terms of content.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that encyclopaedia and dictionaries are not secondary sources, but tertiary sources. There is no unique criteria to determine the most common usage of a term, but definitively we should include newspapers, TV programs and other independent secondary sources. Some might want to include websites and books written by detractors of alternative medicine and related organisations, but they should be seen for what they are. I am curious to see what the result will be. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The official name of the technique, as we've discussed often here and as editors have frequently attested by their edits, is "the Transcendental Meditation technique". The movement has many names, both for the individual entities and the overall whole. There are also aspects of TM that are neither the technique and nor the movement either, like SCI.   Will Beback  talk  20:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

SCI is a course taught by the TM movement. It can go under the umbrella of courses taught by the TMM. --BwB (talk) 12:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This same set of issues have been previously discussed at great length. The talk archives show that this exercise is an unnecessary duplication and rehashing of issues long-settled. The current structure of a relatively short disambiguation article on TM, with separate articles on the technique, movement, history...and the numerous other articles on other aspects of the movement, its leaders and organization which are sufficiently notable to merit their own articles is completely consonant with Wikipedia guidelines and policies and are extensively sourced. Complaining about how the various articles got created is a non-starter. Voting is not how issues get resolved. Counting Ghits for TM technique vs TM movement is not how issues get resolved. I do not see a single substantive suggestion as to what anyone thinks is wrong with the articles or how those complaining propose to cure their inchoate objections. Fladrif (talk) 23:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there a proposal to rename this article? I don't understand the point of this exercise.   Will Beback  talk  23:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Will, regarding your statement that the official name is "Transcendental Meditation Technique", the issue is not about "Transcendental Meditation Technique", but about "Transcendental Meditation." We should care about what people expect when they search for "Transcendental Meditation". If the most common usage is the technique, then they should see the article about the technique, which has a link to the article about the Transcendental Meditation Organisation.

However, there can be a compromise. One possibility is to give more room to the technique in the Transcendental Meditation article. The Transcendental Meditation Technique article would simply provide more details. The main product of the Transcendental Meditation organisation is the technique. It is the product for which it is best known for. It makes no sense to have so little about it in the Transcendental Meditation article. Doc James wrote that he suspected a desire to hide the Transcendental Meditation Movement. How presenting the main product of the movement could be hiding anything about it? It seems to me that it does the opposite: it sheds light on what the organisation really is. Perhaps some people want to hide something important about this organisation when they try to hide the technique. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:SUMMARY calls on Wikipedia editors to split articles when they become too long. The phrase "TM" covers many issues: a technique, a movement, the history of both, the intellectual framework, etc. Editors here repeatedly sought to change the lead from "TM is" to "The TM technique is". So now there is an article specifically for the TM technique.   Will Beback  talk  00:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

"Transcendental Meditation Technique" is better, but "Transcendental Meditation" still mainly refers to the technique, much less to the organisation, as KeithBob has shown by looking at common usage on the Internet. This is a point that must be considered in the future, whatever we decide to do. A large article is fine unless it creates problem with a browser. I do not think there was any problem. However, I can see the point of having a central article on Transcendental Meditation that would respect what people expect when they search for "Transcendental Meditation", which is mainly the technique, but also the organisation. This central article would then refer to the Transcendental Meditation Technique article for even more details about the technique and to other articles as well as needed. The Transcendental Meditation Technique article would clearly identify itself as a continuation of the Transcendental Meditation article, which is the parent article. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 00:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

While I guess the next thing to do would be to create a request for comment and see if outside editors agrees with your interpretation. I personally see KB list as just a specific selection of sites to support his POV. One could come up with a long list the other way. Google give 165,000 for the movement and 232,000 for the technique. Hardly a big difference.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If we're compiling sources, keep in mind that all of the sources that refer to TM as a religion, cult, or sect are implicitly referring to it as a movement, not a technique. That's one of the reasons for having separate articles.   Will Beback  talk  01:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Doc James is confused about the issue. We are not asking what content should be associated with "Transcendental Meditation Movement" or "Transcendental Meditation Technique" because this is clear. So, a Google count on these two terms is not helpful. We need to decide what should be associated with the term "Transcendental Meditation". Therefore we want to know what is the most common usage of this term. If the most common usage of "Transcendental Meditation" is the technique, the corresponding article should be mainly about the technique. In the same line of thoughts, I don't understand the purpose of the section Sources_that_have_used_Transcendental_Meditation_within_three_words_of_terms_like_movement_group_etc_since_2008. It does not help to determine what is expected when one searches for "Transcendental Meditation". Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Every one of those entries would be found by searching for "Transcendental Meditation". We have no easy way of determining what readers expect to find.   Will Beback  talk  04:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems like a fairly logical arrangement: cover the technique in "TM technique", the movement in "TM movement", and the history in "TM history", and everything else in "TM".   Will Beback  talk  04:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we have located here the point about which we need outside help: what is a good and neutral way to determine what people expect to find when they search "Transcendental Meditation"? With regard to your suggestion, I think to the contrary that people that search for TM are expecting to find out about the technique and to some degree about the movement, not about "every thing else". Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 05:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If they want to learn about the technique then they can follow that link, and if they are interested in the movement then there's a link for that too. If editors insist, as they have in the past, that we have an article that starts "The TM technique is" then it makes sense for that article to be titled "TM technique". That's how the RFC started and why we're here.   Will Beback  talk  05:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Let us be clear about what we want. Do we want that "Transcendental Meditation" goes to a disambiguation page or to a primary topic [7]? A disambiguation page is not the best option, but if we go for it, then let us do it right and have a clean simple ordinary disambiguation page. Otherwise, let us have a primary topic that makes sense for "Transcendental Meditation". It was suggested that this topic is an Introduction to Transcendental Meditation, which makes sense to me. However, I don't think that the content of such an Introduction should be every thing else beside the technique, the movement, etc. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Things were settled before the split. TM primary article mainly focused on TM technique, another article on TMM covering the organization teaching TM technique and related programs, etc. --BwB (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and there was no problem with the length of the article. Nobody pointed out a browser that had problem with it. Nevertheless, having "Transcendental Meditation" points to an Introduction article about TM is not a bad idea, as long as this Introduction article respects the meaning of "Transcendental Meditation". "Transcendental Meditation" is normally used to mean the technique, so the article should mainly be about the technique. It also makes perfect sense to discuss the movement in this introduction article because the technique can only be thought by certified TM teachers, which is not a negligible point, and thus the TM technique is not a concept that is independent from the TM organisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edith Sirius Lee (talk • contribs) 13:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Edith, it sounds like you'd be satisfied if the technique section in this article were longer. Is that correct?   Will Beback  talk  19:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

(undent) TM is associated with both terms as is amply shown beyond any doubt. Thus the reason for splitting off the section on the technique. Yes we known that TMers wish to portray TM as a technique which is scientifically validated. I have added refs to this effect. However the rest of the world users a broader definition and has their doubts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The difficulty that we have is that you decide alone what the the world think. The only thing that I and others want is to have a chance to determine honestly using reliable sources what the world think. For example, to determine what is the common use of the term "Transcendental Meditation", we want to refer to how this term is used in encyclopedia and other reliable sources, not only take your words or the words of Fladrif or Will Beback. BTW, there is no need to separate any one from the "rest of the world". If you do that, it will be helpful that do that to yourself because you seem to think that the entire world think like you do. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

:-) Do you remember the ref to the EB I provided? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Edith seems to be taking the position that we can use other sources as a clear indicator of what is the most common usage. I regret to say that I have very serious doubts that we would be able to use sources like encyclopediae, for instance, because they will often themselves have a clear predisposition to one usage or the other. So, for instance, I think an encyclopedia of religions would give primary importance to the TM religion/movement, while an encyclopedia of yoga or similar exercises would probably give "first place" to the TM technique. If that is true, which I believe likely, then what we would probably really be doing would be determining whether there are more religion or yoga encyclopediae, etc., because they would probably break down as indicated here, and I think I can speak from experience that there are more of the former than the latter. Any individual is of course free to do whatever they want, including referencing these sources, but based on what I have seen this sort of short dab page is probably the best way to go. I say that because this seems to have been the decision reached after extensive previous discussion of this issue and it seems, at least to me, unlikely that things have changed significantly since then. John Carter (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for you comments, John. Unfortunately, the "decision" to create the split did not come from "extensive previous discussion", but rather from one editors action. --BwB (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

We've discussed the "TM is a techique" issue for over a year, IIRC, and there were discussions even before I got involved.   Will Beback  talk  20:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Per Will's, BWB, and John's comment: Two issues here are being conflated that should probably be untangled. There have been multiple discussions since before I came here too, on how to define the words TM, and how best to create articles on TM given the way the words are used in the sources. Eventually two primary articles were used to encompass content; technique and what is associated with the technique - a somewhat subjective discrimination, and everything else that is labelled in the sources as TM movement. (There are multiple other articles that are associated with TM technique/organization.) I assume Will is referring to those discussions. BWB is referring to a unilateral split or fork depending on how you look at it, that was carried out despite editor objections, on the second day of an RfC, and despite a suggestion by an outside editor that would have possibly solved the problem out lined in the RfC. Unilateral editing during an RfC especially on the second day is apt to create a contentious situation, as it has.

This thread was begun to deal with the split, and to see if there was any common ground that would allow all editors to deal with the split, and if not to ask for outside help, as in a mediation. Side angles have entered the conversation as to why the split was appropriate or not in terms of content considerations. One of those discussions has brought up again the terms TM movement and TM technique since some editors may see that defining those terms satisfactorily for everyone could solve the problems with the split.(apologies Edith for placing this here. Hope its OK. it made sense to follow the appropriate comments with this post rather than later on. (olive (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC))

@John Carter: Also, this is not my personal position. The first to have used an encyclopaedic is Doc James, then KeithBob got inspired and looked into other encyclopaedia and dictionaries. I myself, pointed out that they are tertiary sources and proposed that we extend to secondary sources. You are right that different sources might have different uses of "Transcendantal Meditation", but what else do we have to evaluate the most common use of an ambiguous term. I propose that we see what the picture is, while taking into account the orientation of the different sources. It is better than only using what we personally think the world think. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Outside input

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