Talk:Transcendental Meditation movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Yoga (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yoga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yoga on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Alternative Views (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Religion / New religious movements (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by New religious movements work group (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Hinduism (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movement (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Transcendental Meditation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. WikiProject icon
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Organizations (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Transcendental Meditation movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Fixing duplicate refs[edit]

I fixed a bunch of the (large red-lettered) cite errors which were the result of duplicate references being given the same name. I removed as much duplication as I could find, but my fixes are imperfect and not final. The first citation for a given reference will sometimes have a page number included, while subsequent cites of the same ref can give a different page number. I'll clean it up in the next few days. Manul ~ talk 21:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done At least the immediate issues are fixed, anyway. There's a lot more cleaning up of refs that could be done. Manul ~ talk 13:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

General principle[edit]

As a general principle on Wikipedia we use sources if they are reliable and verifiable despite the opinions they hold. We do not decide one position is better than another. NPOV does not refer to the sources we use but the article we create. When speaking of cult and T M there are reliable sources which support the term cult and RS which do not. While you have decided some sources are created by adherents and therefore not usable you ignore the background of other sources which may have biases in other directions. This is why we do not choose sources based on the opinions they hold, but choose sources based on reliability, verifiability, and pertinence in the mainstream, to determine weight. Choosing to use one view over another is an example of cherry picking content which can create a specific point of view. I'm not going to revert your removal of content, but you are incorrect and have removed legitimate content weighting a view and creating a non-neutral POV. Thanks for fixing the refs. I had noticed the problem but never got around to fixing it.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC))

You said This is referencing sources not the opinions of those who meditate,[1] but three out of the four sources cited are exactly that. Saying "Additional sources" misleads the reader, suggesting that these are independent assessments, not a collection of personal testimonies. The first source appears to be from an independent party and was retained. You are welcome to offer other independent sources; I just dealt with what was there. Preferably, we want independent assessments from experts such as sociologists. Manul ~ talk 15:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

They are sources first. What they contain is second. This was my point. And my point stands Manul. Independence from a position is not something we choose sources for. We choose them because they are reliable and verifiable and we add them per weight. Do you really think there are authors whose work is not in some way biased towards an opinion. Of course they are. We expect authors to have an opinion and to act and write on those opinions. This is not science and even there while we look for independence per our own policies human beings have positions and biases which leads them to research in certain areas in the first place.. We are not, as editors, in a position to judge the rightness or wrongness of a position; we are mirroring the published information on a topic. We leave the judgement of the quality of that material to the publisher and we ourselves take it from there. It is not within the remit of a Wikipedia editor to make judgements on whether a position is accurate and that's what you try to do when you cherry pick your sources per what you think is an author's involvement. I will not revert you; I don't think it matters very much one way or the other, but you might consider my points. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC))

No, articles need to be based upon third-party sources; see WP:SOURCES. You appear to have misunderstood the issue here. We don't favor or disfavor sources based upon our judgments of what they contain. Rather, we seek independent sources because that is Wikipedia policy. And experts are preferred; also see WP:BESTSOURCES. Manul ~ talk 16:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
If these sources are verifiable and reliable they are compliant. We choose sources for their reliability and third party is one determining factor. Right. We don't chose sources for what they contain. Are the sources you removed reliable; if they are then they should not be removed unless they violate weight. Given the highly weighted aspect of the section towards the pejorative I doubt weight is a problem/ Per our policy:

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".

The bolded text is beside the point. We require third-party sources per WP:SOURCES. Nobody has said that we must only permit "neutral, unbiased, or objective" sources. But certainly they must be third-party, at least. And we should especially look to what experts say -- that's the essence of the WP:BESTSOURCES policy. "Participants contend that TM and its movement are not a cult" is fine with those personal testimonies as sources. Would you agree to that (even though you reverted it)? We definitely can't make the misleading statement that "additional sources" contend that it's not a cult, falsely suggesting that these are independent assessments while hiding from the reader that it is participants who have said so. Manul ~ talk 17:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
No, the aspects of policy encased in the words of the bolded text are not beside the point. They are the point. You are ignoring the basic tenets of the policy. Third party sources is one criteria for choosing a reliable source. Then a source that has been deemed reliable, may contain opinions in the content of that source, but those opinions are not the factors that determines reliability. If I write a book on my opinion of the merits of green cheese and that book is published by a reliable publisher then that book may be used as a position on the merits of green cheese. I can't argue this further so feel free to add whatever you want at this point.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC))
Again, it is the third-partyness of sources that is at issue here, not our opinions of what sources say. Disregarding that crucial element of WP:SOURCES really is ignoring policy. Manul ~ talk 20:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Also note the personal testimonies were added only to the lead and were used nowhere in the article body. That's another reason for them being inappropriate (the lead is supposed to summarize the article). Manul ~ talk 14:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I want to be really clear. I have no desire to change the content you are discussing; its a small issue and not worth a lot of time. I made a change earlier this year because I felt the word sources was more neutral than words like participants and still do.
However, I am concerned by your misunderstanding of policy and of WP:MOS. First, the Sunday Herald, the Sunday Times, and the Birmingham Post are reliable sources for the content you removed, content that observes an opinion. These are secondary and reliable sources for this content. None of this has to do with my opinion. I am noting policy, and then the content in reliable sources.
Second, the lead should summarize the content of the article; it does not summarize every source in the article body... It summarizes the information. There is information in the article which says some do not see T M as a cult. Therefore, the statement in the lead which summarizes this position and which uses reliable sources to do so is appropriate,(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC))
We have third-party analyses by sociologists and cognitive neuroscientists. You wish to say that "other sources" dispute those experts, but without mentioning that it is not sociologists, not cognitive neuroscientists, not experts who are doing the disputing, but practitioners giving their personal testimony. That's misleading, unequivocally. It's a classic WP:FALSEBALANCE that goes against WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:WEIGHT. And it disregards WP:SOURCES which says that articles should be based upon third-party sources. It even seems undue to mention a journalist's opinion alongside those experts, as if they are equivalent. Note that better sources by experts offering an opposing view are more than welcome -- I'm just going off the sources we have at the moment. Manul ~ talk 22:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to say anything; I didn't write the content and I have not and will not revert you. In an article such as this its acceptable to have range of opinions and impossible to gauge a general equivalency. However, I have no problem with the kind of equivalency you have set up.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC))

You began this thread to advocate for your edit that says "additional sources" dispute the cult label, which, as I've explained, is misleading. You've continued to advocate for it. Now you say, "I don't want to say anything". I don't know what "impossible to gauge a general equivalency" is supposed to mean. Sources by experts (e.g. professional sociologists and cognitive neuroscientists) are better than sources by non-experts. They aren't equivalent and it is easy to gauge that. Indeed that's the point of WP:BESTSOURCES, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:FALSEBALANCE. Manul ~ talk 01:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
No Manul, I began this discussion explaining a concern I had with the way you understand policy. Had I been advocating for something I might have pushed to make the change which I did not. And no, I am not continuing to advocate for anything, I am continuing to point out that you are in error in my opinion as to your understanding of policy and MOS. I have clearly indicated first, that I will not revert and second that I am fine with the content as is, and I'll reiterate, I did not add the content in question; I made what I thought was a logical change to that content. My concern was and now is that you are mischaracterizing what I am doing here and as well, initially, your lack of understanding along with a propensity for pushing issues with out input such as the link to COI here may be a concern for Wikipedia as a whole. In the end, given that you chose to respond with words like, advocate for, while mischaracterizing my input meansIts time to move on. I've said what I had to say, I hope you can hear it.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC))

COI links to content that is hidden[edit]

I'd like to ask you again. You have linked my name in the tag above to content that cannot be seen except by admins, oversighters, checkusers, and researchers,

I would like to know and I would suggest have a right to know:

  • What the link is linking to
  • How you who has far as I know is not an admin, oversighter, checkuser or researcher has been able to see the content linked, and why you are using hidden content to illustrate your point.

I'd add that the link should be visible to a majority of editors which it is not if it requires special permission to see.

If this is content that was removed or oversighted, I am wondering why you are using it and how you're even able to use it with out admin status

I will repeat that you have no diffs that show any COI edits.

Please deal with these issues as soon as you can. Thanks Manul. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC))

Don't remove posts by other editors. you posted a template here on this article. My questions stay here. The diff to the AE was not oversighted was it; this link is. Please refer to my points above. The link is useless to other editors as is since most cannot access the information.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC))
You want to use this article talk page to hold a one-on-one conversation between us. That seems squarely inappropriate -- the purpose of an article talk page is to improve the article, not to host such conversations. It's entirely reasonable for someone to remove such a post while asking the poster to bring it to a user talk page, which is what I did.
I can't remember the last time someone edit-warred on a talk page. Since you are so insistent, I'll respect your wish, despite it being pretty clearly inappropriate.
Now to your questions. As I said in my edit comment, they were already answered.[2] Manul ~ talk 01:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
And I can't remember the last time and editor removed a cmt from a talk page.We do not remove other editor's comments, That's high handed, The AE is not hidden, the content linked to above is. Readers are supposed to be able to read what is on the talk page-this talk page. That's why I am asking you here to clarify. If I am misunderstanding the link and the hidden content let me know, But removing the comment is not the way to go here. (Littleolive oil (talk) 02:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC))
I'm not willing to go in circles about this anymore. The AE request answers your questions, as I keep saying. I will not be more specific because it would be gratuitous exposure for you, even though nothing I would say would be outside of the information found in the AE request. This thread itself is gratuitous exposure for you, which is the greatest reason that it is inappropriate for an article talk page. For your own sake I give you permission to remove and revdel (an admin will surely grant the request) this thread along with my comments. And you may ask an admin to unhide the link, if you wish. You own it, after all. Manul ~ talk 03:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I did ask privately that an admin look at the link. The link had to have created by an admin and was a link to content that had been removed because I experienced a two year long period of off-Wikipedia harassment. I didn't see it in the AE you linked to but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and hope I missed it. This begs the question how did you get the link and since you are not an admin how did you see it or even know it was there. The content in the link is based on, at least, 8 year old information that even at the time of the TM arbitration was no longer accurate, and which the arbs knew about because I told them. I am concerned about the fact that you have the link and knew what it linked to, I am concerned that you have seen fit to use information like this, while mischaracterizing my input in the discussion above ignoring my very neutral position on the content where i said, to summarize, that I am fine with it, while you attempt to paint me as an advocate. There is nothing in this that points to sincerity and I also question your honesty. I hope I am wrong in terms of your honesty, but at this time Its hard for me to see through your actions to actions that are sincere rather than manipulative.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC))