Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:33, 10 November 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reason why we need three TM articles

• 1) The meaning of TM is ambiguous. It can either refer to a technique or a movement and google uses the terms about equally.
• 2) We thus need a disambig page or a short introduction page
• 3) As a number of aspect of TM relate to both the technique and the movement ( such as history and underlying proposed mechanism ) it makes sense increasing the disambig page to a short introduction page.
• 4) If we did not have an introduction TM page / disambig where were the TM redirect go to? It would not be WP:NPOV to redirect to either of the 2 main pages as these terms are used equally for these two meanings.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Disagree that we need 3 articles. The history of the TM technique is not the same as the history of the TM Movement - TM started before the movement, and the actual TM technique has not changed at least since the early 1970s, while the Movement has gone through many changes. Can Doc please clarify what he means by "underlying proposed mechanism"? I do get his point here. If we have an article titled "TM Movement" and one titled "TM Technique" these can cover all the topics. --BwB (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You are suggesting a disambig page than? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not suggesting anything right now, just bringing up some points about your reasoning and trying to understand what you mean by "underlying proposed mechanism". Great if you could clarify. Thanks.--BwB (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Theoretical concepts Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the many reasons why the current arrangement is preferable is the "Characterizations" section of this article. Many sources say things like "TM is a religion", and it's not at all clear if they're referring to the movement, the technique, or both. This article can handle those ambiguous topics that don't clearly belong in any of the more specific articles.   Will Beback  talk  22:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

That is an excellent point especially as we have had a number of issues with trying to determine where we should put quotes from scientists regarding TM.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

So we are proposing an encyclopedia article for all of the bits and pieces in sources that are unclear as to what they are referring to. Does this sound like we are dealing with significant content appropriate for encyclopedic article inclusion when we're not even sure what the source is referencing? I do agree with James that TM has become a rather ambiguous term and thank him for efforts to move this discussion along. (olive (talk) 02:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC))

TM is an encyclopedia topic. It has many elements, too many to include in one article, or even two or three articles. Per WP:SUMMARY, it's appropriate to split articles when they get too long. Editors can't agree on what the primary meaning of "TM" is, or how to word the lede sentence of a TM article, to cover those different aspects. Editors also don't want to merge the significant content of this article into the current TM technique article. I don't see anyone saying what the problem is with this arrangement, beyond "I don't like it" or "No one asked me first". Olive, since you've been the leader on this can you explain more clearly what your objections are to the current arrangement?   Will Beback  talk  07:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• There is a distinction between what is expected when one search for "Transcendental Meditation" and the meaning of that term. The Google count argument is valid to discuss what is expected when one search that term, but it says little about its meaning. This is because a Google search includes all uses of the Transcendental Meditation technique as an adjective: Transcendental Meditation teacher, etc. When we read the actual text, we see that Transcendental Meditation is almost always used to mean a special kind of meditation - Transcendental is a qualifier for Meditation. This is just common sense and most people go by common sense. The true meaning of a term is determined by how it is used. Even Encyclopedia Britannica, the reference proposed by Doc James to discuss that issue, always use "Transcendental Meditation" to mean the technique. It defines it in a way at the beginning, but then always use it to mean a technique thereafter. It is natural to respect the meaning of a term when we determine the main article, the primary topic, that should be attached to it. Based on the pre-split state, plenty of links have been created in the Internet toward that Misplaced Pages term. We should not have totally changed the primary topics attached to that term in one big important split that did not even respect the natural meaning of the term.

• Detractors of TM did not respect the natural meaning of the term "Transcendental Meditation" or made it ambiguous when they used it in sentence such as "TM is a religion". This is a fact that can be sourced. However, this is only within sources from detractors. We cannot undo years of work only to please a few sources, which are detractors of TM. There is room for this kind of viewpoints within a TM article (about the technique), but it should not become the central viewpoint that determines the entire structure of the article and appear in the first sentence of the article. Certainly, there is no need to split the article and remove important material (scientific research, etc.) to make room for this kind of viewpoints. In particular, the section "Characterization" was there in the TM article before the split. Therefore, Will Beback's argument, which is based on the section "Characterization", is not valid. I am not saying that the content of that section respects WP:NOR, etc., but this is a different issue.

• As a compromise, I propose to go back (by moving blocks of text that do not discard edits) to the pre-split situation and then add a disambiguation link toward the Transcendental Meditation Movement article. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Per Will's statement above: (Will's comments in bold.)

TM is an encyclopedia topic. It has many elements, too many to include in one article, or even two or three articles. Per WP:SUMMARY, it's appropriate to split articles when they get too long.

• Content has been split off the main TM article many times. These splits are subtopics within the topic TM. All of the splits in my history were carried out with discussion and editor agreement because they were major changes in contentious articles. Splitting off chunks of content to create yet another TM watershed article did not and still doesn't have consensus.
• That the TM article was too long at this point in its history was suggested after the split, and is an opinion that one editor added to the discussion as a reason for the split. There was no consensus that suggested the article was too long, and no consensus for doing something about.

Editors can't agree on what the primary meaning of "TM" is, or how to word the lede sentence of a TM article, to cover those different aspects.

• The TM article was designated by agreement/consensus over time to be the article for the "technique" content. What that content is, is subjective and has given rise to numerous discussions. The lead of the article pre unilateral edit by James described the technique, and the article was about the technique. James added "movement" to the opening sentence of the lead which changed the emphasis of the lead and the article in a major way. James also linked spiritual to religion, giving spiritual per this article a hidden POV meaning. Further, there was no agreement to create this kind of change in the fundamental meaning of the article. You Will opened an RfC to discuss the lead. On the second day of the RfC a massive unilateral edit split off content, not a split of a sub topic area , but a split that created a watershed, and primary article. The article lost all of the TM research, although oddly James came back and added the statement in the lead that serves to negate the research, despite the fact that there is no research in the article which contains reviews on both the positive and negative aspect of TM. This is a POV move and helps create a non NPOV article.

Editors also don't want to merge the significant content of this article into the current TM technique article. I don't see anyone saying what the problem is with this arrangement, beyond "I don't like it" or "No one asked me first". Olive, since you've been the leader on this can you explain more clearly what your objections are to the current arrangement?

• You are trivializing my attempts to explain when you say things like, "I don't like it" or "No one asked me first". No one said anything like that. My concern is simple. I don't see don't need for a vague TM article that is used to collect all of the content in the sources which is ambiguous in meaning. I think James made an attempt to suggest why we did need the article, but I don't see the logic jump in, we could use a DAB page and we need to expand that to an article.
• Massive changes were created with the split. The primary focus article became a sawed off POV version of the original TM article. The technique article was changed with out agreement. Content was moved back and forth with out agreement.

James stated he was a "bold "editor.

• If you're going to make the kinds of changes that hugely restructure, possibly towards a POV , in a contentious topic area with contentious articles, and you do it despite what other editors are saying, then expect discussion and lots of it.
• The suggestion seems to be that honoring the process implicit in an dispute resolution, in this case an RfC, of respect for other editors in the discussion process, which takes time, can be dispensed with, and other editors should be fine with that. This discussion has a history that plays largely in the resolution. When something is done against generally accepted standards, both the act and the result may need to be examined to arrive at a solution that satisfies everyone.

The only solution I can see so far is to try and return the two articles to a pre split version, a neutral ground version and to take the discussion from there.(olive (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC))

(olive (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC))

Thanks for that lengthy response, but it's almost all about the process that happened in the past rather then the situation we have at present. Let me ask again. What is wrong with the current arrangement of articles? Not what is wrong with how they got to this point, but what is wrong with them now?   Will Beback  talk  21:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Will that there has still been no rationale offered by anyone as to why they think that there is something wrong with the current structure of the articles. All I read is complaints about process, which Olive admits is a "red herring". If it's a red herring, why keep repeating it?

If we're going to discuss process and rehash the past, the repeated assertion that there was agreement and consensus that the TM article was about the "technique" is patently false. A core group of TM Movement affiliated editors claimed over and over "this article is about the technique" as a justification for their repeatedly deleting over the course of many years reliably-sourced material from the article, against the objection of an ever-changing cast of unaffiliated editors. But, there was never any consensus or agreement with that position.

But, again, we are where we are, and how we got here isn't all that relevant to this discussion. Which is why, unless someone can acually articulate a substantive reason for changing the current structure, this entire discussion has been pointless and might as well be closed. Fladrif (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the reason that Olive mentioned is: " a vague TM article that is used to collect all of the content in the sources which is ambiguous in meaning." I would add that making such an article the main topic for "Transcendental Meditation" is a real problem. If it was a secondary article, not the main "Transcendental Meditation" article, then perhaps it could make sense. Another reason that was mentioned is that the Transcendental Meditation article should be about the technique because the meaning of "Transcendental Meditation" is the technique: it is a meditation with the qualifier "transcendental" - simple common sense. It was also mentioned that we can make room for special cases where "Transcendental Meditation" does not have its natural meaning, as long as we have reliable sources for it. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

If editors really believe that the clear, obvious meaning of "Transcendental Meditation" is always a meditation technique, then there's no reason why those same editors have been changing the text of this and other articles to insert "technique" after mentions of TM. Apparently they believe that it's necessary to include "technique" to make it clear what is being talked about.   Will Beback  talk  01:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course, semantics has nothing to do with belief or with the language needed to delineate for the reader the possible common usages of a word or phrase.(olive (talk) 01:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC))

Olive, is there anything currently wrong with the article, other than that the contents appear miscellaneous to you? Is that the main complaint about the current content? It'd help if we can pin this down.   Will Beback  talk  07:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Will. I'm reluctant to start in on discussion of the article itself at this point which would veer off into a discussion we're not ready for, as far as I'm concerned, since we can't even decide if we need such an article whether or not what is in that article is Misplaced Pages compliant. Such a discussion seems secondary to the primary discussion which is why does the article exist. There have already been too many side discussions here with still no resolution in sight. At the same time I don't see any roads opening up that point to resolution so, bringing in a mediator might bring in some further insights. (olive (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC))

The additional "technique" is only to bring out that this particular meditation is really a technique, a well defined procedure with a checking process, etc. Other meditations are more vaguely defined. The fact that "transcendental mediation" is so often used alone without the extra "technique" to mean the procedure itself supports this point. Any other interpretation is far fetched, kind of nonsense. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 02:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

So when sources say something like "the latest TM project is a housing development" or "TM is a cult" they are engaging in far-fetched nonsense, since a technique can't be a cult and can't buy real estate?   Will Beback  talk  07:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

In the former case, TM is used as an adjective, as in TM movement, TM teacher, etc. In the second case, just to clarify, I was not trying to evaluate what is in the mind of those who wrote the sentence "TM is a cult". People that have something against the current business that exists behind body workout could say "Body workout is a business". I would like to emphasize here that I am not arguing that there is no room for these special uses of the TM term in a TM article. I already pointed out that we can make room for special uses of the tern TM. I am only arguing that to change the meaning of TM so that we can create a third article with all these sentences and make it the main article for TM is far fetched. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

My own guess is that "technique" kept being added to TM in these articles because the MUM Press Style Guide mandates it. Fladrif (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

At this point, seeing that we are still not progressing, I am supporting KeithBob suggestion of a mediation. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

What would we be mediating? A merge request? It hasn't even been proposed and discussed here yet. Mediation isn't the first step in dispute resolution. When it comes to content disputes, formal mediation is the last step.   Will Beback  talk  07:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The request to return to a pre-split state (moving back blocks of text without undoing edits) was clearly stated more than once. It's a more accurate description of what could be done to remedy the situation than a merge. The meaning of "Transcendental Meditation" would be an important part of that mediation because it seems to have been the main argument for the split. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hasn't been discussed? A formal merge request with template is not necessary to make a merge, and the discussion here on a merge has been extensive going nowhere. However I would think the issue to be mediated is not the merge since the merge was only one possible solution to the another concern. I believe the issue is about how to deal an article some editors feel is not necessary while others feel it is. This discussion is an extension of the RfC discussion . Wouldn't another RfC be beating a dead horse over the head with.... another dead horse. I'm always surprised at the lack of willingness to ask a mediator to look in on these discussions.(olive (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC))

Yes, I do not always agree with Olive, but reading the discussion in the Rfc, it is clear that the situation here is a continuation of that discussion. The Rfc was about the meaning of TM, and it has been used as an argument for a sudden split that was executed before we could agree on anything. I would add that the main issue as presented by Olive takes all its significance when the article is made the main TM article. If we had created an article for ambiguities, etc. without making it the main TM article, it would not have been as problematic. The fundamental question behind the issue is what should be the content of the main TM article. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Question

What is this article meant to be, summary article, forked off content...something else. What purpose is it serving?(olive (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC))

Good question. Neither this nor that. --BwB (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It is basically a summary article, including summaries of the three main articles that have been split off from it, and two sections that do not obviously belong anywhere else. See WP:SUMMARY for more information.   Will Beback  talk  19:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The only new article that was created by the split is the one entitled "Transcendental Meditation Technique", so it is not accurate to say that three articles were split off from it. Before the split, the content about the technique was in the main TM article (because it was the technique article) and the new article was used to remove the most important content about the technique from it. If we can all acknowledge that the content of the main article for the term "Transcendental Meditation" is the main issue, then it will become clear that any decision to change this content by redistributing it into different articles should have been discussed carefully. This did not happen. There was not even an agreement to create a split. Even if there had been such an agreement, the next step should have been to discuss the new content of the main article carefully. I did not agree about the split, I certainly did not agree that the new content should be a summary and even less about the current content of that so called summary. This important split was essentially the work of one or two editors. We need to proceed in steps: first we see if there could be a consensus for the split, then we see if there could be a consensus that the new content should be a summary and then, if we succeed to go that far, we have to discuss the content of that summary. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

No, three articles (at least) have been split off from this article: Transcendental Meditation movement, History of Transcendental Meditation, and Transcendental Meditation technique. As for how those splits happened, you can read through the talk page archives and contribution histories.   Will Beback  talk  23:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I did not realize that you were speaking about old history. I think we should be concerned about the (recent) split. What point are you trying to make by going so far in the past? Please don't answer. It is a rhetorical question. Focus on the remainder of my comment instead. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It's all history.   Will Beback  talk  23:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the key issue is that the recent part of that history was done without consensus. It is thus a current affair. I think it will help a lot to acknowledge that. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, I'm not interested in rehashing the same split indefinitely. It's beating a dead horse. If you'd like to discuss the current articles then I'm interested.   Will Beback  talk  00:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, that is what we are doing, but the context is crucial. To make a step ahead, you need to have a foot on the ground. If editors say that important edits that change the complete structure of the main TM article without consensus are OK, then we don't have a foot on the ground. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

If we all have to agree on interpretations of past activities before starting new discussions then we'll never get anything done around here.  Will Beback  talk  00:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Even from that perspective (in which we would ignore how we get to the current situation), we already explained what's wrong with the situation. The main article is denuded of the important content. It does not reflect the fact that "Transcendental Meditation" means the technique. Also, irrespectively of the meaning of TM, most links to this article that currently exist in the Internet are based on the previous content, which was about the technique. Also, irrespectively of the past, we should agree that the content of the main article (for the term "Transcendental Meditation") is the main issue. In particular, this would invalidate the principle that moving information around is not a big deal because it is available somewhere else. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 01:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The article makes it quite clear the TM is a meditation technique:

• Transcendental Meditation (TM) is both a specific form of mantra meditation, the Transcendental Meditation technique, and a spiritual movement, the Transcendental Meditation movement.

Is that unclear?   Will Beback  talk  01:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, so we are back at square one: what is the meaning of "Transcendental Meditation"? Is it an ambiguous term that can be used by itself, i.e., as a name, to mean either the technique or the movement? This is the very point that was the subject of the Rfc. If "Transcendental Meditation" by itself naturally means the technique, not the movement, then the main article should be about the technique, as it has been in the past. I don't know what others think, but I would accept that we focus on that issue. This time, let us not confuse the use of the term "Transcendental Meditation" an an adjective, as in Transcendental Meditation Movement, with its use as a name. In particular, let us distinguish between all the content that can be found when we search "Transcendental Meditation" in Google and the possible meanings of "Transcendental Meditation". A Google search locates the use of a term as an adjective as well and so is not a good way to determine the natural content of an article. For example, if we search Pepsi in Google, PepsiCo is the second entry in the results, but yet the main Misplaced Pages article for Pepsi is about the beverage and there is a separate article for PepsiCo. There is no summary article for Pepsi and PepsiCo. They simply use a DAB link so that people interested about PepsiCo can easily locate the article. If there are reliably sourced viewpoints about the transcendental meditation technique that mention the movement, they can be included in this article, but we should not completely organize the article around these viewpoints. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 03:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is part of the Religion wikiproject. There have been attempts to convince some of us that TM is just an non religious technique. Some of us are not convinced after reviewing all the evidence. We understand what you are saying but disagree with your conclusions. Much scholarly work also disagrees. Thus repeating yourself will accomplish little. This is not a problem of misunderstanding. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a perennial issue: technique vs. movement. Plenty of sources can be found to support both sides. The simple truth is that it's both, plus more. A classic example of a good summary article is World War II. That's huge topic, and the edges aren't all clearly defined. Almost every section is simply a summary of other articles, many of which have summaries of yet other articles. But there are also sections which help give the big picture or include details best left there. It doesn't decide whether WW II was fought mainly in Europe or in Asia, it includes both major theaters of war. Likewise, this article does not need to decide which term is foremost, it includes both. It also includes summary sections that link to long articles. And there are sections that fit best here (no one wants to move them to the technique article). So although the subject matters couldn't be more different, the article structures are similar. So let's get back to the opening sentence. Is there anything unclear about it?   Will Beback  talk  09:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I had to read it twice, which is not a good sign. At the moment: Transcendental Meditation (TM) is both a specific form of mantra meditation, and, the Transcendental Meditation movement.. Rumiton (talk) 10:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

How about The term Transcendental Meditation (TM) can refer either to the technique of Transcendental Meditation, which is a specific form of mantra meditation, or to the spiritual movement based on this meditation, the Transcendental Meditation movement.. Hhmm, except that it's rather complex looking, and now we look like getting into a disambiguation situation.

I still find it clearer, though. Rumiton (talk) 10:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's better in some respect. How about "Transcendental Meditation" (TM) refers to the Transcendental Meditation technique, a specific form of mantra meditation, and to the Transcendental Meditation movement, a spiritual movement?   Will Beback  talk  10:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

That works pretty good for me. Short and clear. Rumiton (talk) 11:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Before we discuss details of sentence structure, we should actually look at the sources and see the exact sentences that use "Transcendental Mediation" by itself (as a name) to mean the movement. We never did that systematically. I looked in Google for sentences with "is a religion" and found sentences such as "Global Warming is a Religion", "Evolution is a religion", "Software development is, and has always been, a religion", etc. In all these cases, what is actually meant is either that the belief in the process is a religious belief or that the organisations teaching the process are like religions. We cannot use these sentences to change the meaning of "Global Warming", etc. We need to understand why we would do that with "Transcendental Meditation". We also need to see what kind of sources use "TM" to mean a movement. Irrespectively of the sources, we should also estimate what percentage of the sentences that use "TM" as a name use it to mean a movement. Is it 10%, 20%, 30%? If it is that low, then the main article should still be about the technique, not the movement. We can easily incorporate these special use of "TM" in the article. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 11:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

We can keep discussing the big issues. But we can make small improvements while we're doing that. The draft there has the identical meaning to the existing text, but is easier to read. Any objections to swapping it in while we continue to ponder the major issues?   Will Beback  talk  12:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I object. Let's resolve the major discussion first, then we can clean up the article. --BwB (talk) 12:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not a serious objection, considering you've been editing the concerned articles yourself. I don't see any objection to the text itself, which is just a minor copyedit of what we have already.   Will Beback  talk  20:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

A key section that needs to be considered is this one . As it stands now, it seems that there is not even a single source that uses "TM" as a name (by itself) to mean the movement. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

(undent) How about "Transcendental Meditation, also called TM, spiritual movement that was founded by the Indian teacher the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi" EB? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

That version leaves out the eponymous meditation practice at the core of the movement. Why would you wish to do that? Rumiton (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This is just a quote from the encyclopedia britanica that uses TM to mean spiritual movement. I am not suggesting we do the exact same. We should explain both meanings as we do now. This was just a reply to Ediths question above.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

My concern is that, in beginning to deal with an article that several of the editors here do not think should be in existence, those editors and their opinions will once again be marginalized. If there is a possibility an article will be deleted/merged/moved why work on it?Thanks Rumiton for you outside input.(olive (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC))

@Rumiton, Doc James found that definition in Encyclopedia Britannica Online. As you point out, there is something curious about it - it omits the most common and natural meaning: the technique. Fortunately, the remaining of the EB entry clarifies the situation because thereafter TM is constantly used in this entry to mean the technique, not the movement. Actually, we do not have yet a single source that uses TM to mean the movement. There is this EB definition of TM as a movement, but in practice TM (as a name) means the technique. It is used as an adjective in TM movement, TM teacher, etc. but TM alone means the technique. There are sentences such as TM is cult, but we can also find sentences such as "Global Warming is a religion", "Evolution is a religion", etc. - it does not mean that the meaning of these terms is ambiguous. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

@Olive, I totally agree. If one or two editors can totally change an article content, years of work, without consensus and then say it is history, we don't discuss that, then why work on it? Let me clarify that I am not working now on the first sentence of the article, which confuses the meaning of TM. This first sentence is an important issue, but I am working on the overall structure of the TM article, proposing that it goes back to its pre-split state, which is a more important issue. It turns out that the meaning of TM plays a role in that other issue as well. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

(indent) So, let us go back that section , which is still empty. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The phrase Transcendental Meditation is defined as a technique of meditation. This is verified in multiple dictionaries and encyclopedias. It is a noun. However it can also be used as a adjective. Just like the word olive. Olive pit, olive oil, olive colored shirt. This doesn't make the word olive ambiguous in its meaning. The Transcendental Meditation article was redefined and split without need and did a diservice to Misplaced Pages and its readers. In my opinion that action should be reversed. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The core issue we are discussing is the split of the Transcendental Meditation article into two articles based on a redefinition of the term to mean two things instead of one. It is clear in this week long discussion that there is no clear agreement about the definition of the term and hence the content of that article. Several editors have indicated that the split was a mistake and should be reversed while several other editors say its in the past, leave it alone. However, Wikpedia is a river not a rock. Anything can be created, changed or reverted with editor consensus. The problem is how to we get a consensus? Since a week long discussion has not yielded any items of agreement and an RfC was already initiated on this very topic (definition of the term and two articles (TM and TMT) instead of one. I am in favor of meditation which will provide a structure and order to this discussion which we can't seem to achieve ourselves.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The section "Definition of TM as a movement" was deleted and its content moved into the previously empty section "Use of TM as a movement" . This is inappropriate because there is a fundamental distinction between definitions of a term in dictionaries and its uses in practice. Dictionaries are tertiary sources whereas the uses of a term in practice can be found in secondary sources. Misplaced Pages recommend that we favour secondary sources over tertiary sources. In any case, even if we consider tertiary sources, as pointed by KeithBob, TM is defined as a technique in the majority of dictionaries and encyclopedias . Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Question: It seems we have a group that definitely wants to merge this TM article into the TM technique article and a group that definitely doesn't want do that. Is that correct? If so, is there some kind of middle ground that maintains the kind of article that was presplit with an article that satisfies those who don't want to have that presplit article. We've had suggestions from both sides but so far no resolution. I've also suggested a mediator to help us on this, but that idea wasn't particularly well received by some. Any other thoughts?olive (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC))

@Olive, I really think that you should start to state the issue in terms of merging into the Transcendental Meditation article (the main article for "Transcendental Meditation"), not in terms of merging into the Transcendental Meditation Technique article, which is naturally interpreted as the new article, not the main TM article. I do not want to merge anything in this new article, unless it becomes the main article after redirection, but it is simpler to leave out the possibility of a redirection for the time being. We can discuss redirection later. It is a distinct issue. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I am OK for mediation. IMHO Transcendental Meditation is a form of meditation and this should be the prime focus of the main article on the subject. --BwB (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The main article on the subject of the "Transcendental Meditation technique" is Transcendental Meditation technique. Having an article with the same name as the subject seems like a good idea to me.   Will Beback  talk  21:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, the main issue now is the main article for the (search) term "Transcendental Meditation". This search term will always exist and we are now discussing the main article for it. What happens with the search term "Transcendental Meditation Technique" is not currently the issue. Later on, if needed, we will be able to achieve this good idea and yet respect the fact that TM means the technique by redirecting TM to TM technique. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

So you don't think that the article about the Transcendental Meditation technique should be named "Transcendental Meditation technique"?   Will Beback  talk  22:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)s

I did not say that. Let us focus on the main article for the search term "Transcendental Meditation". It is the content that matters and, IMHO, its prime focus should be the technique. This leaves open many possibilities: using a redirection this main article could be named "Transcendental Meditation Technique" or otherwise, there could be an extension to that article with yet another name, etc. I agree that the term "Transcendental Meditation Technique" should be directed or redirected to this main article also because it is less confusing if two synonymous terms are directed to the same article, even if one of the terms emphasizes the technique aspect. However, can we simplify the issue and focus on the main article for "Transcendental Meditation" without discussing a possible move of that article into a different name. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, so you care about the content rather than the name. The name is "Transcendental Meditation technique" and the content discusses the Transcendental Meditation technique. What is the problem with the content of that article that you'd like to address?   Will Beback  talk  00:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I care about the content attached to the search term "Transcendental Meditation". How many times will I have to repeat that? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "search term" - do you mean "article title"? The article titled "Transcendental Meditation technique" contains a full description of that technique. The article titled "Transcendental Meditation" contains a summary of that technique along with summaries of other topics that fall under Transcendental Meditation. Is there anything that's inaccurate in this article?   Will Beback  talk  00:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not mean "article title". Unless you have a different configuration than me, on the top right corner of a Misplaced Pages page you have a search bar. A search term goes into that bar and then you get an article or a DAB page. If you get an article, it is the main article for the term. If there is no main article, then you get a DAB page. In the case of the search term "Transcendental Meditation", we currently get the article also entitled "Transcendental Meditation", but that name can change with redirection. I propose that we do not worry about the name of that article at this point, but focus on the content of the main article for the search term "Transcendental Meditation", irrespectively of its title. I hope that it is now clearer. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 00:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I still don't get your issue with "search term". We're not here to manipulate affect the outcome of Misplaced Pages's search engine. The first sentence of this article makes it clear that "TM" refers to two things, a technique and a movement. It has links to articles on both topics. I don't see how readers are bing confused by the Misplaced Pages search engine. If they want to learn about "Transcendental Meditation" then this article is a good starting point.   Will Beback  talk  01:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I explained here why I cannot reply to this last comment. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Changed words, but same meaning. Reply or not as you see fit.   Will Beback  talk  01:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

(indent) If there were no possible redirection, I would simply say that we should be concerned directly with the content of the article entitled "Transcendental Meditation". If it is too complicated for you, just take it that way. However, redirection is possible and it is not excluded that eventually "Transcendental Meditation" would be redirected to "Transcendental Meditation Technique" and we would have no article left entitled "Transcendental Meditation". I simply do not want that our discussion is dependent upon any particular redirection. This seems just a good thing, more general, less dependent upon issues that we can discuss later. A redirection, if any, and the title are also important, yes, but we can discuss that separately. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

We can't just make this into a redirect because there's significant content here. I asked if anyone wanted to merge that content into the TMT article and no one did. Is there another article you propose merging or splitting it to?   Will Beback  talk  02:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

In my last comment, I am not proposing merging, redirecting or anything like that. For simplicity, as a first approximation, just assume that I propose that we focus on the content of the article entitled "Transcendental Meditation", but without excluding a possible redirection that I do not want to discuss yet. There is no way you can force in the discussion that forever there will be no redirection. In that context, I am also proposing that "Transcendental Meditation" means the technique and the article should primary be about the technique. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 02:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I asked you before if there's anything inaccurate in this article, but I'm not sure if you ever responded. Is there anything in this article that's incorrect?   Will Beback  talk  02:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It's prime focus is not consistent with the title. We actually had a long discussion about it, discussing about the meaning of the title. This shows that we need mediation so that this particular discussion can bring us somewhere. You also asked a similar question about the article entitled "Transcendental Meditation Technique", the problem with this other article is that its title is synonymous with "Transcendental Meditation" - two articles on the same subject is a problem. We asked several time why do we need another article on the same subject? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying that there's no such thing as the Transcendental Meditation movement? That when people say "TM is building Peace Palaces" they mean that practicing the meditation technique will result in the construction of two-story buildings? That's one view and I don't mean to convince anyone of anything here. Anyway, no one can identify any inaccuracy in the text of this article, no one wants to merge the unique text in this article into the technique article, and no one has proposed any other way of arranging the information. It sounds like the sole issue with the 5 editors is the name of the article. Is that right? Is that the only issue here?   Will Beback  talk  09:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue is that we need help so that this discussion can start to make sense. Your last comments put words in my mouth and in the mouths of others that as far as I can tell we never said. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

But the issue is just about a merge, right? Nothing else?   Will Beback  talk  10:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

My chosen mode of Wikipedi-ing over the last few years has been to flit happily around among several hundred articles making small suggestions for the way they are presented, hoping to remove ambiguities and make them more enjoyable to the reader. About a quarter of the articles I look at are under stress from editors who believe (arguably wrongly) that their article is in a parlous state which must urgently be corrected. I don't usually get involved, it's an unrewarding business at best, but I am personally interested in the subject of meditation so here goes... First, I agree with Will Beback that even when big changes are under discussion, the existing article must continue to evolve. Misplaced Pages would grind to a halt if it were otherwise. Second, (if I have understood this view correctly) I can appreciate that editors who value the TM techniques of meditation would wish them to be covered in the first article that a searcher finds. But given the way the articles are currently organised, which seems a logical way, it is hard to see how this could be achieved without some artificial naming or shifting of content for alphabetical purposes. This would not be stable, and would violate Misplaced Pages neutrality. Third, the three sources I have, Partridge, Hunt and Hummel, all switch quite freely between writing about the meditation and about the way the meditation evolved and was promulgated (the "movement"). IOW, they use the term TM to mean both the techniques and their history, so the main article as it stands is correct in this approach. Given this, I can only suggest you ensure the techniques are fairly covered in the first TM article, and expanded upon in their own article. Rumiton (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. The pre-split state of the TM article made sense and was logical and stable for a long time. It had room for aspects of the TM movement. The split was motivated by a length issue, which has nothing to do with logic - there was no problem in any browser, and on a new definition of Transcendental Meditation that is not supported by the vast majority of dictionaries and encyclopaedia. So there is not much logic supporting it. Your point of view could made sense for other meditations, especially those for which we do not have as many reliable and independent sources about the meditation itself - I noticed that you are involved in another article about meditation. We have much more reliable sources for TM than for other kind of meditations. The articles must follow sources and be logically organized accordingly. I thank you for your call to follow logic. That is all what is expected here. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

There have been over 300 edits to this talk page in the past week plus, and so far no-one has articulated a single substantive reason why there is anything whatsoever wrong, inaccurate, or misleading about the current arrangement of articles, notwithstanding repeated requests for someone, anyone, to state a reason why a change should be made. At this point, more than a fair opportunity has been afforded. Any further discussion, absent some sea-change in approach to this non-controversy, is nothing more than tendatiousness and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT Fladrif (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Flad there are two side to this discussion so commenting as if the "blame" for the length of the discussion belongs to some editors and not others is a trifle one-sided. In fact there have been objections to the current situation and suggestions to deal with them. Fair opportunity for what? I have asked multiple times why there is objection to the pre split article, and don't remember any clear reasons given. Multiple editors have suggested mediation to help us reach a consensus. There seems to be reluctance on the part of some to bring this discussion to a close with outside help. and that is a curious situation for editors who say they want a solution to long drawn out discussion.(olive (talk) 00:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC))

Nice try, but you don't get to turn this on its head. You are the ringleader for those wanting a change. Neither you nor anyone else has articluated any substantive reason whatsoever why the current article structure should be changed. The burden is on you. Fladrif (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Ringleader? That's offensive. Turn it on its head? I'm stating a fact. There are two sides to this, neither side is right or wrong so wording that suggests that there was a group effort to somehow manipulate here is offensive and wrong. You as an editor have one opinion I have another. And yes there are reasons for a change and they have been articulated here, and whether they are substantive or not is your subjective opinion. Consider reading the following thread to update your information.(olive (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC))

Annoying though it may be, it seems to me the ante-the split people here would be better occupied in looking for ways to improve the current articles. Several have been suggested. In cases like this, mediation can help sometimes, but not always. Likewise comment requests. It may sound harsh, but splitting up large or multi-faceted articles is pretty normal, and this article splitting is now a fait accompli. I would say, Accept and get on with it. Rumiton (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

@Rumiton, I have two concerns regarding your proposals. First, if the opinions of so many editors can be marginalized up to the points that the structure of an article can be completely changed while ignoring the logic of their position, how can you expect that these editors get interested in working on that article. Second, even if we decided to ignore this and continue with the article, we would need to agree on the meaning of the title so that we can structure the article accordingly and I see no interest being manifested here in discussing logically the meaning of the title using reliable sources, which are being compiled in this page. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Rumiton. Many of the editors here were part of the TM arbitration and as such all of us were cautioned to work in a collaborative manner.The TM article has indeed undergone multiple split offs of content, but those splits given the contentious area were carried out with editor input and agreement. RfC's are meant to solve problems and to further collaborative processes not hand editors the environment to preempt the RfC and carry out unilateral edits in the face of editors who do not agree. As well the split that was carried out has some interesting POV elements to it. None of this jives with the spirit of the TM arbitration. The present TM article is a hodge-podge of different kinds of information and if it stays needs to take on some clearly defined boundaries. I have yet to be given a clear reason for its existence and since its creation was contentious, I have been very cautious about holding on to it. As well editors where marginalized in the discussion following the creation of the article so editing into it now may not be an obvious next step in dealing with it. Before your comment I had made a suggestion below as an attempt to compromise. I am only one editor so no telling where that will go with the other editors here.(olive (talk) 15:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC))

Support for current arrangement of content

We have a number of recent comments that support the current arrangements

User:John Carter

User:Rumiton

User:Hordaland

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

And there still seems to be a number of editors that do not. --BwB (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The list that Doc James posted is of otherwise uninvolved editors. I don't see any uninvolved editors supporting merging the articles.   Will Beback  talk  09:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little baffled here - 3 new editors show up and make 1 or 2 comments on the talk pages and we are supposed to immediately abandon weeks of discussion on the topic and adopt their opinions without discussion? Is this what Doc is suggesting? --BwB (talk) 09:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The purposes of RfC is to get outside input. FWIW, John Carter is the 31st-most active Wikipedian, and has edited almost 70,000 unique pages.   Will Beback  talk  09:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Mr Carter is a very experienced Wiki head, but I was referring to their very limited participation in the discussion of TM article. --BwB (talk) 10:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

That's what "outside" means, as in "outside input", the purpose of WP:RFC.   Will Beback  talk  11:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"One swallow does not make a summer, neither does one fine day; similarly one day or brief time of happiness does not make a person entirely happy." Aristotle. --BwB (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

What do three swallows make?   Will Beback  talk  11:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

A gulp! --BwB (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Doc James must have in mind some statements of these editors, which he interprets in favour of "the current arrangement". However, to the contrary, as pointed out below, these editors have expressed various opinions suggesting different "arrangements". For example, John Carter suggested a DAB page, which is not the current arrangement. Moreover, a support for the "current arrangement" would not necessarily mean a support for the current choice of titles, which is a fundamental aspect of the current issue. As BwB points out, it seems too early to draw a definitive conclusion. A discussion based on reliable sources on the meaning of the different titles (especially "Transcendental Meditation", but also "Transcendental Meditation Movement") is needed before we can evaluate an organisation of the articles on the movement and the technique. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I've proposed a DAB page as a solution. See below.   Will Beback  talk  12:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Summary and suggestion

• John Carter suggests a dab page... but is unaware that the present situation was not reached by "extensive previous discussion".

"...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."

• Rumiton supports the present configuration with the stipulation that "I can only suggest you ensure the techniques are fairly covered in the first TM article, and expanded upon in their own article."

• Hordaland suggests:

"The solution which seems obvious to me is to have two articles:" Transcendental Meditation methods (or techniques or program or methodology),Transcendental Meditation movement where each refers to the other in the first line.

And:

He questions why there has to be a parent article but if one is necessary it should be short

• Several editors suggest mediation

So it seems we have several different suggestions.

• if I understand Edith she suggests a dab page is not the way to go because TM is not used to mean different things and is not ambiguous, but rather the words like "technique" are definers or adjectives ( I hope I have that right)

• From Will's comment I'd say the article is neither DAB nor parent article but something in between.

Another suggestion:

• A summary style article that links to TM movement and TM technique, and any content in either of those two article that has its own article should be summarized in a section and linked to the "master"article.(olive (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC))

FYI, if we want to use the term, I consider this a "parent article" that covers the entire topic of TM. Some parts are covered in summary, with links to fuller treatments in separate articles, and two parts are covered here in full. Those could be moved to separate articles as an alternative. But in either case this is the main article that covers all parts of TM, the technique, the movement, the history, the theoretical background, etc.   Will Beback  talk  10:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that if the TM/parent summary article is to stay there needs to be clear boundaries about what it includes or doesn't include. And I am making a suggestion here, but do not speak for any other editors.(olive (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC))

Pasted from above: "It is basically a summary article, including summaries of the three main articles that have been split off from it, and two sections that do not obviously belong anywhere else. See WP:SUMMARY for more information. Will Beback talk 19:30, 29"

@Olive, I wrote a brief statement regarding the meaning of the term "Transcendental Meditation" here . I think you got it right. It is based on dictionaries, encyclopaedia and practical uses of the term. The wordings is mine and it could be better. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Transcendental Meditation is a meditation technique - this should be the parent of all articles on the subject. This is my considered view. --BwB (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

That seems so natural. In addition, anyone is free to create a parent article with a larger subject that will include Transcendental Meditation, the technique, as long as it has a title that matches this larger subject. I agree hat this can be a natural organisation, but to entitle this parent article "Transcendental Meditation" is obviously an attempt to redefine the term "Transcendental Meditation", to make it more vague. As it is now in the current TM article, it seems a notion that is larger than the technique and the movement, perhaps a philosophy. A summary? A summary of what? Not even clear what it is. This could make sense if the term "Transcendental Meditation" would very often refer to this mysterious concept in reliable sources. However. this is not seen in reliable sources. Almost all the times, TM is used to mean the technique. When it might not seem clear, it is in situations similar to "Global Warming is a religion", "Evolution is a religion", etc., which actually do not make the corresponding terms ambiguous. I did not see yet a discussion on this issue that was based on logic and reliable sources. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me add that the TM article can contain a link to the parent article and it can also have content about the movement that is directly relevant to the technique. This is not about hiding information. The information is accessible in both cases, pre-split or post-split, and in that sense, it is not about how things are organized. It is about not creating confusion about what the term "Transcendental Meditation" means. In the pre-split way, the term "Transcendental Meditation" respected its uses in reliable sources. This is not true anymore after the split. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Edith 2, you just applied POV tags to the article. I'm curious to know what you think the first sentence of the article titled "Transcendental Meditation" should look like instead of its current text. Could you show us what you want it to say?   Will Beback  talk  23:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Any sentence that respects the natural meaning of "Transcendental Meditation" would be fine. There is a current dispute on whether TM alone can mean a movement, but no one questions that it means a technique. To have a sentence that put the two meanings as if they are both natural, when one of them is perhaps just an interpretation of some editors here, is not NPOV at all. In addition, to do that in the first sentence is totally undue weight. NPOV does not mean to put all POV at the same level. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

TM has two meaning. There is so much evidence to support this. Thus removed these POV tags as they make no sense.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

TM fundamentally means a meditation technique.That is the semantics of the phrase. TM has also become the cliche driven slang for the organization that teaches the technique and deals with other related programs. We have sources that us TM to mean movement, and the use of "TM movement" in sources including within the TM organization itself. As such we have no choice but to use TM to mean TM movement and TM technique. I think dab page would be fine to do that.(olive (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC))

I disagree that "TM has also become the cliche driven slang for the organization that teaches the technique and deals with other related programs." I don't see this use in reliable sources. What are the examples that made you think that way? I don't see sentences such "I work for Transcendental Meditation" or things like that. The only cases I see are sentences such "Transcendental Meditation is a cult", but this means nothing. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I had a second thought. Even though "Transcendental Meditation is a religion" seems a shortcut for a sentence such as " Transcendental Meditation is a religion", if this usage has become relatively common, then it is the same as saying that TM has become a "cliche driven slang" for a religion. Fine, but it is still an exaggeration to have two articles on Transcendental Meditation because of that. This slang uses of TM was already incorporated in the original article on TM and there is no need for a separate article. We could still have one article entitled Transcendental Meditation where TM primarily means the technique and yet include this slang when needed. I also think that to give equal weight to this slang in a single sentence is not NPOV and to do that in the first sentence is totally undue weight. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

With regard to a DAB page, it should be used for unrelated meanings that cannot naturally fit together. It does not seem appropriate to disambiguate in separate articles these two related meanings. It contradicts Rumilton's point, which says that we can pass from one meaning to the other in one paragraph. It contradicts that it is not really a completely different meaning: it is just a shortcut for something like "The belief system behind Transcendental Meditation." Therefore, the DAB page does not address the issue. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on the meaning of Transcendental Meditation

Most dictionaries and encyclopedia defines TM as a technique (see ). In practice, TM as a noun is used most of the times to mean a technique (see below) and only in some occasions to mean a movement, a religion or a philosophy (see ). Moreover, we can also find statements in the Internet such as "Global Warming is a religion", "Evolution is a religion", etc. and these special cases do not mean that these terms are ambiguous. The same is true for "Transcendental Meditation". Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

On what basis do you says "most"? An assertion like that requires checking all of the dictionaries and encyclopedias and then assessing their view. All we can say is that "most citations to dictionaries and encyclopedia posted by an editor..." define TM in a certain way. The ways in which evolution might be considered a religion and the ways in the TM are considered a religion are quite different. I don't think it's a helpful comparison. TM is considered a religion by just about everyone who writes books about new religious movements. Some even call it a "cult". No scholar of religion calls evolution a religion. Since Olive tells us that a technique can not be a cult, those references are all to the TM movement. Will Beback talk 11:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

?   Will Beback  talk  12:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Below I propose that we consider more reliable sources and more external opinions to help us draw a conclusion from these sources. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 13:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Disambiguation page

One alternative is to merge the existing, unique contents of this article (namely: "Theoretical issues" and "Characterizations") into Transcendental Meditation technique, and then turn this page into a pure disambiguation page with links to Transcendental Meditation technique and Transcendental Meditation movement and nothing else. This is would implement the proposal made by user:John Carter. While I don't think it quite as good as the current arrangement, for reasons I've discussed above, I think it could be a workable compromise.   Will Beback  talk  10:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I interpret the suggestion of John Carter to mean that usually people do not get a consensus on the meaning of terms. However, each case is different and I suggest that we try to have the opinions of more uninvolved editors about the meaning of the term Transcendental Meditation based on reliable sources, not just personal opinions or feelings. We can also ask a mediation. You seem to believe that the list of dictionaries and encyclopaedia considered is not representative of all of them. I was not aware that there were that many, but if that is the case, let us consider more of them. More importantly, let us consider how the term is used as a noun in practice in reliable secondary sources. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

So is that a "yes" or a "no"? I'm guessing "no".   Will Beback  talk  13:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. I respect a lot the opinion of John Carter. I can see what he was talking about. I only said that each case is different and (before we consider a DAB page) let us first try to have more external opinions on the meaning of TM as seen in reliable sources. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 13:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Your comment of 21:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC) above seems to reject the DAB solution. Let's see what other editors have to say.   Will Beback  talk  21:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

OK.

In "New Religions: A Guide" Christopher Partridge starts off, Transcendental Meditation (TM) was founded by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in 1957 and claims to be a modern form of of the techniques taught in the Yoga Sutra -- attributed to Patanjali (2nd century BCE) etc... So this is about the technique. But then he talks about the life and work of MMY and his founding the "Spiritual Regeneration Movement" and the "International Meditation Society", and then his "World Plan" for creating one teaching centre per million people. These refs are all about the movement(s). They are all under the heading of TM. Then he talks more about the technique and its effects.

Stephen J Hunt in "Alternative Religions: A Sociological Introduction" starts, The organisation associated with the technique of Transcendental Meditation (TM) was founded by the Maharishi... After also discussing the World Plan(s) and other programs, he goes into the technique and its effects. He then returns to the movement and whether it can claim to be not a religion.

Reinhardt Hummel in "Indische Mission und Neue Frömmigkeit im Westen" (Indian Missions and (the) New Piety in the West) discusses the religious and philosophic antecedents of both the movement and the techniques without drawing a hard distinction between them. Rumiton (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that research. It shows that "TM" is used by scholars to refer to both a technique and a movement. A "parent article", like we have now, is one solution, and a disambiguation page is another.   Will Beback  talk  21:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict: And another solution is to have two articles one on each which we had. However, if we need a landing article, a summary article as I suggested, and as did Will did first... or a DAB page that deals with TM technique and TM movement seem to be the current suggestions which I'm fine with.(olive (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC))

(indent) So, I see two options here:

• A disambiguation page that separates the two meanings. This means two articles: the Transcendental Meditation Technique article where TM never means something else than a technique and the Transcendental Meditation Movement article for other meanings of TM and other aspects of the movement.
• An article entitled "Transcendental Meditation" that will include these two meanings with due weight and still a "DAB link" at the top toward the article "Transcendental Meditation Movement" for aspects of the movement that are less related to the technique.

Will, can you tell me why you prefer the first option? Or perhaps you had a third option in mind when you offered a compromise. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

In your list, Option #2 is the current situation. I'm fine with keeping it as it is but I gather that a few editors object. So I proposed Option #1, merging the remaining content into TMT and making this a straight DAB page with simple links to TMT, TMM, and perhaps the history article.   Will Beback  talk  22:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd support a DAB page because I think it will tidier and easier to discern what goes where, less contentious discussion. I understand, I think Edith's concern with TM movement which in a sense is an artificial term, but we have many sources that have been presented in the last year or so that use that terminology, and we'd are compelled at this point to deal with those sources and that terminology somehow.(olive (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC))

@Olive, I do have a little problem with "Transcendental Meditation Movement" when used to refer to the organization. I prefer "Transcendental Meditation Organization" in that context because "movement" can mean a new tendency as in "new age movement". However, I do not have a problem with "Transcendental Meditation Movement" for the title of an article. This is not the issue. I will explain the issue I see later on. I was just asking a question. I really need to see what people are expecting.

@Will, the second option was not intended to mean the current situation. In this option, the Transcendental Meditation article does not exclude any aspect of the technique (research, etc.) - this is what it means to cover the two meanings. It would be natural to delete the Transcendental Meditation Technique article in this option because the content would already be covered. As a small variation on this second option, we could move all the content of Transcendental Meditation in Transcendental Meditation Technique, but then we would need to redirect "Transcendental Meditation" to this Transcendental Meditation Technique article. In both variations, we do not need a DAB page because the two meanings of TM are covered in the article. Also, very important, the first option implies a cleaning of the Transcendental Meditation Technique article of all content that is not about the technique - nothing about TM is a religion, TM is a cult because the purpose of the DAB page is to separate these meanings.

So, in that context, why do you prefer the first option? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I misunderstood the proposal. With your new explanation it appear that your Option #2 is the merge and rename proposal that has been made all along. Is that right? In that case there are (at least) three options, the third option being the status quo. That's the option which I prefer, but Option #1 is an acceptable compromise. I prefer #3 because some material isn't really exactly about the TMT or the TMM, and moving that material to TMT makes for a very long article. As I and others have said countless times on this page, "TM" refers to both a movement and a technique, which is why putting one or the other at "TM" is inappropriate. That's why Misplaced Pages has DAB pages.   Will Beback  talk  23:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the merge of TMT into TM and the optional subsequent renaming and redirection of TM into TMT would be a natural part of option #2. So, just to be clear, you prefer the statu quo, but will accept option #1 including the cleaning of all content that relates to TM is a religion, TM is a cult, etc. out of the TMT article because you prefer it to option #2. Is that correct? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I think my proposal (option #1 in your list) is clear: merge the existing, unique contents of this article (namely: "Theoretical issues" and "Characterizations") into Transcendental Meditation technique, and then turn this page into a pure disambiguation page with links to Transcendental Meditation technique and Transcendental Meditation movement and nothing else.   Will Beback  talk  00:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, but doesn't "Characterizations" contains stuff about TM is a religion? I don't understand. We make a big deal about the two meanings, one being exemplified by TM is a religion, etc., and the need to disambiguate these two meanings, but then we don't disambiguate these two meanings - they would be still both in the TMT article. If we don't disambiguate them, then we should not need a DAB page and we could have both meanings in TM as in option #2. No? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really following your argument.   Will Beback  talk  00:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

(indent) Which part? I understand that the compromise is to get rid of the summary and replace it with a DAB page. This is easy to understand. However, I see two problems with this proposed compromise:

• It says that one of the meaning of TM is synonymous with TMM. However, special cases such as "TM is a religion" or "TM is a cult" are no argument to say that TM is synonymous with TMM. These special cases are only shortcuts for sentences like "The belief system behind TM (the technique) is a religion". They can be easily covered in an article about the technique without having to add a completely different meaning to the term. (For the record, I personally disagree with these sentences, but if they are sourced, we can include them.)
• The suggested disambiguation is not done at all. If we actually did the disambiguation and put each meaning in their respective article, then it would at the least be consistent. For the record, I don't even think this disambiguation should be done. I think there is nothing to disambiguate and I am sure that it will never be done, as we can see in Will's replies.

I can see that Olive is happy to get rid of the summary, but in terms of respecting the meaning of "Transcendental Meditation", there is no improvement at all. There is a DAB page, but it is used to disambiguate between one meaning, which includes "TM is a technique" but also special uses such as "TM is a religion", and another meaning, which is the TMM. This other meaning, which goes much beyond the special slang, is not seen at all in reliable sources. This is a serious problem. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 07:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the proposal is not clear. This article would say something like:

"Transcendental Meditation" may refer to:

• Transcendental Meditation technique
• Transcendental Meditation movement

*History of Transcendental Meditation

That's all. The two sections of unique text would be moved to the TMT article. That's the proposal.   Will Beback  talk  08:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, but why the link to "History"? This can be covered either in the TMT and/or TMM articles with links to "History of Transcendental Meditation" article where appropriate. The history of the TM technique is different than the history of TMM, so their particular history should be covered in the individual articles. What to others think? --BwB (talk) 08:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not attached to having the "history" article in there. Issues with the history article itself should be discussed on that talk page - we've got enough to deal with here.   Will Beback  talk  08:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The issue in this proposal is that there is no main article TM anymore. This is not consistent with the non ambiguous meaning of TM. It unnaturally forces readers to decide which of TMT or TMM they want. Because it is an improvement over the current statu quo, I cannot oppose, I have to go with it, but the current issue regarding the meaning of TM is still there. There should normally exist a main article about TM because TM does not have any meaning synonymous with TMM. It only have some special uses such TM is a religion, which can be included in this main TM article, but not have as much weight as TM is a technique. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 12:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I just read the guideline regarding disambiguation pages and the different entries should correspond to different meanings of the term. So, I consider that the current proposal is against the guideline. It is still better than statu quo. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• I do not think that a DAB page is the solution. Nor will it reduce disputes over content, or "what goes where", as can already be seen from the comments above, advocating de-emphasizing this point or moving that point. And, I have in mind as well the history of the talk pages and positions that many of the current editors have taken about content issues. The current arrangement of articles is the way to go, where the parent article covers all of the main points in summary form, points readers to more detailed articles on technique, movement, history, leaders, organizations, theories, etc..., and serves as a place for material that does not obviously belong in article A or B or C, but straddles all of them. Arguments about what people expect to find in an article strike me as fundamentally misguided. Isn't the point of an encylopedia to serve as a reference for information that they don't already know, as opposed to simply satisfying their expectations or confirming their incomplete and uninformed knowledge? I don't know about anybody else, but I consult an encyclopedia to learn what I don't know. Fladrif (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

We should make it easy for readers to find new information, but I don't see how an organization of content that does not respect the meaning of terms can be useful for that purpose. Misplaced Pages is not the place for a propaganda for new meanings of terms. The entire issue here is that some editors feel that TM vs Religion/Cult should be the central scope of the TM article and others feel that the TM article should be about the technique with room for the aspect TM vs Religion/Cult, but without undue weight. Those who want TM to be about the technique have accepted the special uses "TM is a religion", perhaps as some slang, but still they have accepted it. Those who want to make TM vs Religion/Cult the central scope of the TM article have achieved this goal by moving all important content about the technique under TMT, leaving the other meaning under the TM article. So, let us go back to the main issue: what is the natural meaning of TM in accordance with sources and let us have a single article about TM that respects this meaning, including special uses - this is not about hiding information, but about respecting the meaning of terms. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Transcendental Meditation is a meditation technique - this should be the parent of all articles on the subject. --BwB (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "this"? Not to be glib...OK, to be glib...there are plenty of reliable sources that say TM is just a meditation technique in precisely the same sense that Scientology is just a personality test. TM is used by a multitude of reliable sources, as has been repeatedly documented, to mean the technique, the movement, the theory/philosphy/religion/science/belief system (whatever you want to call it) behind it, the organization, the full panoply of practices espoused by the TM organization, etc. MMY used TM interchangably with SCI. The MUM Press Style Guide distinguishes between the TM technique, the TM program and the TM movement. The parent article should give readers information about all these things, because there is no way of knowing what the reader may be interested in when they look for information on TM. Fladrif (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

"This" means the Transcendental Meditation technique, the meditation technique called Transcendental Meditation. --BwB (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Transcendental Meditation is a technique, and it is also a movement. Do you deny that?   Will Beback  talk  21:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I do deny that. It is not because we say TM movement that TM is a movement. For example, it will make no sense to me that a TM teacher would say "My employer is Transcendental Meditation". If TM meant the movement, it would sound right, but it does not. This is because TM in TM movement is used as an adjective. In contrast, "I practice Transcendental Meditation" makes perfect sense. This is because TM means the meditation, the procedure. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that reply, but I was asking Bwb.   Will Beback  talk  22:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome, even if you did not really thank me. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Transcendental Meditation is a meditation technique. I do not deny that there is something that people call the "Transcendental Meditation movement". But they are not the same thing.--BwB (talk) 11:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I assume that "do not deny" is the functionally same as "admit to be true". Nobody has said they're the same thing, so that's irrelevant. There exists a Transcendental Meditation movement or organization. It's referred to by reliable, scholarly sources. The sub-entities are mentioned even more commonly, though no one denies they are part of the movement inspired and led by the Maharishi, under the TM umbrella. The movement itself blurs the boundaries, as can be seen by how the research studies are cited to support so many different technologies and projects.   Will Beback  talk  11:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

@Will, I know you want the opinions or questions of others and it is wise - we need more people, but still new elements are brought in the picture and all opinions or questions matter. Here is a comment/question. It seems that your argument is that "Transcendental Meditation" "Transcendental Meditation" alone as a noun is now obsolete and therefore its actual meaning is irrelevant. You suggest that we only consider and compare the two terms "Transcendental Meditation Technique" and "Transcendental Meditation Movement." where it is used as an adjective. Is that a correct understanding of your position? If not, could you clarify. For the record, I think that "Transcendental Meditation" "Transcendental Meditation" alone as a noun is very often used in TV program, news paper, etc. It is very far from being obsolete and it still has kept its original meaning. It is not us, Misplaced Pages editors, that must do propaganda against the use of "Transcendental Meditation" alone as a noun. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I confess to being baffled trying to discern what it is that you are trying to ask. What do you mean by "'Transcendental Meditation' is now obsolete"? What do you mean by "doing propaganda against the use of 'Transcendental Meditation' alone as a noun"? Are olive and I correct in surmising that English is not your first language? That may be part of the problem here. I do not understand Will to be arguing anything of the kind, nor do I understand him saying that we only compare the TM technique and the TM movement. As I have pointed out above, the term is used more broadly than those two options, even within the TM organization. Fladrif (talk) 14:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It is better the way it is IMO. No need to change it as no reasons to change it have been put forth. Some have a desire to present the topic in a non NPOV manner with TM meaning only the technique in line with statements of official TM material. This is not going to happen and it is uncertain if anything else would be accepted as a compromise. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Who are these editors? Did not see anyone pushing for a TM article with no opening on TM vs Religion, etc. Certainly, myself I said several times that sentences such "TM is a religion" have a place in a TM article as long as they are sourced and presented with due weight. I did not ask that we exclude content from the TM article. On the other hand, there are editors that actually removed important content about the technique from the TM article and moved it in the TMT article. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a compromise and points to the two most general ways in which TM is used in the sources. Why would you say no one will compromise when several editors have obviously moved towards this solution from their initial suggestions. Your comment above "in a non NPOV manner with TM meaning only the technique in line with statements of official TM material" is another assumption of poor faith and personalizes comments to some editors. (olive (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC))

@Olive, the DAB page is better than the current situation and I support it. However, I disagree that the DAB page "points to the two most general ways in which TM is used in the sources". The most general way in which "Transcendental Meditation" is used in TV programs, News papers, etc. is still itself alone as a noun, not as an adjective for Technique or Movement. This is why I have a problem with a DAB page - it should not be needed - but I am supporting it because it is an improvement. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV-Title and NPOV-section (intro) Dispute

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

Summary of suggestions

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

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

Some context

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: How should we present the TM material

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

The question is what should be under the title "Transcendental Meditation." 03:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion 1

Leave it as it is with a short introduction page at Transcendental Meditation addressing the two main uses of the term ( the Transcendental Meditation movement and the Transcendental Meditation technique) with links to these two main topics. The introductory page would also have some material that deals equally with both main topics.

Involved editors

• Support I support this layout as TM is used to mean the technique and the movement about equally by google. Technique 244,000 Movement 155,000 . These two meaning are also used extensively by academic sources. This is thus the most WP:NPOV solution.

Note that in the first instance, your search string is malformed. You used "transcendental meditation technique free". TimidGuy (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes thank you. I only get 24,400 for the technique when corrected. while I get 162,000 for the movement.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Leave current arrangement as-is. Fladrif (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Could accept, but not as it is It is not possible to cover the important aspects of any of the two subjects in a short summary or introduction. At the end of the short article, in the current situation, the reader may have the impression that he has the big picture, the essential, but actually important material is missing - it has been removed. Removing material that fits within the scope of a title is not NPOV. To improve the situation, we would have to add important content about the two subjects and in doing so we will get back to an article as we had before TMM forked out of TM, but it could be much shorter since we have two extra articles for the details. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose There are not two main uses of the term "Transcendental Meditation." There is one main use, and one rare usage. Look at the data: 10 out of the first 10 search results in the LexisNexis newspaper database use the term "Transcendental Meditation" to refer to a specific type of meditation; 9 out of 10 for the Lexis/Nexis magazine database; 10 out of 10 for the Lexis broadcast transcript database; 10 out of 10 for Google Scholar; 8 out of 10 for Google Books; and 9 out of 10 for Google News Archive. Per WP:UNDUE, the use of the term "Transcendental Meditation" to refer to something other than a meditation technique is minor, and should be treated accordingly. The article on "Transcendental Meditation" should be about the meditation technique. It can mention in the context of the article that the term is sometimes used in a broader sense. And of course there can be a link to the article on "Transcendental Meditation movement," the term sometimes used to refer collectively to the organizations associated with Maharishi. TimidGuy (talk) 12:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Where were these searches discussed?   Will Beback  talk  03:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm interested in reviewing this data. Can anyone explain how these figures were determined?   Will Beback  talk  02:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The phrase 'Transcendental Meditation' is defined as a technique of meditation. This is verified in multiple dictionaries and encyclopedias which I have cited here. It is a noun. However, like any word, it can also be used as a adjective. For example the word olive. Olive pit, olive oil, olive colored shirt. This doesn't make the word 'olive' ambiguous in its meaning. Therefore the argument that Transcendental Meditation is sometimes used as an adjective before the words center, teacher, movement, project etc and that this usage makes its meaning ambiguous is a false logic. I due concede that on rare occasions the term by itself has been given alternative usages, but these instances comprise only a few percent of the overall number of usages and to redefine the term based on an occasional misuse of the phrase is inaccurate and a disservice to Wiki readers.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No one here is arguing that the term is not used to mean a technique. Thus providing further references to show it means a technique adds little. One would need to convince us that is does not mean a movement ( even a percent or two is sufficient if the refs are solid ). This would mean convincing us that the Encyclopedia Britannica is not a reliable source or we have misinterpreted it ( this would also need to take place for the few dozen other solid refs put forth ). A ref saying that it does not mean a movement would maybe needed which I assume does not exist the rest is original research :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This section is not the place for discussion or criticism of editors who are casting their "vote". Doc James could you please moved your comment to the Discussion Section? Otherwise we will have discussion here too. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Transcendental Meditation is first and foremost a meditation technique introduced my Maharishi sometime in the 50s. Later, an organization formed around the teaching of this specific technique, now referred to as the Transcendental Meditation movement. We only need 2 articles to cover these topics in Wiki - the first and main article, either to be called "Transcendental Meditation" or "Transcendental Meditation technique", but exclusively about this form of meditation. The other article can be call the "Transcendental Meditation movement" which cover the organizations - past and present - that teach this specific technique and related programs. --BwB (talk) 19:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support This proposal treats the Transcendental Meditation (TM) article as a parent to Transcendental Meditation technique and Transcendental Meditation movement, and I presume still History of Transcendental Meditation. A parent article contains summaries of sub-articles, per WP:SUMMARY, and World War II is an example of this style. It should be a relatively short overview of a large topic. It is more appropriate for a parent article than a pure DAB page because the various topics are closely related, whereas DAB pages often include unrelated topic with similar names.   Will Beback  talk  13:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Per a more comprehensive version of this in Number 5 below. As well as TG points out TM used to mean a technique is more predominant than TM as a movement. Our articles must reflect this per WP:WEIGHT.(olive (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC))

• Oppose As I have said before, I was never in agreement with the forking of the original article and the creation of three separate articles. Transcendental meditation, as I and many others already said, is a term referring to a technique. That is what an article on TM should be mainly about. Of course, there is an organization that promotes and teaches such technique and relevant points about that should be covered also, we all agree about that, I beleive. However, three articles, as they stand are an exaggeration and no longer on point.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 05:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors

• Support. This seems the most sensible option. This article should be a general overview, or summary, of TM, with the other two articles giving more detailed infomation for our readers.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support. This seems to be the fairest way to go about doing this. If a person wants to know more about either topic under the broad umbrella of TM then they can visit the separate articles noted in a hatnote above the short summaries. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support for the above reasons. The scholars I quoted here ] all considered the movement that arose around the techniques to be of interest, and covered it under the same name of TM. Rumiton (talk) 12:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Searching the Internet and counting hits is not a valid way of determining notability. We need to look at what the best sources say. Rumiton (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support, but second preference. I think it would be better to cover the "Theoretical concepts" and "Characterizations" in either the technique or movement article, whichever the relevant material best fits into, and then include these aspects here in the summary article as part of the summaries for these subarticles. Checking google books, there is no question that TM is understood as the movement in some quality sources, , but book sources using the term to refer to the meditation technique are in a clear majority, and the same will be true in google scholar, given the amount of peer-reviewed research on the technique. Perhaps this should be reflected in the summary of the technique article being somewhat longer than the summary of the movement article. --JN466 03:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion 2

Merge the TM Technique article in the TM article to bring it back as it was before the split. This will bring back content that naturally fit within the scope of the title "Transcendental Meditation". Before the split, the TM article was the only article about the technique. As pointed out in the last Rfc, there was no need for another article on the subject .

Involved editors

• Support (First choice) Having one article per subject allows that we explain each subject carefully. Dab links can insure that information is easily accessible and well organised. No need for an introduction to help the readers see that Transcendental Meditation Movement is about the movement - Dab links are perfect, simple - they do the job better than an Intro. We can include content about the movement as needed in the TM article. Overlaps are natural. Suggestion 1 also has overlaps between TMT and TMM. Nobody mentioned any problem with this option, except to exclude content that naturally fit within the scope of the title "Trancendental Meditation". Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support This is my first choice.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors

Oppose for the reasons why I supported the first option. Rumiton (talk) 12:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion 3

Same as suggestion 2, but, in addition, redirect Transcendental Meditation to Transcendental Meditation Technique. This was the most supported suggestion in the last Rfc (see diffs above).

Involved editors

Uninvolved editors

Suggestion 4

Per Discussion: Create DAB page

Involved editors

• Accept as a compromise (third choice). It avoid the unnecessary short Intro that is too likely to be biased because some content is excluded. It still has the problem that, in reliable sources, "Transcendental Meditation", except within "Transcendental Meditation Movement" and similar expressions (TM group, etc.), is, of course, almost never used to mean the movement. Dab links are therefore more appropriate. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Second choice The main benefits of this solution may be that it is the most neutral and that it pushes all of the content issues to other articles. It has two weaknesses: one is that it requires merging text into an already long article and the other is that the TM article may not be the target for the material anyway. Perhaps splitting it off into a "TM theories" or a "Maharishi Vedic Science and related theories" or a "Philosophy of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi" article would be better. If we go with this option we should add a section on the TMM to the TMT article, so that the cross reference each other.   Will Beback  talk  13:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't believe it solves anything and could create further confusion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• My Second Choice if Choice 5 not accepted. --BwB (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors

Oppose but only mildly. Disambiguation is intended for articles that have little or nothing to do with each other. The examples given in WP:DAB conform to this; eg Mercury (planet, metal, mythological figure.) This is more of an expansion of a single topic. No harm would be done by DABbing, but I doubt if it would be stable for long. Rumiton (talk) 12:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per Rumiton. --JN466 03:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion 5

Per Discussion: TM article as a summary article for TM technique and TM movement with sections linking to topics that have their own articles Further explanation: I'm suggesting as a compromise basically what Will suggested earlier in the discussion: moving out of the TM article both the "Theoretical Concepts" and "Characterizations" for which there are no main articles, leaving only the sections that are summaries of and link to other articles, TM history, TM technique, TM movement, with the additional stipulation that we not add in content unless that content is a summary of another article. This is close to Number 1 but with the added suggestion by Will, and a stipulation that basically would prevent adding back in the content we had just removed.(olive (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC))

Involved editors

Comment How is this different than suggestion 1? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. How? Rumiton (talk) 12:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Agree First choice as a compromise to my original thinking. @James:Only summaries of topics that have their own articles not as a place for content as suggested above, there is no other place for, a sure-fire way to create contention, hopefully keeping it simple, clear, and neutral.(olive (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC))

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

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

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

• Yes. I said that above. Its a compromise for me to go with this. Its not my first preference.(olive (talk) 02:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC))
• Support I support this as my second choice. My first choice is to revert the article split and the mis-definition of the term Transcendental, (Suggestion #2)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support As this is by far the clearest, least messy option, and will hopefully lend some order and clarity to the garbled information representing the current state of these articles. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 05:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Sounds like an acceptable compromise. But eventually we're going to have to deal with the issue of weight regarding usage of the term "Transcendental Meditation." TimidGuy (talk) 12:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edith Sirius Lee 2 (talk • contribs)

Uninvolved editors

• Support. Rumiton (talk) 10:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support. (I've made a half dozen (?) edits in the topic area, and commented at the arbitration case a few months ago; if you feel this makes me involved, please feel free to move my vote to the involved section). --JN466 03:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Well, the statements supporting option 1 suggest that the two other articles are for extensions, for those readers who want more. So, the Transcendental Meditation Movement article would be a complement and the essential about the movement should be be covered in the main article. Similarly, the Transcendental Meditation Technique article would be a complement and the essential about the technique should be be covered in the main article. This would require that we duplicate some content because each article would need to also contain the essential: an article is not like a section of another article - it needs to be self-contained. This is not a problem - it happens all the times that articles with a general scope overlap on the essential with articles that have a more specific scope. I can see why people might want to do it this way. It will be like going back to the situation before we forked TMM out of TM, but with two other articles that go more thoroughly in each subject. That can make sense. It does not respect the most common definition of Transcendental Meditation, but I can see that people, because they fear that we hide content, feel that the article entitled Transcendental Meditation should nevertheless cover the movement as much as the technique. Before the split the movement was covered as needed in the TM article, it covered scholar opinions that need to pass from one to the other (as Rumiton points out), but somehow beyond logic more seem to be needed. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• You need to clarify the options. For example, "Bring it back as it was before the split, but without discarding recent edits." means nothing to an outside editor looking in, trying to help you guys out here. --JN466 06:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

As a minimum, an outside editor should be aware of what did happen in the last Rfc - the split despite the fact an external editor clearly suggested two articles, not three, not a split, one on the movement and another on the technique, which he said should be called the "Transcendental Meditation Technique" article . We don't want to start from scratch every time we do an Rfc, do we? You are right, though, the option 2 should have explained a little bit more. I will add a sentence to clarify. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 08:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• I think it is equally important to make sure that we understand what the external editors really have in mind. One wrote "the summaries". What does that mean? As it stand now, it seems that we have two external editors that want a TM article that deals equally with TMM and TMT, but this is also the idea of suggestion 5.Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 09:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Question 1 for external editors supporting option 1.

Isn't it the purpose of the Intro in each of the two articles, TMM and TMT, to summarize the content of their respective article, to allow our readers to get the essential and let them decide if they want to get more information in the body of the article? It is very important to note that the Intro of the technique article naturally covers the movement as needed and, similarly, the Intro of the movement article naturally cover the technique as needed. What is gained by doing it again in the TM article? A summary that would focus only on material that is not a part of one or the other would totally fail its purpose. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 09:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I would say that the leads need to refer to the bigger picture, but not "cover" it. Rumiton (talk) 12:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

To cover the big picture seems a good idea. Removing material that is published in reliable and independent sources and which naturally fit in the big picture is against NPOV. Anyway, this is very abstract. Could you be more concrete? Perhaps, you did not meant that we should exclude some sources.Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 13:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

We are talking about the leads. No article lead can contain every fact about the subject. The lead should hold the most important points, the essentials, as you say, and the tone of the lead should reflect the general thrust of the article. Rumiton (talk) 13:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ok, I just read Misplaced Pages:SUMMARY, but this is suggestion 5, not suggestion 1. Doc James and me too, we did not understand suggestion 5 and the difference with suggestion 1 at first. Suggestion 1 says that we leave it as it is, which means that it is for content that do not fit well in either subject - it's completely different - night Vs day. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The existing intro might be a little long, given the length of the article. It's a bit of a holdover. Perhaps it'd be best if it essentially had a paragraph or sentence to summarize each section.   Will Beback  talk  13:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Question 2 for external editors supporting option 1.

Does option 1 means that we should totally exclude from the TM article material that regularly make the news about TM: scientific research, school programs, etc. as well as the procedure itself? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment regarding the meaning of Transcendental Meditation (TM)

The meaning of the term TM has been and is still central to justify suggestion 1. For example, Will Beback provided above an example where TM is used in practice (not just defined) to mean the movement: "TM is building peace palaces". We have perhaps no other evidence of this kind to support that TM means the movement: a special case. Will, could you please add this in the subpage and provide the reference. I could not find it anywhere. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

@Rumiton, you misunderstand, TG did not count hits in a superficial way. He looked at how the term TM is used in practice. You can take a larger sample, as large as you wish, you will get the same conclusion. This is better than what dictionnaries or encyclopaedia can tell us: language is not fixed in dictionnaries or encyclopaedia. Besides, the large majority of definitions in dictionnaries or encyclopaedia respect this usage in practice, perhaps all of those who aren't written with a religious view do. The most funny thing is that I looked at the TM entry in Encyclopaedia Britannica , written by the religious expert John Gordon Melton and, except in the definition itself in the first sentence, all occurences of TM means the technique - he uses TM in a way that contradicts his own definition. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't misunderstand. It doesn't matter how he did it, that was his own original research. If he was a professional with a reputation to lose if he got it wrong, his research would be admissible. Encyclopedias have been found to be not particularly good sources either, as they are tertiary sources and their articles are not generally compiled by specialist experts. We need to go straight to the scholars. I have given you three that look at TM simultaneously as a technique and a movement. Do you need more? Rumiton (talk) 05:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply Rumiton. There are two things to consider here: first, the question that we ask and, second, what we intend to do with the answer, our objective in asking the question. The question asked here is what is the meaning of the term "Transcendental Meditation" or "TM" and our objective is to determine what should be under "TM". i.e., to choose one of the suggestions that are given above.

A different objective would be to determine the specific content under a given section, say a section on Religion Vs TM. For this last purpose, you are definitively right that we must rely on the best sources and avoid original research. The meaning of TM is not so relevant here. To follow sources, but also simply by common sense, an article on the technique, irrespectively of its title, has to include paragraphs where we pass from the technique to the movement and vice versa all the times, as you pointed out. However, we had paragraphs like that before the split and we still have them after the split. It makes sense that the TM technique article includes paragraphs like that, even if its primary focus is the technique. To my knowledge, nobody has objected to that. This is not the problem that we are discussing now, unless we are, but then I missed something.

We must distinguish between these different objectives because the meaning of TM might not have the same significance and the policy may apply differently in each case. Our objective now is to decide what should be under the title "Transcendental Meditation" (DAB page, article with DAB links, etc.). In this case, the policy/guideline says explicitly that we can agree amongst us on the best tools to use, including google count, etc . This is not against WP:NOR. Every one seems to agree that the meaning of TM is an essential ingredient here. So, in accordance with policy/guideline, we are using the best tools we have to agree on it. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 10:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

If we are using a disamiguation page, that guideline might apply. That option has not been chosen. Rumiton (talk) 12:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Just had a tought. I hope your point was not that you have given us the best sources to cover entirely the subject of TM and that the entire subject should follow these sources. Was that your point? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 10:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course not. Rumiton (talk) 12:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh good! Otherwise, we would have been very far from a possible resolution of the dispute. I assume that you did not mean either that all the sources should be by religious scholars. I am not asking this time. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep this as simple as possible.   Will Beback  talk  11:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

An honorable goal. Rumiton (talk) 12:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but not at the cost of misunderstanding guideline. In particular, the guideline that I cited is to be used to determine whether a DAB page or a DAB link should be used. Please read it again . It applies exactly to our situation to help us determine which suggestions is the best. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on suggestion 1 and related comments

@TimidGuy, Valid point. An organisation that respects the usual meaning of "Transcendental Meditation" is so natural. I only given up on it because I feel that some misinterpret it as if it was hiding TMM content, which has nothing to do with logic. It does not hide TMM content - it only organise it better. No one wants to hide TMM content. So, I focus on the most important: no well sourced material about TM should be excluded from the TM article and the article should be well organised with a summary for each topic per WP:SUMMARY as in suggestion 5. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

@JN466, your third reference, at the page you gave, uses "Transcendental Meditation Movement", not "Transcendental Meditation", to mean the movement. Not a big deal - your conclusion is still valid: some sources use it, at the least some times, to mean the movement. They are specialised sources about religions (Handbook of the sociology of religion) or mostly about movements (Dictionnary of the 70's).

Bug in this talk page

In one of my edit, a bug duplicated a large part of the talk page. It is not possible to simply remove the duplicate, because both the original (at the top) and the duplicate (at the bottom) have been edited. I will simply move the edits from the original (top) to the duplicate (bottom) and then remove the original (top). Please make sure that you edit the bottom because otherwise your edits might get loss. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 15:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I saw only one edit to move. It was an edit from Rumiton. I will now remove the top part, which is a duplicate. If I inadvertently remove an edit that was in the top part in this way, I apologize. Please simply put it back in the bottom part. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Done ! I also moved an edit from TimidGuy.. I apologize for the mess, which I hope is now taken care of. I don't know what did that. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Change in RfC

What happened to the RfC posted by James. I'd like to see that text returned to what James had posted originally. This is a complete muddle. (olive (talk) 02:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC))

If someone wants to post another RfC we can wait until this one has come to some resolution, but rewording the RfC posted by another editor is not appropriate. (olive (talk) 02:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC))

(edit conflict) @Olive, I did that because it follows guideline: a RFC must provide a neutral statement in the forum. Before that, only the first option was presented in the Rfc forum and it was also a complete muddle. The Bot should cut at the first signature, but it did not. Perhaps the neutral statement could be shorter, different. I am not sure it is true that we cannot edit the Rfc initiated by another, especially when it does not respect guideline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edith Sirius Lee 2 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added a category to take care of the comment. Lets try and keep the initial RfC in place as this respects the editor who originally placed the RfC, and lessens confusion. (olive (talk) 02:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC))

I don't think we should be adjusting someone else's RfC post. What James posted was neutral. It may not be what you considered the problem to be, but that doesn't make it overtly non neutral. We have to be careful of changing the text of other editor's post, its just not good in terms of respect and collaboration. Its just all too confusing and I'm afraid I'm not in agreement with it. My opinion anyway.(olive (talk) 02:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC))

Until I see that you address the specific point that I mentioned, I will feel that you missed the point. What was presented by the Bot at the Religion/Phylosophy forum was a mess: the first suggestion only and it was arbitrarily cut after TG comment. How could it be neutral when only the first suggestion is presented? That is not the way it should have been done. Any way, I am waiting for the opinions of others. I feel that we will agree that we need a brief neutral statement at the beginning, which should be signed so that it is picked by the bot. I have no problem to admit that what I wrote might not be ideal, but at the least it is a statement that covers all suggestions. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 03:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (indent) OK, I accept that, despite the fact that a brief neutral statement is definitively needed, it is not me that should write it. So, I moved it here (and only left a brief sentence so that the Bot does not pick everything in an arbitrary way until the first signature):

The question is what should be under the title "Transcendental Meditation", not how to present all material related to TM. Consider the suggestions below. Suggestions #1 and #5 both propose a TM article that summarizes other articles: the TM movement article, the TM technique article, etc. In suggestion #1, the TM article stays as it is: the "summary" focuses on what cannot be covered in these other articles. In suggestion #5, the TM article has a summary for each of these other articles and perhaps a very short Intro for itself. The summary of each article is similar to its own Intro . Suggestion #2 is that the TM article is primary about the technique (because TM means the technique), but it covers the TM movement and other subjects as much as needed and has a DAB link to the TM movement article at the top. Suggestion #3 is like #2, but we redirect TM to the TM technique article. Suggestion #4 is that TM goes to a DAB page for the other articles. Other suggestions might be added.

02:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This is nothing more than tendatious disruption. Fladrif (talk) 03:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think this motive on Edith's part was meant to clarify so I understand that motive, but I would prefer another way of doing it. I don' think there was intent to disrupt from what is being said.(olive (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC))

Thank you Olive! We often disagree and I feel we will continue to disagree often, but most of the times I realize after that I was partially wrong. I am doing my best to realize it before I reply or act on it, not after. In particular, I realize now that even though suggestion #1 should have been more clear about what "leave it as is" mean, it was not wise to clarify it after it has received some "votes". This might actually create more confusion. Instead, we need to clarify how the editors themselves interpreted the suggestion when they placed their "votes". Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 03:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I can see this going on forever. With goodwill and open minds, the most difficult articles can be worked on to produce a result that everyone can at least live with, however strong their personal views. All I'm seeing from one editor here is repeated tendentious verbosity and something like triumphal incomprehensibility. I am not sure if it is intended, it might reflect genuine muddle-headedness or a poor command of English; but OTOH, it might be wilfully planned to chase away anyone trying to help. Either way, the editing process cannot survive it, and editors who care about this subject need to take a stand. I'm outta here. Rumiton (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

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