Talk:OneTaste/Archive 1

This group is superbly interesting. I was embarrassed that wikipedia didn't have a page when I first learned about. While the content present is clearly lacking in quality and substance, I hope that with the page now in existence others with more knowledge will expand it. --Elindstr (talk) 07:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the article does not demonstrate the notability of the group. They may be interesting, certainly there are thousands of interesting groups or companies or other organizations around, but they are not all notable enough for Wikipedia. If you can find some reliable, third-party soucres that can explain the importance of this group, (i.e. news media, magazine articles, etc.,) then that would help. However, I did a search for this group in both news, and news archives, and found nothing. This may indicate that they have not been written about extensively, and thus, it would be difficult to verify information using sources. Ariel  ♥  Gold  07:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have cited two third party news stories on the group which I believe evidences notability. I'm troubled that there is not objective standard for judging notability. I didn't create this page to publicize myself and I have no investment in this group. I learned about the group, found it highly notable given the scarcity of a polyamorous groups in the US, and thought that wikipedia would be better served by containing information about it. If you still disagree, please give me some objective standard to meet. --Elindstr (talk) 08:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/05/24/DDG9FCSNDS1.DTL
 * My ability to find one magazine article and two newspaper articles suggests that your inability to find anything about them is disingenuous and, more troubling, that you are too speedily deleting pages which offer unique and important content. --Elindstr (talk) 08:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not deleting the article, I simply reviewed it upon creation. The article, as it was when I reviewed it, did not give any evidence of notability, and had no references. Wikipedia does indeed, have a clear notability guideline, and two sources is not always enough to verify notability: "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." Additionally, the group's website is not a reliable third-party source, so should only used as a reference once notability is established by secondary sources. Also, YouTube should not be linked, per the external links policy. I have no stake in this article, I merely judged it on its merits as I found it. That is what the template is for, and an administrator will decide whether it meets notability. I would suggest in the future that prior to creating articles, proper sources be gathered and notability established before creating it to avoid a reviewer tagging it for deletion. I'm sorry if you feel that the tag was done without merit, but at the time it was created, the article did not demonstrate anything notable that would justify the entry, and it still does not explain why it is notable.  Ariel  ♥  Gold  08:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * After reviewing the "external links policy, I believe that the link to YouTube, which features a documentary video by the group's founder is, in this case, an informative device which doesn't fall into the prohibited categories of the policy. "Linking to YouTube, Google Video, and similar sites: There is no blanket ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page."--Elindstr (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"Open Source" Concept Applicability
The Open Source section is meaningless drivel. Open Source is defined by open publishing the ideas of the creator/holder and allowing others to publish or use those ideas. Within the wrong definition I deleted, it was suggesting that openness and willingness to incorporate other ideas is Open Source. By that definition the Borg, Microsoft, and any other group willing to take ideas from other people are Open Source. In order to be "Open Source", OneTaste would need to "publish their source" in a freely/openly distributable way. Is there evidence of that? If there isn't, that section should be deleted. I removed it and it was immediately reverted without comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.55.154.9 (talk) 03:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Open source references are removed, and a request for more info on external practitioners added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.19.49.36 (talk) 04:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Disagree: Of information, theories, practices, and ideas: "Open Source" in the sense of science (or Wikipedia) simply means that openly distributing information, collected from many credible sources (with source references available), and communicated openly (often in dialog), reviewed by peers, and - if needed - changed or adapted if better source information becomes available. Many OneTaste materials are available at no cost via podcasts, public lectures, or are published via interviews with many edited credible publications.  Information is openly shared in courses and lectures.  Many prominent example external practioners are presented and referenced here (http://www.onetaste.us/?intimate_life) independent writers, experts, scientists, and teachers present at OneTaste as well as integrate OneTaste source materials together with their own materials -- thus "Open Source" is not inappropiate and is perhaps "meaningful drivel" & is proper.173.114.100.180 (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Edited self-promotionally by members
Although I have been involved with OneTaste and continue to be so, I remain wary of their true nature and intentions and extremely analytical in both my criticism and upholding of them. I have noticed that this article, in the sections where it gets critical of them, have continually been sanitized, as if the OneTaste members would rather not associate themselves with their founder-of-their-founder, Victor Baranco (a confirmed cultist, unlike Daedone whose origins and history are a bit more obscure). One of the things that keeps me wary is the fact that a couple of weeks ago, after my first OMing session, both the teacher who showed me how to do it and the person with whom I had been OMing began immediately to talk about the Morehouse, the collective founded originally by Baranco and now organizationally run by his wife, and to talk about the meetings, similar to In-Group, that the Morehouse provides. While I am not too quick to judge and consistently give OneTaste the benefit of the doubt and do sincerely feel that they are helping both my interpersonal and my sexual relations (as a guy, I never would have known so precisely about clitoral pleasure and exactly where to target a woman best without that intro to OMing course-- it truly has been a transformational experience for me).... I am still suspicious of them and will probably always remain so at a certain level. They do engage in quite aggressive marketing tactics, a partial-live-in member I know has repeatedly suggested to me that I should move in with them. Those are the kinds of things that keep my guard up, and others should do the same.

Whatever OneTaste teaches you, take the really good stuff with you and leave the rest behind. In fact, that's what people should always do-- take the best and leave the suspicious and the worse. Above all, don't let them pull you in and take all your money. I pay for what I want and feel I need and that's it. Others should do the same. 74.64.126.116 (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV dispute
The "Criticisms as a Cult" section keeps being reverted/altered back to it's original promotional state by non a registered editor/editors/sockpuppets who are clearly members of the OneTaste group and not eligiable to edit the article due to a clear bias. Also, as founder of Netopia and a Director at the Chabot Space and Science Center Reese Jones is a very noteable Silicon Valley personality. Why do the links to his public bio keep getting removed? As far as OneTaste removing links on their internal pages to connections to Lafayette Morehouse, that was documented above in the "Other Sources" heading. Rectitudo (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Rectitudo appears to be a SPA with apparent COI demonstrating false statements and repeatedly making disruptive edits in this article only. See discussion about Rectitudo above. Having reviewed the edit history and references of this article in some detail, as well as having participated in several OneTaste courses recently, and with my ongoing personal experience/contact/communications with this OneTaste organization, I have a perspective. For this Wikipedia article I favor weighting the recent, non-anonymously published articles, from NPOV journalistic publications as more objective references. 75.209.52.6 (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone that isn't a member of OneTaste and hopefully has a Wikipedia account and isn't posting from a mobile phone (sockpuppets/strawmen) have opinions? Rectitudo (talk) 04:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that the article started out as a poorly written promotional piece. And so it has needed clean-up and to be moved toward NPOV statements that are sourced as opposed to self-promotion. But now there are some statements that are NPOV and unsourced against OneTaste.  Such as this section:


 * "This makes not being a member economically impractical, which is, of course, the point -- when a person joins OneTaste as a member, the center demands s/he pay the first three months of membership in advance: an immediate $300 out of pocket paid by credit or cash. That way, from a business standpoint, even if the member's attendance lapses, OneTaste has already gotten its money. Unsurprisingly, the typical courses are the least-promoted in calls and emails made to OneTaste members, and the "intensives" are the most-promoted."




 * The whole section is unsourced, and phrasing such as "the center demands" sounds NPOV ... especially when it would be so easy to say "the center requires." And the whole section comes off having an ax to grind against One Taste (in the same way that other sections have come off as cheer leading and self-promotion of One Taste)  Hoping To Help (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

My overall observation is that both sides seem to be engaged in some amount of name calling (or at least, spending energy trying to portray the other in a non-positive light). And I get that you're each trying to point out the "truth" that the other side is biased ... and you're both right -- your bias is often showing in your writing. So I would encourage you both to try and work together on the talk page to craft language that is a fair representation of what is written in reliable published sources. One key is to avoid original research (WP:OR), especially when dealing with a controversial topic -- which this is. Hoping To Help (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The section regarding pricing was contributed by some other editor. It may possibly be the gentleman that wrote the "Edited self-promotionally by members" sections above.
 * Headers in this section are poorly entered by the way, and could use a bit of cleanup. I'd do it myself if I didn't know I'd get accused of some new bizarre mind crime by my whacky, fond of acronyms, cellphone using attacker.
 * My edits are pretty much contained to the "Criticisms As a Cult" section. I've kept my language in the article fairly neutral and objective (and corrected myself when I've come across as otherwise), and stepped away from any unsourced edits. Rectitudo (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Other Sources & Assertions
As far as external opinions, you can always reference the Yelp.com reviews of this place. The external reviews seem to be the ones with three stars or less. http://www.yelp.com/biz/onetaste-urban-retreat-center-san-francisco or the Don't Date Him Girl website http://dontdatehimgirl.com/forum/one-taste-is-a-cult-t2065.htmlRectitudo (talk) 05:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

These "external opinions" are primary author rants most always anomymous (why?) individual "opinions" without reference source information, publication editorial credibility, or any editorial oversite. These are not Wikipedia quality references 173.114.100.180 (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note that these are "rants" as you're asserting, but legitimate first hand accounts by people that have had direct contact with the OneTaste organization. Rectitudo (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This would be why they're in the "Talk" section, now wouldn't it? Almost none of this article falls inside "Wikipedia quality" category. It's blatently self promotional, and doesn't fall into the category of an encyclopedia article by even the loosest of definitions. The major notability of the group comes from it's heavy ties to an established existing cult, and that they may be just another arm of Lafayette More House or possibly just a reworked version that operates independantly. Either way, you're awfully defensive about any critical views of your organization. Perhaps you should step away from the group for a bit and take an objective look yourself, that is, if they let you leave. Rectitudo (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the Onetasters are sanitizing all their links. Being as most of the links they've provided point toward pages under their direct authorship, they're removing as many links to Lafayette More/Vic Baranco as they can; e.g. http://personallifemedia.com/hosts/226-nicole-daedone and the Archive.org version from a short time ago http://web.archive.org/web/20080124194532/http://personallifemedia.com/hosts/226-nicole-daedone Rectitudo (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Heading back one more edit, it would seem that Nicole was actually a member of Lafeyette Morehouse http://web.archive.org/web/20080101114327/http://personallifemedia.com/hosts/226-nicole-daedone Rectitudo (talk) 00:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Notable Verifiable Independent References
Several notable independent journalistic credible articles have been published in the past month about this organization. Most of the reference URL links were nonfunctional or incorrect. These articles (like the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/fashion/15commune.html), the International Herald Tribune, Salon.com, EnlightenNext Magazine, and other sources have been correctly sighted and URL reference linked to this article while updating/correcting the article to match the references. Including correcting a misdirecting URL to the YouTube references mentioned.174.145.121.172 (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

"Orgasmic Meditation" as described by OneTaste was referenced by author author and language authority WILLIAM SAFIRE published in the New York Times on 3-29-2009 "orgasmic meditation" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29wwln-safire-t.html|title= On Language Orgasmic|publisher= Published by The New York Times March 29, 2009|author=Author By WILLIAM SAFIRE|accessdate=2009-3-29) 173.114.100.180 (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Two changes. vagina -> clitoris; the SF weekly article appeared to bear this out, and as a pedant I'd strive for correctness - they're different things, right? Or "genitals" would work by being more general. Similarly, I believe we should try to distinguish between "neotantra" and "tantra". I'm not attached to the name though; perhaps "modern tantra" is less pejorative. OTOH tantra is supposedly a primarily Western label, not 100% bourn out my the source religion, so perhaps one should accept that it's simply been redefined. I find it difficult to object to "tantric sex", but I guess this is really something wider, which takes inspiration from tantra. Sourcejedi (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC) (I've no idea how Wikipedia is supposed to be used. I'm unlikely to see replies unless you email me, which I've enabled in my preferences.)

Corrected several reference links, external links, and associated article language and quotes. Xbot objected to links to 2 external blog and copyright sites (Princeton blog and SNS FiRe) so deleted those external links. 70.7.173.102 (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Restored quote from NYT article along with the requested reference. Rectitudo (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Contributor Bias & Conflicts
They seem pretty determined to remove anything added to this article by non members, or anything that could possibly be viewed as negative. Every time anything objective gets added, they re-edit it back to being a solely promotional in nature.User:Rectitudo —Preceding undated comment added 00:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC).
 * this anonymous User:Rectitudo (a SPA not NPOV) consistently is biased and is dedicated exclusively to criticisms of OneTaste and characterizating it as "a harmful cult" despite credible references and evidence to the contrary (FYI: Rectitudo comments on NO OTHER Wikipedia articles except edits to this OneTaste article -- suggesting perhaps they have a related party interest/purpose/bias of some kind, with a critical POV, but not neutral). Along with the unsupportable reversions or assertions by Rectitudo; anonymous user Rectitudo is also a contributor to the Rick Ross anticult site with other anonymous "Anticult" bloggers who rant at length with criticisms of not only One Taste (and after many hundreds of individuals and organizations they attempt to liken or link to the likes of Scientology, Jones Town, Manson & Hitler).


 * These are most all anonymously authored speculative claims & accusations, not neutral, not edited or moderated, these anonymously authored rants attacking organizations and individuals, attempting to define each of these people & organizations as equally "evil cults" with presumed nefarious intentions, may be valid in some cases, but this is not a Wikipedia NPOV editorially credible quality reference source because of their author anonymity and default hostility. Due to the anonymity of authors, lack of editorial, unsubstantiated and often extreme, slanderous & defaming claims, presumptions, and assertions disqualifies this as a Wikipedia "reference" for "anonymous contributors". In particular User:Rectitudo is ALSO a contributiong writer on this anticult blog site, thus Rectitudo's continued biased edits of this OneTaste article are questioned.  The Rick Ross Education Organization is credible and does provide a speculation & warning service of high value is some ways, but it is speculatively sladerous and thus not a valid encylopedic reference.


 * User:Rectitudo need not yet be excluded/blocked from this discussion and contributions yet but Rectitudo's agenda has emerged as perhaps a related/interested/negative party, not a neutral POV, perhaps with an the intention of preventing a NPOV readable encyclopedic article about this entity. Rectitudo please take note, if you want to critisize, please identify yourself and your relationship/conflict/bias with this article's subject before making substantive edits (or undoing substantiated/referenced entries made by others). 173.117.170.236 (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear anonymous IP address; Please learn to use a spell checker, and create an account yourself before accusing other people of hiding. Your OneTaste people are awfully defensive about any negative criticism, and they're actively revisionist about their history. Please don't put words into my mouth as far as the OneTaste group being "dangerous". Judging from your level of defensiveness and the implied threats I'm getting here, maybe I should rethink that. In the interest of disclosure, the polite thing to do would be to provide the same info you're demanding from me, specifically, just who are you and what is your relationship to the OneTaste group. Rectitudo (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Please note that these statements and major edits are all coming from a Sprint PCS IP address. This would indicate that there's a high likelihood that the same OneTaste member (unregistered user 173.117.170.236 and 70.7.173.102) are the same individual. Both sets of revisions are indicative that the editor is a OneTaste member reverting any non promotional statements or anything that doesn't portray the organization in a positive light. Please also note that I am not a contributing writer on the Rick Ross site as 173.117.170.236 claims. Rectitudo (talk) 02:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Rectitudo claims "I am not " - but demonstribly is writing on the Rick Ross site. Proof: "Rick Ross user: Rectitudo: Date Added: 03/17/2009 Posts: 3" verifiable proof [] thus a verified false representation on Wikipedia by Rectitudo and clear demonstration of Conflict of interest by Rectitudo.  Whoever you claim to be or not be, you should stop your "contributions" to this article.Rectitudo is demonstribly making false statements, obviously stands in a conflict of interest and continues Disruptive editing pattern 68.29.148.136 (talk) 10:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous Sprint PCS user; are you or are you not a member of OneTaste? This is an encyclopedia article, not an ad in The PennySaver. Not registering for a user account would appear an attempt at sockpuppeting. As per checking the point of origin of the 173.117.170.236, 70.7.173.102, of 68.29.148.136, these addresses are all originating from Sprint PCS. As an active member (or possibly even one of the persons in charge of) Onetaste, you aren't eligiable to author or edit the article.

One post on the RR message board doesn't make me a contributor, and I can assure you that there is only one post by me there. Until you clarify your membership status and relationship to the OneTaste group, the nature of your edits would indicate that you're a member trying to keep this entire article a promotional ad, and I can freely undo them. Rectitudo (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems your one post clearly demonstrates false edit intent & unambiguous misrepresentation by Rectitudo here on Wikipedia; indicating 1) terminal dishonesty 2) persistent false or Disruptive editing and 3) clearly demonstrated Conflict of interest by Rectitudo a SPA with a POV (not neutral) connected apparently to the promoting of the Rick Ross Institute and "the RR message board" or EST or Dr. Victor Baranco or the Lafayette Morehouse each of which repeatedly are asserted into this article via edits or links. Apparently Rectitudo is motivated by a persistent POV intent on dishonestly distorting this Wikipedia article and only this article [].


 * Rectitudo appears to be a SPA with apparent COI demonstrating false statements and repeatedly making disruptive edits in this article only. No doubt this motivated person will continue to insert their undeclared POV, under alternate identities as false and biased as Rectitudo is now.  This is hardly a complimentary article about OneTaste, a business being portrayed here as a "sex cult" on Wikipedia by anonymous editors arguing here.  (my POV: I am personally familiar with OneTaste, having participated in several classes at OneTaste. I've lived to tell about it, and I will likely participate further with OneTaste).  Apparently even articles about this organization's existence pushes some people's buttons, a emotional phenomena the organization's courses actually teach people about understanding.  Multiple professional journalists have openly participated in OneTaste courses, have interviewed OneTaste participants, and have independently published their objective findings in articles authored in their real names, with objective credibility of their publications.  These articles quote the real names of the people openly helping others through OneTaste, on this very fragile topic. Links to some of these articles have been removed by Rectitudo replaced with links to anonymous critics or quotes from people not been near the organization in years (not since 2004 yet are quoted presently in 2009).  Perhaps Rectitudo will explain their POV and agenda? 75.209.52.6 (talk) 01:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I initially attempted to add to the article a very valid link between Lafayette Morehouse group and OneTaste, but that seemed to anger either the group or, in all likelyhood the individual posing as several people here. This seemed to cause them to start removing references to the aforementioned link from all their internal web pages (an example of which I've documented below in the Other Sources & Assertions section). The revisionist history, plus all the weird accusations are admittedly, what caused me to adopt this as more of a pet project and actively monitor the page for changes. My edits were made in good faith and I continue to vouch for their accuracy.
 * I have tried to make my edits as neutral as possible, but due to the fact that the article was written solely as a promotional piece in the first place, they were continously struck out by the aforementioned anonymous editors and accompanied by numerous wild accusations of conspiracy (some of which were later edited out).
 * I've requested third party arbitration in this matter in hopes that this can turn into an infomative and useful article for anyone looking for objective information on this group. Rectitudo (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Rectitudo impugned his credibility by lying, shows Conflict of interest claiming "not being a RR site contributor" while demonstrably being a contributor(and perhaps has other COIs). Discredited Redtitudo (and others) continue Disruptive editing of this article. Example: deletes references from New York Times articles detailing OneTaste, claiming "such references are Weasel words" and removed more "aimed at having "notable source" tags removed." Clearly Rectitudo's intends to remove professional journalist authored publication references and substitute Rectitudo's opinions referencing only anonymous writers and opinions. This combination of disruptive untrue edits, deleting references to major publications, deleting references to biology, physiology, empirical science frameworks, deleting evidence of open/multi sourced points of view, open discussion, critical thinking, open theory testing, but inserting communist/capitalist ideology, monetary confusion/distortions; all this ultimately confuses any reader on what this OneTaste place is, distorting its goals, confusing how it works, and erasing what named investigative journalists report - these edits serve no one but to vandalize the article and blur meaning.

He has asserted as fact that this OneTaste "article was written solely as a promotional piece in the first place" (what reference?), this is simply untrue, this article has evolved, began unclear and continues unclear (as one familiar with OneTaste, this Wikipedia article poorly describes it, relative to some of the references). Multiple openly named independent journalists from multiple publications have written detailed clear articles about OneTaste, some with dozens of hours interviewing research and quoting many participants by real name. These prominant credible publishers of these reference articles consider themselves objective, journalistic and of neutral point of view with extensive professional direct experience inside the organization and external research. No one of forcing these august publications to distort their truth of their research findings or quoting real people's real names or opinion/conclusions. Only the paranoid critics argue otherwise (and continue doing so anonymously). The sole named & quoted critic contradicted their own interview to the New York Times, and furthermore have never lived at OneTaste nor have have they been involved in over 4 years. Everyone is entitled to a their opinion but thousands of people have taken OneTaste courses and millions have read about what OneTaste is in objective publications. Why would anonymous Wikipedia's article edits be "more negative" but with less direct experience or evidence than the studied named journalists? 75.209.210.52 (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing the mediation request, as all unsourced material and original research has been removed. (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Reinstate the mediation request, Rectitudo, is clearly documented her making misrepresentations, directly false statements and continues repeatedly making disruptive edits in this article -- continues vandalism of this article including repeatedly removing major publication reference links like The International Herald Tribune, The New York Times and continues repeatedly inserting links to the Morehouse organization and other extraneous unsupportable references (unsubstantiated personal opinions, letters to editors, etc). Apparently Rectitudo has a conflicted point of view bias both intent on vandalizing/distorting this article and using this article in promoting other entities. Reactivate mediation request and analysis of Rectitudo conduct regarding this article topic and any related articles. DeRectitudo (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Corrected incorrectly reopened request for mediation. In the interim, I undid your removal of my edits as they were done entirely within Wikipedia guidelines and all properly referenced. Can you please elaborate on how they qualify as disruptive or vandalism? Calling something vandalism doesn't make it so. Rectitudo (talk) 01:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * On second though, reopening the dispute myself is pretty ridiculous. If you wan't to open a dispute, read the rules and do it yourself.Rectitudo (talk) 03:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Citation Required Header
There's a citation required template on this and it's admin locked. All the the "citation required" notations appear to have been resolved in the article. Maybe that should be removed? Rectitudo (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge
The following two page should be merged into this page:


 * Orgasmic Meditation
 * Slow Sex Movement

Neither of the above topics are notable other than as terms used by the One Taste organization, as can be seen quickly with Google searches, including Google Books & Google Scholar.

Also, both of those articles are unsupported by sources that mention the topics directly, other than one New York Times article and two local SF weekly articles that are all specifically about OneTaste, rather than those separate topics on their own.

Most of the content of those articles is original research in the form of synthesis. Whatever content can be sourced, should be merged into OneTaste, and the two other pages redirected here.

Please comment on this proposal. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me.TheRingess (talk) 23:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess it might be appropriate as long as you remove all the unsourced or badly sourced statements from both articles. Both of them were generated from materials that were essentially deleted from this article for having been entirely original research.


 * Orgasmic Meditation apparently isn't solely a OneTaste phenomena, as the Morehouse group seems to have considerable input into it as per their entries on the associated talk page, although none of them has done the requisite documentation in the article proper.


 * As far as the Slow Sex Movement article, the article itself appears to be the attempt to create the movement. A single reference back to an article in the Style section of the New York Times wouldn't indicate adequate notability for an entire wiki article. Rectitudo (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest merging Orgasmic Meditation with Expanded Orgasm, as it seems to be a better fit. Rectitudo (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Are there any reliable sources that connect those two topics? Otherwise that would be original research.  There are zero hits on Google Scholar, Google Books, and Google News for the search term { "Orgasmic Meditation"  "Expanded Orgasm" }.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've done some more detailed searches, focusing on news and magazine articles, and I'm finding that the term "Orgasmic Meditation"is being defined and discussed in more sources than just the 3 articles cited by Jack-A-Roe, and that some of them focus on the practice of Orgasmic Meditation at least as much as on the organization OneTaste. I haven't yet researched the second topic (Slow Sex Movement) but it seems that a constructive effort should be made to verify sources and improve these articles before attempting to merge them into other articles.  If there are problems with the articles and their sources, as some people have pointed out, those won't be solved by merging them.  I will go through these sources more carefully in the next few days and try to establish what in the existing articles can and can't be sourced.Voila-pourquoi (talk) 05:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Any progress on this so far, Voila-porqui? Rectitudo (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I made the bulk of the changes yesterday.Voila-pourquoi (talk) 07:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's kind of all over the place. I'm not quite getting where you're going with it. Rectitudo (talk) 10:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge completed for Slow Sex Movement, redirected to this page. It had no sources showing independent notability for the term. There was no significant sourced content at that page, so there was not much to merge, but a section was added to note the use of the term. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Voila-pourquoi, I see that you have done a lot of work on the Orgasmic Meditation page, and I don't want to make light of your efforts. But unfortunately, the page still does not have sources showing that the term is used separately from the OneTaste organization, and many of the sources don't even mention the term "orgasmic meditation". Scientific sources on the limbic system or the science of orgasm are useful for articles about those topics, but unless the references connect those ideas to the term "orgasmic meditation", it's a synthesis for Wikipedia to make that connection. Have you read the Wikipedia policy of no original research? If we aren't able to find any sources that show it is notable as a term in science - or even in popular culture - after a while, the page will probably be merged into the article about the organization. If you want to keep the article as a separate topic, the best chance of doing that is to look for more references and find some that mention the term "orgasmic meditation" but that do not mention the OneTaste organization at all. Good luck with your research... --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Jack-A-RoeIn reading through the available sources on this topic, I found that several (New York Post, The Toronto Star, and Grazia magazine) are focused more on the practice of Orgasmic Meditation than on the organization One Taste. I'm familiar with the policies of no original research and no synthesis.  Could you explain a little more the requirement that A must be covered without mention of B, or else be merged into B? Thanks.Voila-pourquoi (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In order to have an article in Wikipedia, a topic must be notable. If there are no sources discussing the term that do not also mention that it is a practice used by this organization, then the term on its own is not notable.  The organization is notable enough for an article, because it has non-trivial news coverage, but it appears that "orgasmic meditation" as a term is not used independently at all.  The way that the synthesis/no original resarch policy comes into this is that there are sources in the article that discuss orgasm physiology and other types of orgasm-related practices that seem to be related to the way the term is used by its proponents.  But none of those other sources state that their information applies to "orgasmic meditation".


 * Combining ideas from multiple sources that seem to be related, but are not explicitly described as related in the sources, is the definition of "synthesis". If all of the synthesis is removed from the article, then all that's left is a description of a practice used by OneTaste, along with their ideas about the benefits and history of the process. The term itself, "orgasmic meditation", does not seem to exist outside the context of OneTaste.  It may be similar to tantra, or expanded orgasm, or other ideas, but - so far - there are no independent reliable sources specifying those associations.  If you can find sources like that, the problem with the article would be solved. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Voila-pourquoi, though I appreciate your extensive cleanup and improvement of this article, I must state that I do agree with Jack-A-Roe on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand the issue of synthesis/no original research, and there are areas of this article that could be further improved with regard to that, but I'd like to focus on the question of the proposed merge for now.

The policy which I do not understand is that A must be covered without mention of B, or else be merged into B. For example, there is an article on Transcendental Meditation, as well as one on Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Just about every source that discusses the one, also mentions the other. Does that mean they ipso facto don't each merit their own article? Or every mention of a notable book that also names its author, disqualifies the book title from meriting an article? If you could point me to the wikipedia policies relevant to this specific issue, that would be very helpful.

As I mentioned before, I read carefully through the sources cited in this article, and found and several of them are MORE focused on the practice itself than on the organization. To the three articles I listed before, I would add a fourth, the William Safire column which was just removed from the body and from the reference list of the OneTaste article, precisely because it makes no mention of the organization, but only cites "Orgasmic Meditation" as an example of the semantic expansion of the word orgasm to extend beyond sexuality and of its expanded usage in mainstream discourse.

I think these are an important questions, and until they're resolved I ask that this article not be merged into other articles, whether into that of OneTaste, Exanded Orgasm or any other. Voila-pourquoi (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Transcendental meditation is not a great example for your point, since it is hugely notable on a global scale. There have even been independent peer-reviewed scientific studies of the effects of TM, completely unrelated to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.  By contrast, orgasmic meditation is discussed and practiced by only a few people, who seem to all be part of one local organization and who all live together.


 * About the merge, I am willing to wait a while to find out if it's possible that enough information could be found for a separate article. But in that case, the first step is to remove the synthesis from the article, so we can start to get a better view of what verifiable information can be kept in the article.  For example, all of the information about the limbic system has to be removed, because there are no sources connecting it to orgasmic meditation.  All of the information about the history or traditions that form the basis of orgasmic meditation, its relation to mindfulness practices, etc, comes from the people who made up the term, not from scientific sources that have noted the connections, so that information has to be stated with attribution, otherwise it gives an inaccurate and misleading idea that there is some body of knowledge or study that addresses the topic independently of the small group of people who use the term.  If you clear out all that stuff from the article so it is then properly referenced and attributed, with no synthesis, then it will be possible to see if the term is notable enough for a separate article.  If you want to give that a go, maybe the article can stand on its own, The way it is now, it's not an appropriate presentation of the info.     --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand about the differences between TM and Orgasmic Meditation, especially in regard to scale. I raised it as an analogy to highlight the point that almost all mentions of a practice (or book, or work of art) also mention its originator(s).  If there are specific wikipedia policies that apply to this particular phenomena, and require A to be merged into B, then I'd be interested in learning more about them.


 * Regarding this point "orgasmic meditation is discussed and practiced by only a few people, who seem to all be part of one local organization and who all live together." Actually, this is not what the published sources say. Apparently there are centers in 2 cities and they give workshops to outside participants and collaborate with other teachers who are not part of the residential centers. But if that information isn't apparent in this article as it stands, then it's a good reminder of further work that needs to be done on the article. I'll focus on that in addition to the synthesis issues that you've raised above.  Voila-pourquoi (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge - These two terms seem to have been invented and used only by this organisation. A sceptic could even come to the conclusion this article is intended as advertising for this group. Claireislovely (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Do Not Merge In the process of completing this merge, on which no consensus had been reached, substantial sourced text has been deleted and links broken (see red links that now appear in the References section.) Would it be possible in this instance to follow correct procedure and in the meantime restore the deleted article? Thanks, Voila-pourquoi (talk) 09:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Do Not Merge OneTaste is a name of a company, whereas Orgasmic meditation is an act carried out by various sects & cults. Its like merging Web Search Engine with Google. Mostly it is carried out in the Left-handed Tantrism. The same act is seen to be carried out by the Grand Master in Angels and Demon. It may be ethically wrong for many people, but that doesn't means that it won't survive to be an encyclopedic article. Bhuto (Talk | Contribs) 11:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Following conversation on my talk page and that of merging editor Claireislovely (talk), I'm undoing the merge. Consensus has not been reached, as can be seen from this conversation and also under Talk:Orgasmic_meditation.  If anyone feels strongly that the merge should stand, I suggest we open the matter to mediation. Voila-pourquoi (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If the merge isn't going to take place (which I'm of the opinion should be done), shouldn't the content be moved over to the other article? Rectitudo (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I recommend that the merge be completed. During the 3 months this discussion has been going on, no-one has found any new sources for independent notability of the concept.  The term appears to be used only by members of the One Taste organization.  If no-one else uses the term, it should not have a separate article.  So far, five editors support the merge, and it seems that only one editor wants to keep the articles separate.   --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I merged the Orgasmic Meidtation article into this one because I thought a consensus had been reached, but it has since been undone by Voila-pourquoi. You can see the discussions we had about this on our talk pages. Was I wrong to think a consensus had been reached? Claireislovely (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * consensus has not been reached. See above.  Incidentally, the manner in which the merge was done created broken links within the One Taste article.  I followed your tip of simply undoing the merge but that has not fixed the broken links nor removed the duplicate content that now appears  in both articles. There is lack of consensus not only over the merge but also over the difference between a TERM and a PRACTICE. We have gone back and forth already over this question and the latest reverts by Jack-A-Roe indicate that we still have no clarity on this question.   I do not understand how there would be international press coverage, television news reports and mentions in books if the subject at hand were a TERM used by a particular organization. TERMS are discussed in dictionaries and thesauruses.  Phenemona referenced by such terms appear in press reports and encyclopedias.  That seems to me to be the main area of misunderstanding, from which others follow.Voila-pourquoi (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Summary
Is there consensus about the merge or not? Here's the way it looks from what I can find in the discussion above - if I missed any editors, please update the list as needed --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * supporting merge:
 * Jack-A-Roe 22:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * TheRingess 23:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Flyer22 21:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Claireislovely 17:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Rectitudo 01:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * opposing merge:
 * Voila-pourquoi 20:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Bhuto (Talk | Contribs) 11:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

My position is accurately summarized. Given that several of the editors cited above have not contributed any substantive content beyond copy editing, voting on on the talk page, and deletion of material and sources from this article, I've opened an RfC on Talk:Orgasmic_meditation, to make space for wider and possibly less deletionist points of view.Voila-pourquoi (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Look, you're not going to get what you want by talking about editors instead of article content. I'm not a deletionist, not by a long shot.  The orgasmic meditation article probably should have been taken to AfD months ago, but I did not do that, because I thought maybe you or someone else could find some sources showing notability for the term beyond this one organization.  After several months notability has still not been established.


 * Regarding the RfC you posted, it's not worded neutrally, you said "some editors" support the position that so far appears to be supported only by you. That's an inaccurate summary - I recommend you re-word it to remove all comments about editors and simply ask the question of it it's a notabile topic independent of this page.  If you want to argue your position, you should do that in a separate comment, not as part of the RfC question.  I'll consider whether or not to enter some comments on that page when I can get to it.   --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if you took any of what I've written as a personal attack on you or any other editor. My focus has been and continues to be on article content.  As editors we seem to have different perspectives, and there is a dispute here.  Acknowledging it would be the first step in order to resolve it. For me, "getting what I want" as you put it means ensuring that my points are heard and addressed, which they haven't been till now.


 * If you feel my RfC is inaccurate by saying editorS instead of editor please feel free to add your comments. I posted it before you had made your tally of editors. Other editors have created and contributed to this article, perhaps you should reach out to them as well on this question, if this needs to be decided by vote.


 * If you feel my RfC is not neutral please feel free to add your comments. This is the first time I've been involved in this process, and I modeled the wording of my RfC  on other RfC's on the page at Requests_for_comment/Religion_and_philosophy.  As a general rule, I feel we would be more productive if we focused on positive contributions rather than continually criticizing what others have done. Voila-pourquoi (talk) 07:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've pulled the Orgasmic Meditation section from this article until we clarify whether or not the merge will take place. Rectitudo (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems to me like a consensus has been reached. Only one editor objecting, many wanting to go ahead with the merge. How long do we wait? Claireislovely (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have requested mediation, declined by yourself and other 4 editors who disagree with my position. Has anyone made an effort to contact the editors who created and contributed to this article prior to the current tally?  Most of those voting have not contributed to this article beyond voting to delete or merge it.  As of the past few days, editors are deleting sources saying they do not believe these sources exist, or that the New York Post and the Styles section of the New York Times is not a reliable_source. I think a neutral third party is required here, not a "vote."  I would appreciate if a more experienced editor could specify HOW to request mediation and not then block my efforts to do so. Thank you.  Voila-pourquoi (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

To clarify Rectitudo's understanding of verifiability, Reliable_sources, and Notability, he seems to maintain that a non-English source (Grazia magazine) is by definition disqualified, and this is why he has repeatedly deleted it from this article. In addition, he questions the reliability of The New York Post and the New York Times Style Section as sources for a wikipedia article.

I request that editors interested in weighing the opinions for and against the merge check the recent edit history and talk page of Orgasmic_meditation as well.Voila-pourquoi (talk) 10:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A non-English source with no web presence is about as unverifiable as you can get. Did you translate it yourself? If you have a copy of the magazine, and if you so, could you scan the page? That would help exponentially as far as altering editor's opinions on challenging the source.
 * As far as sources, the link to the book by Mara Altman makes no reference to the quoted material, or even Orgasmic Meditation. Could you provide page numbers from where the quoted text comes from? When you undid Jack-A-Roe's edit removing the link as being not related, your note of "The reference is a book. The book discusses orgasmic meditation." came across as more than a little adversarial sounding and doesn't really clarify how it's related to the subject.
 * As far as the NY Post questionable journalistic practices, and the Style section being a reliable source for scientific answers, that was more of an opinion. A well founded opinion, but an opinion nonetheless.
 * Thanks,
 * Rectitudo (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Rectitudo If you want to check page numbers of the Mara Altman book, simply go to Amazon.com, the book is available in searchable form and you can search for Orgasmic Meditation and OMming, the two forms of the word used in that book.  As I recall there are about 15 instances.  You can also read the Kirkus Review of the book, which names "Orgasmic Meditaion" in its review.


 * As for the italian article it is available it is available and verifiable to you by using tools such as a Public Library and Google Translate. This is part of doing research into secondary sources in an effort to improving an article, which I have done.


 * If you are seriously interested in challenging the existence of either of these sources, or their relevence to the topic, then when I opened a mediation request, why did you refuse mediation? If you find my tone in addressing you or Jack-A-Roe to be "more than a little adversarial sounding" I apologize, I find this process of jumping through hoops and addressing random objections without the aid of knowledgeable, neutral third party editors to be exhausting.Your contention that an Italian magazine is non verifiable and therefore non-encyclopedic by virtue of being written in Italian is patently absurd. Voila-pourquoi (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a reference on partially dissolved papyrus written in hieroglyphics that states that Barbra Boxer has a 666 birthmark on the back of her head in binary. I don't actually have it in my possession, it's actually buried in a clay jar in fjord in Iceland, but I can give you the approximate coordinates and a treasure map written in Navajo.
 * I happen to find going that far out of my way for a reference a bit absurd myself... Rectitudo (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Voila-pourquoi, if you want other editors to be convinced by the sources you mention, instead of telling them to use Google Translate, why not provide the link yourself, since you have already done the research? For example, you could provide this one: Cometto, Maria Teresa "Vuoi fare OMing con me?".

An example that I have not looked up is the one where you wrote: "If you want to check page numbers of the Mara Altman book, simply go to Amazon.com, the book is available in searchable form". Since you already have located that link, why not post it here rather than expecting others to re-do the work you've already done? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Jack-A-Roe, User Rectitudo requested that I scan the article and attest to my abilities in Italian, and deleted the source 4 times over the objections of myself and another editor. The source remains deleted from the article.  if the copy posted on a blog which you have found does not meet Rectitudo's high and idiosyncratic standards for reliable sources, what will you do then? Can you instruct me how to upload the scan of the actual article which I have from the library, and will my doing so have any constructive effect on this conversation?  Or is this Rectitudo's idea of a game, the goal of which is to waste the time of those with whom he does not agree?


 * The reason I did not provide URLs for these 2 particular sources is that reliable URLs do not exist. That does not disqualify them as sources. Rectitudo's rant above about papyrus gives a good indication of his level of understanding and interest in research.


 * For example, I can't provide URL's into the content of a book on Amazon. Here is the URL for the page in question:
 * http://www.amazon.com/Thanks-Coming-Young-Womans-Orgasm/dp/0061577111/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263446089&sr=8-1
 * and here are the page numbers. Results for OM, "Orgasmic Meditation": pages 134, 136, 137, 269


 * That wasn't a rant, that was a humorous way of expressing that your cite wasn't reasonably verifiable. Rants usually include lots of all caps and large sections of boldfaced text. Rectitudo (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I hope this accomplishes something constructive.... we'll see. Voila-pourquoi (talk) 05:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, thanks for the link - and you're right, you can't use that link in the article, but for discussion, it's useful to share it as a way of showing people what you're referring to. In this case though, the book you're citing does not at all support the idea that the topic of OM is separate from the topic of One Taste. The section  in the book that mentions OM is all about One Taste and the people who founded it and teach the technique.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Organization of Short Sections
At present there are 2 sections that consist of only a few sentences each -- "Slow Sex Movement" and "Press" followed by a long section called "Criticisms" which is seems to be a continuation of "Press," but consisting only of negative press. There is also a tag indicating that sectioning the negative press into a separate "Criticism" section is not the optimal organization.

The simplest solution would be to combine all this into one section, "Press." Voila-pourquoi (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Criticism Section
This section consists mostly of extended quotes from letters to the editor written by 2 individuals already interviewed and quoted in the New York Times article cited. Letters to the Editor do not meet the criteria for WP:SOURCES.

There are also two statements linking Ms Daedone to Dr. Victor Baranco, sourced to an archived course announcement and a posting on a social network site, both links now defunct.

Unless these assertions can be sourced to reliable sources, they should be removed. Voila-pourquoi (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks suspiciously like you're trying to return this article to it's original state. Why don't you just copy and paste the entire NYT article in and be done with it. Rectitudo (talk) 07:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality
I ran into this page while doing a search for "open source"; I have no other connections with the topic or the organization.

Looking over the comments on the talk page, it appears to me that most of the participants are either members of the organization wanting to promote it or outsiders who want to label the organization as a cult. Neither is an unbiased position that has a neutral point of view.

I am therefor requesting that the an article be checked for POV ("Point of View") problems and whether the major contributors have a COI ("Conflict of Interest"). 76.194.211.128 (talk) 01:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * As a substantial contributor to this article who is neither a member of the organization trying to promote it, nor someone trying to label it as a cult, I don’t agree with the above categorization. It would certainly help if more experienced and objective editors would assist on this article, and hopefully that will be the outcome here. Meanwhile I'm wondering:


 * Why were these comments and the COI templates on the article added by anonymous user 76.194.211.128 with no edit history or talk page?  I’d want to ask this editor whether they've looked at the recent edit history of this article, or just the back and forth accusations on the talk page.  Also, whether they plan to list this article in any of the relevant noticeboards such as COIN or  NPOVN, or how merely adding these COI templates to the top has improved the situation. Could someone specify which edits or content of the article are non-neutral POV and how that could be fixed?


 * A year ago this article was a battleground between editors whose COI/SPA issues were pretty clear from their contributions as well as their comments on the talk page. Recently I’ve been trying to clean this up and make this into a more well-researched and neutral article. So I find the timing as well as the source of the COI template to be confusing. Voila-pourquoi (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Over a month has gone by with no input from 76.194.211.128, and no followup by any other editors to his/her request that the article be checked for NPOV.

One result of 76.194.211.128 having put so many COI and NPOV templates at the top of this article, though perhaps not the intent, has been to discredit the article and its contributors, and to marginalize this subject matter.

I agree that this article could benefit from input by more experienced editors. Maybe the best way to get more varied and objective contributions is to list it on the relevant noticeboards, such as NPOV, COI or cleanup.Voila-pourquoi (talk) 05:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits by 99.20.128.152 / 99.20.128.152
Sorry if the reasons for my revert to your edits to was unclear and caused you to re-introduce the same material. Before doing so again, please acquaint yourself with wikipedia policies, especially:

WP:ORIGINAL

WP:RELIABLESOURCES

WP:NPOV

Articles in the encyclopedia should reflect the overall perspective of notable, published, verifiable sources. If you have any more questions or suggestions, this talk page is a good place to start. Voila-pourquoi (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In other words, if Nicole doesn't want it in the article, the team that she's assigned to monitor the article will remove it immediately.Rectitudo (talk) 10:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Removed tag
There has been no discussion for over a year and a half, and it appears that the one outside editor who looked at this article did not see the need for the tag.

The overall structure of the article is not ad like and it is very well sourced. If anyone has a problem with a specific section, I propose they tag that section and copy and paste the specifics here that they don't like. Sethie (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

To be sure there is the random sentence here and there that could be toned down as I did here [], overall it's looking tight.

Also, it contains some criticisms- always a good sign for NPOV. Sethie (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Science section
I have no source showing that Komisaruk ever commented on this topic or conducted such a study. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I am very familiar with Barry R. Komisaruk's research. Regarding your removal of this content, and my replies here and here, my point was that Komisaruk is indeed an author of "The Science of Orgasm", as Googling "Barry R. Komisaruk The Science of Orgasm" shows. And as for the proof that he made that statement, all we need to do is go by that ABC News source, which passes as a WP:Reliable source.


 * Also, there is no need to WP:Ping me to this page; it is on my WP:Watchlist. Flyer22 (talk) 01:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That ABC News source has two pages; Komisaruk is on the second page. Flyer22 (talk) 01:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * But does that book have anything to say on the topic of Orgasmic Meditation? I don't think it does. Read the ABC News source more carefully: it only cites him about orgasms in general - it doesn't interview him about OMing, as the article suggested. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The ABC News source is about slow sex/orgasmic meditation. It states, "As for theories that orgasmic meditation that can last for months, Komisaruk said, 'What Daedone calls orgasm is what most people would call pleasure and bliss; what most people call orgasm is what Daedone calls climax.'" So Komisaruk is commenting on orgasmic meditation in that source. Whether or not he discusses orgasmic meditation in the book The Science of Orgasm is not the issue. Also, I don't care if this content is restored or remains removed. Flyer22 (talk) 02:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, the book is not the issue unless you think that the source is quoting from his book for the "As for theories that orgasmic meditation" part, instead of directly interviewing him. I understand how one can think that might be the case. Flyer22 (talk) 02:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * If the source is assuming that Komisaruk is commenting on orgasmic meditation without it being clear that he is, that is a problem. Flyer22 (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right - that was my mistake. I didn't read that far into the ABC source because it looked like the claim that he was interviewed was false. He only mentions OM in that one, frankly somewhat dismissive comment, and I think the rest has nothing to do with OM. In any case this is source is so brief and unclear it probably shouldn't be cited for this. The subsequent claim that he conducted a study of it is completely unsupported by the source cited, which led me to believe that the whole thing was propagandistic nonsense. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The content you removed doesn't state that he conducted a study. But now I see that you mean this piece, where it seems that you are that IP (you don't have to confirm or deny being that IP). I also see that the "I think to the extent" part was sourced to this Gawker article. Flyer22 (talk) 04:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not the IP and I don't even have a smartphone, but yes I was referring to that sentence. The ex-cult-member's expose in Gawker is hardly a good enough source for what it's cited for, so I think there's nothing in this section worth keeping. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Update needed now that they are apparently closed / gone
OneTaste apparently stopped commercial operation sometime in 2019/2020. The internet archive/wayback machine shows that their web page was still up as late as mid-2020, (but it was a zombie page). They replaced the CEO during some lawsuits in 2018. Does anyone know when they actually shut down?

The precise timing may not matter, but I think it would be nice if this page were updated to reflect the fact that this business is no longer a going concern.

For example: https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/onetaste-ceo-steps-down-after-claims-that-company-engaged-in-predatory-behavior

This NY post page offers some updates on their legal troubles since 2018, including links to a story about apparently an open FBI investigation https://nypost.com/2020/11/19/a-look-inside-controversial-orgasmic-meditation-program-for-women/

and a new possibly related web page https://instituteofom.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:1380:19B0:5C79:C143:7B87:6515 (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Fine, I am not an expert on WikiPedia. But I am acting in good faith. This page should be updated to note the recent 10-part BBC(4) documentary, at https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p08yrsdw (overview: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p08xzk5h/episodes/player) from November through December of 2020. 2601:1C2:1380:19B0:5C79:C143:7B87:6515 (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC) Josh
 * OneTaste continues to have an ACTIVE Status in the State of California, so I do not think they can be technically counted as defunct, even if they are not doing anything at the moment.
 * Peaceray (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, OneTaste Incorporated is the trademark owner for the Institute of OM. Peaceray (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I just took a long look at the Institute of OM site. OneTaste has not gone away; it has rebranded itself as the Institute of OM. It looks like we need to revamp the article with this new information. Peaceray (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Go ahead. -- Jmc (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Go ahead. -- Jmc (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)