Jump to content

Talk:OneTaste

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

OneTaste funded "study" by Nicole Prause

[edit]
Nicole Prause#Orgasmic_meditation_study
I added the information about the founder, but User:Primefac removed it two times in a row.
This cult, under investigation by the FBI, tries to "proof" their propaganda with pseudoscientific studies payed by themselfs!
Check the discussion here.

--KleinerKorrektor (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OP has been warned of discretionary sanctions, and that using the word pseudoscientific lightly will lead to a topic ban. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unconditional Freedom Project now openly part of the OneTaste organization

[edit]

Now that the Mendocino County Sheriff has no more association with the Unconditional Freedom Project they're openly claiming ownership.[1] It would seem that the organization isn't as defunct as it appeared to be. Rectitudo (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Unconditional Freedom – OneTaste". OneTaste – Welcome to the Age of Eros. Retrieved 2023-06-09.

OneTaste is actively holding events in their North Bay location, so they're clearly still active as an organization [1] Nicole held an event there yesterday as of this writing. Rectitudo (talk) 03:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rebranding as The Eros Project

[edit]

The Eros Platform feature classes and events hosted by both Nicole Daedone and Rachael Cherwitz on their site. Some of their logos incorporate the Onetaste branding, although they appear to be trying to scrub those. This is pretty plainly the same organization with slightly altered branding. Rectitudo (talk) 01:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have to have reliable sources that say so. You cannot determine this yourself. Skyerise (talk) 02:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyerise They plainly state on their own page that they're "by Onetaste". You don't get any more reliable than that. 162.192.2.81 (talk) 03:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You just don't get it. We need third-party sourcing because they could be lying. Skyerise (talk) 03:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a new registered business under a different name is a distinct topic, even if run by some of the same people. If it is notable, a new article should be written about it from third-party sources. If that can't be done, then it's not notable and should not be coatracked onto another article. Skyerise (talk) 11:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OneTaste appears to have rebranded as "The Institute of Om". To that point, search for "Institute" in these citations:
@Skyerise, Rectitudo, and ABF992: Would one of you please take care of incorporating this into the article? I have plenty of other WikiWork taking priority. Peaceray (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Peaceray: That would not be appropriate. My understanding is that it is a new incorporation with different owners. That would require a new article. If the new company is notable, start an article, but we don't coatrack two separate companies into the same article. Skyerise (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. First, I never suggested that we coatrack two separate companies into the same article.
Second, among the parameters for {{Infobox company}} is successor. Although the examples include Wikilinks, there is no notability requirement for this field. Indeed, two of the examples for the successor parameter themselves would be red links: The People's Corporation of Judea & Splitters, Inc..
I think that is clear that The Institute of Om is a successor company. It is my understanding from what I have read about this years ago that others bought Dedone's controlling interest of One Taste, so of course there would be different owners. Also, the citations that I listed above have statements that clearly describe the relationship between OneTaste & The Institute of Om as rebranded version, renamed itself as, renamed itself as, is still operating as, & Institute of OM, which the government said is a OneTaste-affiliated entity.
It does not seem to be about having reliable sources. I am unaware of any guideline or policy that prohibits mentioning a non-notable company within an article. Which policy or guideline are you basing you opposition to naming the successor company?
I think that failing to even mention The Institute of Om is a successor is a disservice to the reader. Peaceray (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Peaceray: But it is legally not a successor. It is a completely new business registration with different owners than OneTaste had. And that means the new owners could take legal action against Wikipedia if we include it here. Wikipedia is not here to protect people from their own stupidity. An article has a topic, and especially when that topic is controversial and involves legal actions, it's just not a good idea to do what you propose doing. There are two different legal entities; the new one is not legally a continuation of the other. Unless you can source transfer of assets and direct or documented indirect ownership of the Institute by the original owners of OneTaste, you are treading on serious BLP issues here. Skyerise (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This will have to go on the back burner for me for now. I have more timely things to which I must attend. I am sure anyone who goes down the rabbit hole can find relevant information for mentioning the institute in the article. Peaceray (talk) 23:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except that that would be original research. Start an article on the new company if it is notable. If it's not, it doesn't get included here either. Skyerise (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should review my edit history before you imply that I would use WP:OR. I know how to use reliable sources & I know how to avoid (& revert) original research & have a pretty good understanding of BLP, although most of my edits in that regard are reversions of unsourced or improperly source material. I am unaware, however, of any extension to BLP to corporate personhood, although even with that WP:V is paramount. Peaceray (talk) 04:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Peaceray: This isn't about corporate personhood. It's about the actual living people who are the registered owners of the new business; you would basicaly be leveling near-criminal accusations against these owners, even though they were not the owners of OneTaste, haven't been charged with any crimes, or individually associated by sources with OneTaste. One of the articles linked as a source clearly stated that it is a new business with new owners; I looked up the registration, and that is true. We don't do either notability by association or guilt by association here. Skyerise (talk) 09:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify further: you'd need sources that verify that the owners of the new company were actually previously affiliated with OneTaste. What has more likely happened is that OneTaste had a fire sale to raise money for their legal defense and that they sold the copyrights to their training material to individuals that had nothing to do with OneTaste, and that those individuals formed a company and are trying to make a go at marketing that material. This is an extremely common scenario after a company is shuttered by the FBI. You'd need much stronger sources with details about the personal involvement of the new owners with the previous company, and you don't have that. The new company is an LLC: it's not publicly traded or owned by shareholders. It is owned by a single individual or a small partnership. Corporate personhood doesn't come into this. Skyerise (talk) 10:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:OneTaste&oldid=1237556155"