Talk:OneTaste

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)

You have to have reliable sources that say so. You cannot determine this yourself. Skyerise (talk) 02:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@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)

You just don't get it. We need third-party sourcing because they could be lying. Skyerise (talk) 03:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

OneTaste appears to have rebranded as "The Institute of Om". To that point, search for "Institute" in these citations:

• "Real Story of 'Orgasm Inc: The Story of One Taste' Director Interview". Netflix Tudum. 2022-11-02. Retrieved 2024-07-29.
• Harrison, Ellie (2022-11-04). "The bizarre story behind Netflix's documentary on orgasmic meditation group OneTaste". The Independent. Retrieved 2024-07-29.
• Hahn, Jason (2022-11-04). "Lawsuit Seeks to Block Release of Netflix Doc About 'Orgasmic Meditation' Group OneTaste". Peoplemag. Retrieved 2024-07-29.
• Mitchell, Molli (2022-11-08). "What happened to OneTaste? Inside female orgasm company". Newsweek. Retrieved 2024-07-29.
• Manno, Adam (2022-12-23). "Ex-OneTaste Members Drop Lawsuit Against Netflix Over 'Orgasm Inc' Documentary". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 2024-07-29.
• Yossman, K.J. (2023-01-26). "'Sexual Wellness' Company Founder Loses Libel Bid Against BBC Over Podcast". Variety. Retrieved 2024-07-29.
• Scarcella, Mike (2023-09-21). "Lawyers for 'orgasmic meditation' company founder refute prosecutors' ethics concerns". Reuters. Retrieved 2024-07-29.
• Agnew, Megan (2024-01-28). "Inside OneTaste: my stay at Nicole Daedone's 'orgasm commune'". The Times & The Sunday Times. Retrieved 2024-07-29.

@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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

This has gotten way too aggressive for me and unlike other editors, I don't have that much time on my hands. I just want to see what happens after January. Rectitudo (talk) 04:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done. The reliable source coverage clearly shows that OneTaste has rebranded itself into The Institute of OM. I've noted The Institute of OM as OneTaste's current operating name, and redirected The Institute of OM to this article. — Newslinger talk 13:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

As OneTaste's official website (onetaste.us) now redirects to Eros Platform's official website (erosplatform.com), and Eros Platform contains the copyright notice "Copyright © 2025 Institute of OM LLC", it is clear that OneTaste and Eros Platform are closely affiliated entities. I've redirected Eros Platform to this article. — Newslinger talk 13:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

The article says: "Another organization, the Unconditional Freedom Project, shares "key personnel, a website, and a mailing address"." This is cited from an incorrect blog. The organizations have different websites and both use the same mail service, Central Mailboxes in Santa Rosa, but have different addresses. This quote should be amended or removed.

OneTaste website: onetaste.us (redirects to https://erosplatform.com/)

Unconditional Freedom website: https://unconditionalfreedom.org/

OneTaste mailing address: 1274 4th St, Suite #4111, Santa Rosa, CA 95404

Unconditional Freedom mailing address: 1274 4th St, Suite #4501, Santa Rosa, CA 95404 2600:1006:A021:A91F:2C4E:D0E7:38D9:2E1A (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I've rewritten the paragraph to state that Unconditional Freedom was promoted on OneTaste's website. However, as the mailing addresses you provided are original research, I am deferring to MendoFever's assessment of the two organizations sharing the same address. I've also added that Unconditional Freedom and the OneTaste Foundation share the same Employer Identification Number. — Newslinger talk 10:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

How an Orgasmic Meditation Group Sparked a Troubled Federal Case Rectitudo (talk) 10:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

The article definitively establishes that Frank Parlato Jr. (Frank Report) is a questionable source on OneTaste due to his conflict of interest: "Prosecutors have claimed OneTaste paid Parlato $20,000 per month for his coverage. Parlato has written that OneTaste retained him to investigate the prosecution. Engelmayer said the agreement lasted a few months and that Parlato continued writing about the case afterwards." — Newslinger talk 05:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

https://www.npr.org/2025/06/11/nx-s1-5429181/orgasmic-meditation-sexual-womens-wellness-forced-labor-conviction 162.192.2.81 (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

It's already included in the article that they have been found guilty, and they will appeal the verdict. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu This is simply additional information that could be included in the entry. If for no other reason it can be added as a reliable source. 162.192.2.81 (talk) 06:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

@Rectitudo: Please read WP:EL, first paragraph. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:34, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

It's simply mentioned in the article and I linked to the organization's web presence. It's completely relevant to the article and totally relevant to Nicole Daedone's history and background. WP:EL specifically states that "Wikipedia articles may include external links, links to web pages outside Wikipedia". Rectitudo (talk) 07:29, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

External links may be included, however external links inside the prose of the article are prohibited.

So, if there is a good reason (I don't see one right now), that link may be included. But not in the prose of the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Unless they are part of a reference citation (see H:FOOT), external links typically go into an External links section. Peaceray (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

...and they should be treated as trademarks.

They should not be presented as generic terms for multiple reasons:

First, they are actually trademarked and correct style is to capitalize trademarks (see also: Tylenol which is not a generic or proper term for acetaminophen).

Second, genericizing OM or DO is incredibly misleading. Neither of these practices are legitimate religious or sexual wellness practices (as might be implied by genericization). OneTaste is NOT a religious organization (no matter what their guru says). This should be especially true since there is actual tantric sex as practiced in dharmic religions, which has nothing to do with what OneTaste sells.

--KXPUMVVL (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi KXPUMVVL, thanks for participating on the talk page. MOS:TMCAPS, the style guideline that applies to the capitalization of trademarks, states: "For trademarks, editors should choose among styles already in common use (not invent new ones) and, among those, use the style that most closely resembles standard English text formatting and capitalization rules." Just about all of the "independent reliable sources" cited on this page keep the phrase orgasmic meditation in lowercase (outside of article titles, which are often rendered in title case by default), so the Wikipedia article has been doing the same. — Newslinger talk 18:58, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay, then I'm going to refer to it as "so-called 'orgasmic meditation'"/"so-called 'deliberate orgasm'" and have the notes regarding the trademark status for the first instance.

I am nevertheless adamant that it is actually reckless not to make it clear that these are not some neutral sexual or religious practice; they are commercial products that exploit a perceived connection to sex and religion. It is the difference between true religion and True Religion. ~~~~ KXPUMVVL (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

The phrase so-called runs afoul of the MOS:DOUBT guideline, so we should not use it. Peaceray (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

This argument would be academic but for Daedone's trial making it abundantly clear that "orgasmic meditation" was done to coerced victims, who found it neither arousing nor meditative. KXPUMVVL (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

For this type of situation, Wikipedia articles tend to omit words such as so-called in favor of including a summary of how reliable sources describe the coercion. The article does currently contain the latter. — Newslinger talk 06:55, 19 February 2026 (UTC)