This is Woodroar's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
|
This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as
contentious topics:
|
Hi Woodroar,
My name is Siddhartha, I help to look after the online presence for Mooji, and I've recently been having a look at Mooji's wikipedia page and some of the history behind it.
Thank you for the work you've put into looking after this page and moderating some of the edits.
I wanted to ask your advice for improving the page, as I would rather not make edits only to find out they don't meet Wikipedia's standards. However, I do have two main concerns with the article as it stands now, and I'm very keen to get your feedback and suggestions for how to address them.
1. There seems to be a strong emphasis on the monetary aspect of Mooji's satsangs
I find this emphasis a bit suggestive in a negative way, insinuating that Mooji's teachings are just about making money. I'm not sure why it is relevant to list the number of people coming to retreats, how much they are paying, the number of hectares of Mooji's retreat center, the annual income of the organisation, etc.
I feel some implicit bias in the way this information is highlighted, but I'd be happy to hear what you think about it.
2. Poor and vague representation of Mooji's teachings
I find that most of the descriptions of Mooji's teachings revolve around journalists' subjective experiences of attending a talk. For example, it's attended mainly by "mostly well-off whites", it's a "riff on faith", his focus is totally on you "making you feel like you really matter"... and so on.
It's reasonable to include impressions and experiences, but seems misleading to present these opinions as a description of Mooji's teachings.
With so much of Mooji's teachings publicly available on YouTube or succinctly explained in his books, it feels to me that Wikipedia should give a clearer overview of what Mooji's teachings actually are.
I found the page of Gangaji, a comparable teacher, to be a good example of what I would expect to see on the Wikipedia page of a well known spiritual teacher.
I'm happy to draft an overview of Mooji's core teachings that references source material, if that could help.
Again, I'd be happy to hear your thoughts about these points. I feel the article could give a deeper insight into who Mooji is and what he is sharing without losing its objectivity. Would be very grateful for any help along these lines.
I'm sorry if this is a bit much, but I'm hoping that asking for help from someone experienced in editing and moderating Wikipedia pages would be more effective than trying to make or fight for changes on my own.
Wishing you all the best, Siddhartha Siddcorsus ( talk) 18:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
(Note: I'm aware you've received these notifications before for other areas, and apologize for the additional talk page clutter but the filter does not indicate that you've received it for the GG area yet. As a reminder, you can always use the Ctopics/aware template mentioned above to indicate your awareness of various contentions topics, if you do not wish to be notified of them in the future). ⇒ SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 19:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello is the source from her Instagram not reliable? It is coming directly from her verified Instagram. 2600:100C:A20E:2:E039:B781:5D41:E35E ( talk) 03:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi. Participate in this discussion. thanks.
/info/en/?search=Talk:UEFA_European_Championship_records_and_statistics#%22Semifinal_appearance%22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xoomia ( talk • contribs) 09:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I can easily find other sources for O'Neill's views regarding freedom of speech. However, the student papers seem to have been the only ones covering the protests over his 2018 visit. I am not using them to make controversial claims - I am using them to verify that Oxford students protested O'Neill's 2018 visit. This should not be an issue.-- LadybugStardust ( talk) 19:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Where else are you going to get the subject's stated views?From reliable, secondary, independent sources. Coverage from reliable sources is what makes a person's views worth mentioning here. In most other cases, we don't care. See WP:SPS, for example. If O'Neill were a subject matter expert on homosexuality, racism, religion, environmentalism, etc., then we might care. But he's a pundit. And keep in mind that, per policies like WP:BLPSPS and WP:ABOUTSELF, we can never use his self-published sources to support claims about other living persons. Woodroar ( talk) 01:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Look, I get it. You wish there wasn't an article about O'Neill at all. In reality, however, Wikipedia includes articles about people that you don't like. I already discussed this on the talk page and no objections were raised - not even from you. At this point, it's obvious that you are going to revert my revisions no matter what, even though I have reliable sources to back them up and good reason to include them.-- LadybugStardust ( talk) 22:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
This is Woodroar's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
|
This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as
contentious topics:
|
Hi Woodroar,
My name is Siddhartha, I help to look after the online presence for Mooji, and I've recently been having a look at Mooji's wikipedia page and some of the history behind it.
Thank you for the work you've put into looking after this page and moderating some of the edits.
I wanted to ask your advice for improving the page, as I would rather not make edits only to find out they don't meet Wikipedia's standards. However, I do have two main concerns with the article as it stands now, and I'm very keen to get your feedback and suggestions for how to address them.
1. There seems to be a strong emphasis on the monetary aspect of Mooji's satsangs
I find this emphasis a bit suggestive in a negative way, insinuating that Mooji's teachings are just about making money. I'm not sure why it is relevant to list the number of people coming to retreats, how much they are paying, the number of hectares of Mooji's retreat center, the annual income of the organisation, etc.
I feel some implicit bias in the way this information is highlighted, but I'd be happy to hear what you think about it.
2. Poor and vague representation of Mooji's teachings
I find that most of the descriptions of Mooji's teachings revolve around journalists' subjective experiences of attending a talk. For example, it's attended mainly by "mostly well-off whites", it's a "riff on faith", his focus is totally on you "making you feel like you really matter"... and so on.
It's reasonable to include impressions and experiences, but seems misleading to present these opinions as a description of Mooji's teachings.
With so much of Mooji's teachings publicly available on YouTube or succinctly explained in his books, it feels to me that Wikipedia should give a clearer overview of what Mooji's teachings actually are.
I found the page of Gangaji, a comparable teacher, to be a good example of what I would expect to see on the Wikipedia page of a well known spiritual teacher.
I'm happy to draft an overview of Mooji's core teachings that references source material, if that could help.
Again, I'd be happy to hear your thoughts about these points. I feel the article could give a deeper insight into who Mooji is and what he is sharing without losing its objectivity. Would be very grateful for any help along these lines.
I'm sorry if this is a bit much, but I'm hoping that asking for help from someone experienced in editing and moderating Wikipedia pages would be more effective than trying to make or fight for changes on my own.
Wishing you all the best, Siddhartha Siddcorsus ( talk) 18:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
(Note: I'm aware you've received these notifications before for other areas, and apologize for the additional talk page clutter but the filter does not indicate that you've received it for the GG area yet. As a reminder, you can always use the Ctopics/aware template mentioned above to indicate your awareness of various contentions topics, if you do not wish to be notified of them in the future). ⇒ SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 19:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello is the source from her Instagram not reliable? It is coming directly from her verified Instagram. 2600:100C:A20E:2:E039:B781:5D41:E35E ( talk) 03:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi. Participate in this discussion. thanks.
/info/en/?search=Talk:UEFA_European_Championship_records_and_statistics#%22Semifinal_appearance%22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xoomia ( talk • contribs) 09:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I can easily find other sources for O'Neill's views regarding freedom of speech. However, the student papers seem to have been the only ones covering the protests over his 2018 visit. I am not using them to make controversial claims - I am using them to verify that Oxford students protested O'Neill's 2018 visit. This should not be an issue.-- LadybugStardust ( talk) 19:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Where else are you going to get the subject's stated views?From reliable, secondary, independent sources. Coverage from reliable sources is what makes a person's views worth mentioning here. In most other cases, we don't care. See WP:SPS, for example. If O'Neill were a subject matter expert on homosexuality, racism, religion, environmentalism, etc., then we might care. But he's a pundit. And keep in mind that, per policies like WP:BLPSPS and WP:ABOUTSELF, we can never use his self-published sources to support claims about other living persons. Woodroar ( talk) 01:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Look, I get it. You wish there wasn't an article about O'Neill at all. In reality, however, Wikipedia includes articles about people that you don't like. I already discussed this on the talk page and no objections were raised - not even from you. At this point, it's obvious that you are going to revert my revisions no matter what, even though I have reliable sources to back them up and good reason to include them.-- LadybugStardust ( talk) 22:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)