Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:20, 2 March 2021

PLEASE ADD ANY COMMENTS AT THE END OF THIS PAGE.

TALK AFTER ANY EXISTING TALK

Wikipedia's 20th birthday!

... and a billion edits ...

A Companion to J. R. R. Tolkien

Thanks for expanding this. If you could add about 100 more words, it would qualify for a DYK. I can add infobox as my part and will take care of the nomination. What do you say? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus - OK, I'll see if I can rustle something up this morning! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick Chap, Sure. If you need help accessing the academic reviews, let me know. Most of them are probably in Library Genesis... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus All done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harbhajan Singh Khalsa

Hello Chiswick Chap,

So, I have questions for you.

Almost the entire historical information in the Wiki entry on Yogi Bhajan has been generated from his own words or his own words as repeated by his faithful students. If you look at the sources of the core content, they are almost all written by 'Something Something Singh Khalsa' or 'Something Something Kaur Khalsa'. These are all the given names of 3HO cult members. There is no daylight between what the Yogi said and what they repeat. Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa, a frequent editor of this page, wrote an almost 1,000 page book (Messenger from the Guru's House - it is cited in the footnote. Check it out if you are having trouble sleeping) on Bhajan without a SINGLE WORD OF CRITICISM. Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa is not what I, or anyone not in the 3HO cult, would call a 'good academic'. Read some of his output, or take a look at his web site. That foundation, devotees spewing group dogma, for much of the material does not seem to be a reliable source to build a good and balanced encyclopedia entry on.

If Bhajan is the pathological liar, exploiter of his follower and serial sexual abuser that it is now evident he was, why is the AOB Report, or even the 1977 Time Magazine article any less compelling than the content that Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa and other dogmatic followers post? Why can't this material be front and center? Why is it more balanced to base it on 'the official version' as provided by group members. Why is that any more legitimate? This is such a conservative approach to the Wikipedia entry on Bhajan.

I encourage you to read the actual AOB Report. No less than 30 women came forward with stories of horrendous exploitation at the hands (and teeth) of Yogi Bhajan. This is not some mass hysteria. Their stories were given independently and the patterns of sexual abuse by Bhajan match up. He was a biter of their private parts. He hit the women in the face. He was into degrading sex with vulnerable women.

To get an idea of where he created Kundalini Yoga from, read Philip Deslippe's account (unlike Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa, Deslippe is an actual historian) of how Bhajan changed his story of his 'golden chain' lineage. Bhajan lied about many things, including having invented both Kundalini Yoga and White Tantric Yoga. He lied about being designated the "Siri Singh Sahib" of the Western Hemisphere.

I would really like to know how to have these documented and well researched versions of Bhajan's story take prominence and have the stories of his abuse be brought back from the footnotes. Right now, it feels like someone is tending the garden and hiding all the truth under the compost pile. A casual reader is not going to get that there is a real problem with Bhajan.

So my question is, what do I have to do to get my edits to stick. What am I doing wrong? Also is there a method of having Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa, and other known devotees of Yogi Bhajan banned from editing this article? They are clearly in a conflict of interest position.

-an anonymous contributor.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:79E2:CC00:8436:FF7A:5CC4:C1B3 (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was in a rush. I had not noticed that the earlier ref to the Thompson Report had been deleted. They really did a lot of revisions in the last couple of days. I think the article is back to being objective and referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.182.150.237 (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I am a good academic and I can keep balanced. The reason I removed the reference to "more likely than true" allegations is because the allegations against Harbhajan Singh Khalsa are potentially criminal in nature and "more likely than not is" is the standard for lesser, civil litigation, the standard for criminal litigation being "beyond a reasonable doubt."

It is amateurish to conflate the two as the authors of the AOB Report cited in the various media mentioned in the article have done. In reality, for the people posting that bit on the article, it is also a matter of wanting to cause harm to the reputation of Harbhajan Singh Khalsa. That is why I removed the text with the following reference to the Thompson Report at the bottom: "Ms. Thompson points out: "Many of the behaviors Yogi Bhajan is alleged to have committed are criminal in nature. The "preponderance of the evidence" standard as used in the AOB Report for the burden of proof ("more likely than not") is appropriate only in civil actions. The standard of proof required in criminal trials is "beyond a reasonable doubt.""

22:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Please sign your postings. It was absolutely unacceptable to remove the "more likely than not" finding. The report could not substitute for a criminal inquiry as the subject was dead, so that is a smokescreen; all a posthumous inquiry can do is to examine the evidence and report on it fairly. The long paragraph of legalese was unacceptably one-sided and should not have gone into (wholly inappropriate for an encyclopedia) legalese. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

/* Harbhajan Singh Khalsa */ Thanks Chiswick Chap for being kind in helping me to understand how to cite and edit properly. I have much to learn. I have been focused on this one particular matter because I believe a neutral entry should include both sides. I have been frustrated by any mention of the AOB report the sexual allegations including media links kept getting deleted unfairly and with a person with bias intent. I was doing my best with my very basic skills to restore some balance and neutral statement of the facts. I still have much to learn. Thanks to you Chiswick I am now using visual editor so I already am doing a better job. I do read your considerate explanation and hope to learn how to be more brief when adding content. I appreciate that you came and edited the Harbhajan page as you corrected my errors and others and settled the issue of unfair or biased deletes which have been happening on this page for months. I have diverse interests so I hope to learn to edit properly and be concise. Not quite there yet Netal2001 (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the open sharing. The version of the article I found a few minute ago indicated there were some unanswered questions, so I did my best to answer them as succinctly as possible. I hope you find the article as it stands to be be reasonable.

If you have the time, I recommend you read the Thompson Report. https://fairinvestigation.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/The-Thompson-Report.pdf There is no smokescreen. Even when subjects are dead, they deserve representation in any serious investigation. Moreover, while the accused may be deceased, allegations against them are hurtful to surviving family members and associates, so justice still requires a high bar, as in a) certainty in "beyond a reasonable doubt" and b) transparency in who the individual accusers are what they are alleging. Thanks for giving this your time. Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad there won't be any smokescreen. The basic point is that very serious allegations have certainly been made, and two reports have been written. These facts at least must be reported in the article. Beyond that, the allegations and the reports may, indeed should, be briefly and neutrally summarized, without putting any of the findings in Wikipedia's voice. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the behaviors that Yogi Bhajan is alleged to have committed are criminal in nature and therefore very serious indeed. And indeed, two reports have been written: one a biased survey of questionable methodology based on anonymous allegations and the other a professional investigation of the former. These should indeed be reported in the article. The difficulty is when the article in our much loved and respected Wikipedia cites the conclusion of the sham AOB investigation as though it were an objective outcome of an actual professional investigation, as stated: "The report stated that the allegations were found on investigation to be 'more likely than not' true."

Please allow me to cite from you the relevant sections of the Thompson Report:

The AOB Report was intended to be an "investigative" report (subtitle)

...The AOB Report states, "...this is not a legal investigation; it is not intended to gather facts for a cases that would be tried in a court of law. Rather, it is intended to report An Olive Branch's findings as to whether it it more likely than not that Yogi Bhajan engaged in sexual and related misconduct." (citation) While the AOB took some care to indicate that the Report was not investigative in nature, in nonetheless reports the results of its "investigation," and the conclusion that it is "more likely than not" that Yogi Bhajan engaged in the alleged conduct.

On the other hand, the AOB Report goes to come length to give itself the imprimatur of a professional investigation. The Los Angeles Magazine article refers to the AOB Report as an investigation into whether the alleged behaviors of Yogi Bhajan did occur. In the news article announcing the AOB Report, it was referred to as an "investigation." The Los Angeles Magazine article discloses that the sexual allegations against Yogi Bhajan "...are likely true, according to a report released August 13, 2020 by An Olive Branch..." Siri Singh Sahib Corporation announced that it was launching an "independent investigation into allegations" and hiring An Olive Branch on March 9, 2020. (citation) The AOB Report was completed and is dated August 10, 2020. (p. 9)

"More likely than not" was the wrong standard to use in this investigation (subtitle)

Many of the behaviors that Yogi Bhajan is alleged to have committed are criminal in nature.(citation) The "preponderance of the evidence" standard as used in the AOB Report for burden of poof ("more likely than not") is appropriate only in civil actions. The standard of proof required in criminal trials is "beyond a resaonable doubt."(citation)

What does "more likely than not" refer to? In any case where a person or the state makes a claim against another person, the determination begins with the scales of justice being equal. (Recall the statue of the Lady of Justice holding scales that are even) If, after all of the information presented is considered by a decision-maker, the scale on one side moves just one percent, that is more likely than not that it did happen or more likely than not that it did not happen - a one percent difference change.

That standard is used in most cases where someone sues another person such as in an automobile accident where the issue is whether the person is accused of being negligent (not yielding to oncoming traffic, for example). When the claim is more serious, the standard requires more than a one percent change. In fraud cases, for example, the standard is that there must be "clear and convincing" evidence that fraud happened, an approximately 75 percent surety that it did occur.

The most serious cases are criminal cases where the defendant can be incarcerated for life or even given the death penalty. There the standard is that the evidence must prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the person committed the crime, or an approximately 95 percent certainty that he did it.

In this matter, the standard for labeling Yogi Bhajan a rapist and pedophile must be greater than "more likely than not." Since the allegations against him constitute some of the most serious crimes that can be committed, the correct standard must be "beyond a reasonable doubt." (p. 12)

Based on the above insights provided by the Thompson Report, I suggest that either: a) the sentence "The report stated that the allegations were found on investigation to be 'more likely than not' true." remain, but be balanced by a brief explanation of why "beyond a reasonable doubt" was not the appropriate standard of evidence in this case, or b) that the sentence be removed entirely. Thanks for taking the time to read and consider the merits of this lengthy missive.

Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk) 02:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the law does not allow dead people to be tried in a criminal court case the idea that the standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt”in examining the sexual abuse allegations is incorrect. The flaws are the responsibility of the SSSC Board of directors including the three that designed. They are the ones the created the terms of references. Those flaws do not remove the facts that these sexual abuse allegations exist.The term “more likely than not” was used in the report precisely because there will never be a determination in a criminal court of law “beyond a reasonable doubt” The continued repeated deletion of the facts and citations around the allegations are not neutral edits. There are a number of civil lawsuits being prepared and eventually they will reach the courts. The verdicts in these civil actions will also not be “ beyond a reasonable doubt” either. Again because the accused is dead.

Many of those making the allegations as well as their supporters wanted a licensed law firm to conduct the investigation. The SSSC board disregard these requests and chose An Olive Branch.

Frankly the idea that the report criticizing a report on sexual abuse get more space is not balanced or neutral either.

If these deletions continued, I guess I will be forced to learn the Wikipedia process of reporting continue biased deletions of any mention of the sexual abuse allegations which even the Yoga Organization the accused founded ( and which commissioned and created the terms of reference for the AOB report) has reluctantly accepted the findings and is in process of significant internal changes.

Netal2001 (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page isn't the right place for discussions of article content, we should use its talk page. However, clearly "beyond reasonable doubt" is inapplicable for any inquiry as it can't be a criminal court. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Skald

Thanks for your input. Considering the good state of the article, I was actually wondering who would possibly defend a ref tag, and you answered it at once. I think it is an important article, and since you know enough about the topic, and care enough about it to insist that it needs more references, I would appreciate if you could help out by adding them. Thanks in advance! :-)--Berig (talk) 07:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I might or might not be able, willing, or have the time to work on that article; I am certainly not an expert on the Skaldic tradition; but anybody who casts an eye over the article, as one is required to do before removing such a tag, will see at once that the article remains under-cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability is not about having every single line provided with a ref. The point of the policy is to avoid having original research in the article. It "requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged", and note challenged and likely to be challenged, here. This is exactly why your revert surprises me. You say "I am certainly not an expert on the Skaldic tradition", but if I am to assume good faith by your revert, I have to deduct that you find material that is "likely to be challenged" in it. Please, point out the controversial parts, because reverting is not something I do with established editors. Likewise, I take for granted that an editor who reverts me has a better answer than the one you have provided so far. Let us be constructive here, and leave the article in a better shape. What parts look likely to be challenged?--Berig (talk) 11:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've challenged it, that is enough. But there are entire sections uncited, I'm astonished you think that's acceptable: I do not accept it. The lists contain literally dozens of uncited claims, substantiated only by bluelinks to Wikipedia, which is "not a reliable source", as you certainly know. Also, there are entirely uncited paragraphs. Basta. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the tag was totally correct all those years ago, and I'm actually angry that you're arguing that half-cited articles are acceptable. Wikipedia is reliable ONLY insofar as it can be verified; all unverified claims are ... what? - at best unknown quantities, at worst Original Research, Hoax, Nonsense, Confusion. In short: the entire enterprise stands or falls on the quality of its sources. Anything unsourced is garbage. Do I think that matters? YES! I believe that passionately. If you don't, I really don't know why you'd bother to edit - why would anyone want to tend a pile of WP:OR? Clearly, we, the whole project, is about telling the truth, indeed, speaking verifiable truth to power, and that truth includes history, religion, mythology, science, literature, art, politics, the whole bit. Is all this important? Of course it is, nothing we can do matters more than opposing falsehood and "fake news" everywhere and in everything. Do we need to show we can verify our claims? You bet we do. It's what makes us different from the fake noos-mongers, who can't verify anything. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you find so much of the article to be likely to be challenged, then we should keep your tag. Best,--Berig (talk) 12:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Actually several of its "refs" are just dictionary definitions. I'm adding some material to the related scop, which may perhaps lead to some work on skald at some point. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have been thinking of using the massive Skaldic Poetry of the Scandinavian Middle Ages website as a source.--Berig (talk) 12:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Irene Papas

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Irene Papas you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wasted Time R -- Wasted Time R (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ovulatory shift hypothesis

Since you passed it as a GA, I'm making sure you're aware of some recent activity there: [1] Crossroads ^-talk- 06:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 138: / Line 138: @@
 == Your [[WP:Good articles|GA]] nomination of [[Irene Papas]] ==
 Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article [[Irene Papas]] you nominated for [[WP:GA|GA]]-status according to the [[WP:WIAGA|criteria]]. [[File:Time2wait.svg|20px]] This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. <!-- Template:GANotice --> <small>Message delivered by [[User:Legobot|Legobot]], on behalf of [[User:Wasted Time R|Wasted Time R]]</small> -- [[User:Wasted Time R|Wasted Time R]] ([[User talk:Wasted Time R|talk]]) 15:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
+== [[Ovulatory shift hypothesis]] ==
+Since you passed it as a GA, I'm making sure you're aware of some recent activity there: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ovulatory_shift_hypothesis&action=history] <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 06:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

User talk:Chiswick Chap: Difference between revisions