User talk:Rljs3

Oom Yung Doe

Dear Rljs3,

I've just reverted several of your edits. While your edits don't seem like a desire to vandalize, there are several issues with your edits:

1) You've included several lists (i.e. listing the styles of OYD, listing the states where there are schools) which really aren't appropriate for the first paragraph. Those items are gone over later in the article so don't worry about them not getting any attention.

2) I don't think that using words like "highly" and "serious" are at all inappropriate or show bias. Your edits themselves help support the fact that OYD is highly controversial. Being sent to jail for 5 years for conspiracy to steal 2 million seems kind f serious too.

3) You've made no attempt at indicating what each edit is for. Perhaps if you were just fixing some spelling mistakes that would be OK, but you really aren't.

4) You misrepresent the sources. For example saying that articles were written in the 80's when I see source [5] through [12] were all written in the 90's. You suggest that "Local and National TV stations have also done news reports hilighting the benefits to many of the practitioners including those with arthritis and other medical conditions in More Magazine[13] and on the The Oprah Winfrey Show[14]" when these sources just talk about how a fairly health single older woman uses OYD to maintain her health.

If you feel that OYD is being unfairly treated, on these issues, I invite you to says something about it on the article discussion page were several editors can weigh in on the issue.

Thanks, Cjim63 (talk) 22:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss the removal of large amounts of cited text, some of the subsequent edits were good but it is difficult to trawl through 20+ edits & figure out which are contentious and be unable to revert only these as it due to subsequent changes. --Nate 14 81 09:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introductory paragraph

I replaced some of the changes that were undone, because they are neccesarry to avoid the bias currently running throughout this article. We are talking about a school that thousands have benefitted from (by their own claims) over decades that had a single tax case and a few negative articles written in the late 80s and early 90s. The introduction makes it sound like this is the defining aspect of the school. To the many practicing currently the organization is not controvertial at all. It is ridiculous to put a minority viewpoint in the introductory summary of the article. This critisism should be noted and described but it is not the defining aspect of the subject. Rljs3 (talk) 23:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let us suppose for a moment that you are entirely correct. That does not change the fact that the sources you are using refer to a single person (not thousands) of peoples' benefit. Therefore it is a misrepresentation of the references. You still need to address the other issues I pointed out earlier. I have reverted your edit again. Cjim63 (talk) 02:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a section for us to let other editors weigh in on these issues on the OYD discussion page right here: [1]. Why don't we discuss there how we think the first paragraph should go along with other editors? Cjim63 (talk) 02:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you are talking about a single tax case and I am talking about a single news stories. If you ever want this article to look like anything more than a veiled smear campaign you will have to acknowledge the positive benefits many have seen and continue to see from the training. Oom Yung Doe has definitely had its share of controversy, but to the many people that train, that hardly summarizes the organization. You will say that you have included a line further down in the article on the benefits and I applaud that, but the introductory paragraph must represent that. Rljs3 (talk) 08:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another user says that it is irrelevant when these articles were written or aired. So you are saying there is no difference between 20 years ago and yesterday? Do you think that an encyclopedia does not care when things happened? Maybe the amount doesn't matter either?

Perhaps you could make your case here [2] on the article's discussion page. [3]. That way it is a conversation open to everyone and not just between the two of us. Cjim63 (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]