User talk:WilliamEMunny
WilliamEMunny, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi WilliamEMunny! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC) |
Improper editing relating to the Triratna Buddhist Community
[edit]I see that you have created a new user account specifically to post material detrimental to the Triratna Buddhist Community and the people involved with it. While reliably-sourced material that complies with Wikipedia's rules on balance is welcome, you have gone far beyond that and added things such as this, which is not supported by what the sources say, this, which misquotes a speaker in a (probably copyright-infringing) film on Vimeo and this, which relies on no source at all. If you are unsure about Wikipedia's policies, please ask at the Teahouse. If you have contentious material to add, you can always open a discussion on the talk page of the relevant article, to see whether editors agree with your view. You should not continue as you have been doing. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip Michael. I will put back the latest news from the Guardian, but I'll be careful to add the referene the right way as you suggest. I'll also add the important quote from the psychologist, but be more careful with the quote, ensuring it is word for word perfect.
- I would be concerned that selectively pulling out the views of one interviewee, in one local news report, is not a neutral edit. You appear to have an axe to grind. MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
You mention the need for a source on the word cult, but I cannot see one on the existing entry of "Buddhist modernism"?
- Not sure what you're referring to, but if you see anything elsewhere that you think factually wrong, you can add
{{Citation needed|date=April 2021|reason=Your explanation here}}after it, to call for someone to provide a source. MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, I really do appreciate it. No axe to grind, I've only just started here. I am keen to update the list of "issues" with newer articles from a national newspaper. Also the "local news report" is actually the BBC, which is quite reputable I hope. Indeed the psychologist quoted is a professional, which is why the BBC asked him to comment. This is very important information, and will have proper citations and references when I have finished. Unlike a lot of the other text in the article.
I added the term "cult" after "Buddhist modernism", which doesn't have a source, so I assumed it would be fine to add the word after it. "Buddhist modernism" seems as subjective as "Cult", but maybe I can find a more suitable description with, like you suggest, a source.
I can see a national newspaper call the group a "controversial sect", I presume that can be used with the source - https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/15/new-attorney-general-suella-braverman-in-controversial-buddhist-sect
The Guardian can normally be used as a reliable source, but that isn't enough: the article as a whole must be neutrallly written, and you are not achieving that by cherry-picking solely negative material. Ask yourself: are you prepared to add positive as well as negative content? Are you here to write a neutral, balanced, article, or to make the article's subject look as bad as you can? I've provided you with the background, but am not able to support your apparent aim. Please post your ideas on the talk page or the article and seek consensus there. Regards, MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
"Ask yourself: are you prepared to add positive as well as negative content? Are you here to write a neutral, balanced, article, or to make the article's subject look as bad as you can?"
- I would like to simply update the content with the latest details. Yes indeed, I want the additions to be neutral and balanced. I will certainly avoid the far worse and personal blog-posts that are on the internet. I don't want the subject to look as bad as possible, simply reflect the information that has more recently come to light, as the page is out of date. In terms of positive content - I don't see any on reputable content such as the BBC, or national newspapers. I will look again, to ensure I find sensible views. Thanks for your help.
Thanks for the links. The section I updated related to the history of "sexual misconduct" at the charity; while these links are very interesting they don't mention or question that history. Perhaps I can add a section that lists some of the properties owned by the charity. I'll carry on looking for balanced viewpoints on the section I updated. 15:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Ok, not only can I add Dennis Lingwood's own apology, I have found a video where he says in response to the issues that "there was a lot of experimentation in the past... but the FWBO doesn't have much experimentation now". These can balance their own report (where they mention 10% of members having experienced or known about abuse) and the newer articles and documentary. 17:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
April 2021
[edit]
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Dharmachari Subhuti. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)