Talk:Media on Ram Bahadur Bomjon's controversies

Updated: Thank you for your quick reaction, Mr. McClennon. Actually you could have not read much of the article, as you reacted in around 10 minutes after I published this, as you yourself wrote, very long text. Please take the effort and do read the article before you judge and condemn its content. If you did so, you might have noticed that it not only contains all the important links to sources which provide an even unhealthily positive picture, and not only contains links to the Ram Bahadur Bomjon Wikipedia site more than 110 of times, but also quotes from the "positive image giving" sources like that of Joan Stanley Baker, Kishore Sherchand, Ocean J Dennie etc., shows positive-image giving media links (at least 26 such links, I took the time to count them) - after my last editing. It is quite a high number considering the article is focusing merely on a person's controversies, I think.

I am trying to improve the article, Mr. McClenon, who had not even read the article and did not check its sources and links, but stigmatized it immediately for deletion in ten minutes after publishing. Yet no response is coming anymore from anyone. I hope you can take some inspiration from these Wikipedia lines: "A newcomer may save a tentative first draft to see if they are even allowed to start an article, with plans to expand it if there is no backlash. If, within a few minutes, the article is plastered with cleanup tags, assessed as "stub" or even suggested for deletion, they may give up. It is better to wait a few days to see how a harmless article evolves than to rush to criticize." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers

It is quite surprising that you consider the big amount of media on this subject's controversies, collecting over the years as "un-notable" and as POV Fork. Anyone confronted with such an amount of media sources, collecting over 14 years, should rather start to ask the questions: why had been they left out from the "main article" Ram Bahadur Bomjon Wikipedia entry? Could it be because that original Ram Bahadur Bomjon article is one-sided and mythological, and used rather as a propaganda tool of a religious cult? And if so, maybe it is that mystical article which needs to be re-assessed and balanced.

Yet this article is not about a personal opinion, as you have mistakenly assessed, but a list of media articles about actual deeds. If at all, then there are numerous personal opinions (one per each of the journalists). Please click on the links of media like BBC, The Independent, the mainstream Nepalese, mainstream Slovak and mainstream Czech news sites, radio and TV channels. Not a single word in this text is without proof by (at least 2) media links. (Yet could you claim the same about the "main article" Ram Bahadur Bomjon Wikipedia entry, describing things which had been never proven by witnesses?). The author (-s) of The Ram Bahadur Bomjon Wikipedia entry had somewhat forgotten to add a chapter about the overwhelming amount of controversies (it mentions three links, adding unimportant details like that "Bomjon said locals had been interrupting his meditation by climbing onto his platform, mimicking him, and attempting to manhandle him, and that he was "therefore forced to beat them". According to the newspaper, he claims he slapped them "two or three times", while the attackers alleged that they had been assaulted more seriously. Bomjon had been fasting before the altercation"). It really depends what you pick up from the media to quote, I agree. That's why in my article there are multiple sources confirming the same event.

I would argue about your claim that the narrow concrete topic of Ram Bahadur Bomjon's controversies in the media is not notable. (It was surely notable for the girl who died, see [1])... Notability of a topic is not measured on Internet search machines? So where else is it actually assessed? Please make the effort to check if the media on Ram Bomjon's controversies is really un-notable on the Internet.

Because Wikipedia supported a cult propaganda with the out-dated and one-sided Ram Bahadur Bomjon article, and ignored the overwhelming controversies described by Nepalese and international media over the years, many people, who in good faith, based on Wikipedia, arrived to the 'guru' had already been tortured, violently attacked and two of them even died. Those who intentionally keep back pragmatic media information about dangerous religious cults, are co-responsible for the harm done to their victims.

Later I wrote:

I am still standing behind the belief that, if a title indicates it is about the controversies (and not a biographic text or a general overview of a topic), that there is a certain expectation that it will focus more on the controversies than on giving biographical (in this concrete case: mythological and propagandist) information. I also stand behind my belief that if the very first words (Ram Bahadur Bomjon) link to the biographical article, among dozens of other links including See also and External links under the article, and if there is a fair amount of Ram Bomjon cult-based quotes and links somewhat lightening the dense mass of controversies, than I did enough to balance the opposing opinions about this person. And I also stand behind the belief that if an article is in majority composed by quotes and links to media, which are easily checked, then it is not an article describing the personal opinion of the author.

But if you still find the article too one-sidedly negative, like "in opposition" to the Ram Bahadur Bomjon mythological biography, do not necessarily blame it on my article: yet please have a critical look at the Ram Bahadur Bomjon article if, on the other hand, is that one not written with a hidden agenda, when intentionally leaving out the long-time and extreme amount of medially recorded controversies surrounding this man?

Allow me to express my opinion that 1, either the two articles should be merged, because the long list of media evidence is just beating to the eye, and it is simply not fair to the public to leave them out! or 2, both approaches - the biographical-mythological Ram Bahadur Bomjon, as well as my pragmatic and media-based article - should be allowed to inform the readers.

And something to consider as well, from Wikipedia about BLPs:

"In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. ... Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Categories.2C_lists_and_navigation_templates

(Updated)

Thank you. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaliage (talk • contribs) 19:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)