Woodroar

Mooji page

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)

Hi Siddcorsus, thanks for reaching out, and for mentioning your own conflict of interest on this subject. (Many editors don't!) In general, articles on Wikipedia should be based on reliable, independent, secondary sources. That means news articles, scientific journals, books from reputable publishers, and so on. We can use primary sources—for example, the subject's verified social media posts or interviews—to fill in very basic details, like their birthdate or gender identity. If what the subject claims is different from what reliable secondary sources claim—say, conflicts over a birth year/age—we generally trust those secondary sources. What we, as editors, can't do is analyze or synthesize primary materials like the subject's teachings. Unfortunately, if secondary sources tend to focus on the monetary side of things or they misunderstand some teachings, that's not something we can fix. In that case, your best course of action would be to reach out to those news outlets, or perhaps request coverage from other reliable sources.

You mentioned our article on Gangaji, which I've never seen before. I'll be honest, it's pretty bad. It's largely based on primary sources, and plenty of claims aren't sourced at all. The article's history shows a great deal of promotional editing, too. That's essentially the opposite of what a Wikipedia article should be. Our article on Mooji, on the other hand, has been mentioned at high-profile discussion pages like our noticeboard on articles about living persons and the consensus among seasoned editors has been that it meets our standards.

I've left a welcome message on your User Talk page. You can click on "Learn more about editing" for an introduction to why we do what we do, but please let me know if you have any other questions. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

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:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

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)

No worries, I totally understand! That's weird about the filter, though, as I've been editing at Gamergate (harassment campaign) since the first couple of weeks. Oh well! Woodroar (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Alexa Nikolas

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 2600, her Instagram can only be used for basic claims about herself, and cannot be used for claims involving third parties. See WP:BLPSELFPUB for more about that. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 03:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

So would third parties include children? 2600:100C:A20E:2:6907:8F90:6CAE:AB92 (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Correct. Children, husband, any living person. Woodroar (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi

Hi. Participate in this discussion. thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:UEFA_European_Championship_records_and_statistics#%22Semifinal_appearance%22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xoomia (talk • contribs) 09:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @Xoomia:, thank you for the message, but I have to ask: why me? I've never edited that article before and I'm not a member of WikiProject Football. In fact, I don't even watch football. Woodroar (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The Oxford Student and Cherwell

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)

It is an issue, as protesting someone for their views is inherently controversial. We need high-quality sources to support such a claim regarding living persons. Additionally, if only one source is reporting on the situation, that's a sign that it's an undue or minority viewpoint. Woodroar (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, what if I reframed the wording to say that "In 2018, Oxford student newspapers reported that..."?--LadybugStardust (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

If reliable, secondary, independent sources—that is, not the student newspapers but reputable sources reporting on them—have covered this situation, that might be fine. But it would really have to be widely reported, by several sources at least, to be DUE. Considering the number of reverts you're currently at, I would strongly suggest trying to workshop any phrasing on the Talk page rather than adding it yourself—which would likely be seen as further reverts. Woodroar (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I noticed that you just removed a large amount of content from the article because it used "primarily sources". You are aware that linking to primary sources is perfectly fine when it's used to reference the subject's stated views, right? Those links were citing op-eds when talking about the subject's point-of-view, which is the only time that it's acceptable to cite op-eds. Where else are you going to get the subject's stated views?--LadybugStardust (talk) 01:21, 21 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)

Brendan O'Neill

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)

As far as I know, I'd never heard of Brendan O'Neill until I saw the recent thread on RSN. He does appear to meet our notability requirements so I'm glad that the article exists. What I care about most is that the article complies with all of our policies and guidelines, particularly when it comes to claims about living persons. That includes requiring top-tier sources for claims that are controversial or negative, balancing the weight of sources, and fairly summarizing what reliable sources say. I have no problem removing poorly-sourced controversial/negative claims from articles about people I dislike, or, for that matter, removing poorly-sourced puffery from articles about people I like. Woodroar (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

One of the sources that I cited literally has O'Neill saying "Free speech is absolute" IN THE TITLE OF THE ARTICLE, so the claim that none of the sources say that he takes a free speech absolutist position is completely false. There is also no just cause for claiming that the source on abortion is a "misrepresentation" (in what possible way is it?). I have tried to work this out with you on the talk page and you have refused to do so.--LadybugStardust (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I've replied at Talk:Brendan O'Neill (columnist). Going forward, please use the article talk page for all discussions about the article. Woodroar (talk) 23:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)