User:Will Beback/TM-ChemistryProf
ChemistryProf (CP)[edit]
CP has practiced TM for over 40 years.[2]
POV editing[edit]
CP has removed sourced, negative material: [3] (The TM initiation includes a puja ceremony, but TM proponents strongly resist the idea that there are any Hindu elements to their practices.)
Editing behavior[edit]
CP is a single-purpose account: [4]
CP has declared that is a neutral editor.[5]
Personal interactions[edit]
CP has identified himself as a "university professor, researcher, and author/editor".[6]
CP has failed to assume good faith and implied that editors who are not neutral experts like himself should stay away. [7][8][9]
Technique vs movement[edit]
CP has argued that the TM article should only discuss the TM technique and not the TM organization: [10][11]
Statistics[edit]
As of February 20, 2010:
| ' | TM-related edits | All edits | Percentage |
| article | 55 | 60 | 92% |
| talk | 187 | 187 | 100% |
| total | 242 | 247 | 98% |
CP has only edited seven articles (four are TM-related):
- 30 - Transcendental_Meditation
- 20 - John_Hagelin
- 3 - Puja_(Hinduism)
- 3 - Robert_Ballard
- 2 - Francis_Collins_(geneticist)
- 1 - Personal_god
- 1 - Transcendental_Meditation_movement
Rebuttals[edit]
CP accuses me of "complicity in WP rule violations". No rule was broken at any time. He and other editors were trying to remove a well-sourced, negative characterization of John Hagelin, who is the leader of the U.S. TM movement (Raja of Invincible America) and an MUM professor. The word in question is "crackpot", which was well-sourced and attributed to a notable individual. the responses at WP:BLPN supported its use. Even so, to accommodate the sensitivities of the TM editors I proposed alternative language that was acceptable to all.
CP repeats his comment that Wikipedia is not viewed as a reliable reference work by his colleagues, according to an undisclosed opinion survey. Apparently he thinks that having the TM articles dominated by TM practitioners will increase the public's confidence in Wikipedia's coverage of that topic. If so, that view is part of the problem with the editing of this topic by TM editors.