User:Will Beback/TM-Luke Warmwater101
Luke Warmwater101 (Luke)[edit]
Luke has deleted sourced, negative material:[1]
Luke has made unsourced POV edits: [2]
Luke has added large amounts of material on fringe views based on MUM research: [3][4][5][6]
Luke has reverted an effort to trim the length of the fringe material:[7]
Luke has added a self-published source, a blog, and Wikipedia mirrors as sources: [8][9][10][11][12]
Statistics[edit]
As of February 20, 2010:
| ' | TM-related edits | All edits | Percentage |
| article | 189 | 740 | 26% |
| talk | 124 | 163 | 76% |
| total | 313 | 903 | 35% |
Luke's ten most edited articles (three are TM-related):
- 119 - TM-Sidhi_program
- 60 - Little_Women
- 33 - America's_Cutest_Puppies
- 30 - Görmeli
- 21 - Prakṛti
- 21 - Amrapali_Institute_–_Lamachaur
- 20 - Transcendental_Meditation
- 15 - Hassan_Tayyab_Academy
- 15 - Kaithal
- 15 - Corazones_al_límite
Rebuttals[edit]
Luke asserts, with no evidence, that I belong to, or even lead, a team of anti-TM editors. He asserts that I have made "repeated use of what he calls ‘an anti TM blog’", but doesn't provide a single diff showing that I've ever linked to any blog, even on a talk page. I assume he means the TM-Free blog which hoists what it purports to be a leaked document explaining how to engage in tag team rebuttals to blogged criticisms of the TM movement, and I've only linked to it in this case and in the SPI/CU. I haven't seen anyone dispute it's credibility.
Luke complains that that I point to Olive and TG as POV editors while ignoring two other editors, Judyjoejoe (talk · contribs · count · api · block log) and Rracecarr (talk · contribs · count · api · block log). Those editors have not been active on the TM articles in the past year, so they seem to be irrelevant to this case.
Luke says that I was unfair because I've complained about the use of a free magazine article written by a restaurant reviewer to make a contentious claim while I failed to similarly complain about an article written by a noted journalist published in a mainstream newspaper. I don't think the two are equivalent, and I'm surprised that he does.
Luke asserts that because I emailed Kala I must share his POV, ignoring the long and cordial correspondence I've had with TG.
Luke writes that "Naturally, a topic like TM will attract people with strong, opposing POVs." Yet none of the TM editors, including Luke, have ever acknowledged having a POV about this topic, and some have frequently stated that they are neutral editors, including Luke. On the other hand, he repeatedly calls me a POV editor, and seems to blame me for every edit made by a non-TM editor. So apparently the only people with strong POVs are those who disagree with Luke, who is perfectly neutral.
I stand by my assertion that Luke made a non-neutral and unhelpful edit when he added, without any prior discussion, a large amount of material on an obscure paper not mentioned in any secondary source and which promoted fringe science.[13] Reducing the size of the entire section devoted to that single paper required a lengthy talk page discussion, in which the TM editors never came to a consensus about even reducing its size.Talk:TM-Sidhi_program#Canada_study The movement has conducted at least 42 such studies on this exact topic, the Maharishi Effect, so giving each one that much weight, even the 140-word paragraph that it's been condensed to, would create a very long and unreadable article and there is no reason to give this particular study extra weight (or really, to even mention it beyond listing it as one of many).