User:Littleolive oil/Rebuttals

Rebuttals to evidence presented against me

Will Bbeack makes multiple assumptions in his evidence, mischaracterizing my work and possibly that of other editors, although I haven’t checked other editor diffs closley. These are a few.

From the case request page [1] This is the talk page discussion that accompanied my trimming of the section Will Beback mentions, not POV edits as WB characterizes it but, editing based on discussion with other editors. [2]

The article is a BLP and these are unsourced. There were at the time, few reliable sources on Deepak Chopra. I had started to work on the article [3], found very little source material, and felt deletion was appropriate per WP:BLP.

[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

Is my support of an info box I feel will influence POV, a reason for criticism? [10]
As a more experinced editor I would delete the weasel word “some”, but my edit is actually less positive than the one which follows it. [11]

Rebuttals Jayen466

Jayen ‘s comments are not accurate .

[12] per diff. The TM technique research is not Fringe science.This refers to a list created by Kala Bether [13] in which he attempts to discredit as non independent, research associated in any way with so-called TM researchers. He ignores collaborations with prestigious medical schools and universties, wide acceptance in mainstream press like this most recent study, [14] [15] [16], and above all he ignores peer review of 350 peer reviewed studies in reputable journals. Kala then attempts to use his own list as the definitve model for studies he says are not, in his terms, “independent” and so non includable in the TM related articles.

[17] per diff. Yogic flying and the TM-Sidhi techniques are mediation techniques.The Maharishi Effect (ME), may be a fringe topic/subject. The 50 or so studies on the ME are peer reviewed. However they are labelled, and I’m not sure what’s an accurate label, they are peer reviewed and according to this neutral comment probably reliable. [18]

[19] per diff. I’m not sure how discussion on these points constitutes pushing a Fringe POV point of view. We have an article on the TM Sidhi program and on the research, so discussion, and considering the fringe nature of the topic probably contentious discussion, will be necessary.
[20] per diff. The Hatchard study (Merseyside study) is one of the ME studies. Discussion was contentious. Despite its peer review status possibly legitimate issues were raised concerning the study itself and its publication. Not sure again why such discussion is considered pushing a fringe POV.
Connecting the Home Office Study [21], that does not mention the Merseyside study, any ME study or anything related to TM, to information on the Merseyside study is WP:Synthesis and creates WP:OR. Discussing this point is not supporting a fringe view, its arguing Wikipedia policy. If there is agreement to include this kind of OR fine, but its still synthesis and creates an original point and content. Per Wkipedia. “you must be able to cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented”
[22] per diff of the addition of disputed content. The talk page comment is here which explains that I am reverting pending a little more time on the Notice board [23]