Talk:Mooji/Archive 1

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because it has many credible citations and is clearly a well known individual. I would really like to see a wikipedia page for Mooji. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cscjones (talk • contribs) 16:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because the page cites plenty of external sources that support the fact that the subject is a notable public figure. 62.28.8.102 (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because the points raised in the original deletion discussion have been addressed. It is not merely a CSD-G4. The article went through a deletion review (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2018_September_4) and was treated as a WP:REFUND and restored to draftspace. The main point raised in the original deletion discussion were the lack of citations showing this subject's notability. Numerous additional citations were added to show he has been extensively written about and interviewed by third parties in books, magazines and videos. The article has also been fleshed out. Mooji is well-known in his particular field and the author of 7 books. The new page's citations include 6 magazines, 2 newspapers, and 3 books that have articles about Mooji. The citation of youtube and his own website were use sparingly to illustrate him meeting his own teacher and particular aspects of what he teaches. Sumantra1 (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree with Sumantra1. Mooji is well-known and influental in his field, and there should definitely be a Wikipedia article about him. It would be quite weird if there wasn't. --Jhertel (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure. The current version suffers from the same problems as the deleted version and the only real improvement is the addition of the Guardian article as a reference. The other references are too close to the subject to be treated as reliable independent sources. Also, what's with all those SPAs commenting here?, I hope those are not you?--regentspark (comment) 22:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No the SPAs are not me. Considerable work was done on the original article, much more than just adding the Guardian article. I am surprised that the other sources that have been added would be considered too close to the subject. They are independent magazines and books that write about spirituality. I am not sure how to verify the notability of a spiritual teacher if publications that write about spirituality are considered too close to the subject. His area of expertise is rarely covered in mainstream press, yet there is a Guardian article and a BBC piece (albeit older and also previously cited) about Mooji. He is one of the leading teachers in his field and it would be very strange if he were not to have a Wikipedia article when others who are less known do. But if these are the rules of Wikipedia, then please do go ahead and delete, but I would request to draftify again so I can see if there is not some way to adhere to Wikipedia rules to create this page. Sumantra1 (talk) 07:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * After receiving feedback that there are too many primary sources (such as interviews) I have added several additional sources (sorry that they are not links. I was not sure how to do that on the Talk page. They are proper references on the article page):
 * Book Review: Vaster Than Sky Greater Than Space: What You Are Before You Became". Publishers Weekly. 10 October 2016. Retrieved 21 September 2018.
 * Shifman, Kate (23 October 2016). "I went to a silent retreat with a guru and this is what happened". Medium. Retrieved 21 September 2018.
 * Williamson-Noble, Padmasri Esmeralda (27 June 2016). "2016 Summer Piece: Silent Retreat with Mooji". Positive Live.
 * Agarwal, Stuti (11 May 2017). "A Quick Visa to Nirvana". Outlook India.
 * "Mooji". Stillness Speaks. Retrieved 21 September 2018.
 * Tirpstra, Dirk (November 2013). "Step Into the Fire of Discovery". Om Times: 16–28. (partly an article, partly an interview)
 * Sumantra1 (talk) 10:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem with your sources are that they are all associated with spirituality. You need to find more mainstream sources, like the Guardian one. I'll try to help over the weekend. --regentspark (comment) 11:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this draft duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://psy-minds.com/tag/spirituality/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  SITH   (talk)   20:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Triviality
Too much triviality in this draft. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  05:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Facebook is not a reliable source. Sethie (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Unreliable source debate
Added a primary source regarding contentious issue. Other user repeatedly adding self-published third-party sources which do not meet the criteria. Funplaysapart (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed the self-published, primary source. Without it, we really don't need to present the defense. If this gets covered in reliable, third-party sources, we can talk about including it (and any applicable defense). Woodroar (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The primary source was the defense. But thanks. Funplaysapart (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Ohhh, I understand now. Sorry about that! Woodroar (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Picture and videos to potentially be included?
Speaking in 1985 (source: ITN archive - reaction to Cherry Groce shooting): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scKVERpShqc&t=01m33s

And photographed in 2003 at his Brixton market stall: https://web.archive.org/web/20180626163849/https://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2018/06/brixton-15-years-ago-hamilton-arms-bar-lorca-and-street-scenes-june-2003/

And finally, we have Mooji in January 2020 reacting with the anger of a narcissist on being confronted by a satsang attendee about the suicides of several of his followers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJONqM9KG3I&t=1h04m40s

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.18.242 (talk) (UTC)
 * No, none of those links are includable within policy, please stop smamming the talkpage with such links, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not spamming at all.  Please try to be less rude, and explain what you mean.
 * The Britxon Buzz article and ITN link are both independent and neutral sources showing Mooji before he became... whatever he now is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.18.242 (talk) (UTC)
 * I see you have back tracked already on your rage comment diff, reacting with the anger and rage of a challenged narcissist, when an audience-member confronts him. utube videos and other non policy links should not be spamed here just because you can't get them into the article. Back off is my suggestion to you Govindaharihari (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, "Govinda hari hari", I guess from your username I shouldn't be surprised to find you defending this cult leader. I stand by my comments on the recent video, but obviously they're my personal view so wouldn't be relevant here. However I do think the ITN and Brixton Buzz links should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.18.242 (talk) (UTC)
 * I defend all living people on wikipedia, please see wp:blp and please don't take my name in vain. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Good for you to defend the living. But unfortunately, Flo Camoin and Helen Kelby are now dead.  I hope there will not be any more suicides of mentally vulnerable people who fall under Mooji's spell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.18.242 (talk) (UTC)
 * The issue here is that you're including pictures and videos to make a statement that the sources aren't making. Our core content policies go hand in hand: articles should be based on reliable, third-party published sources (WP:V), and we need to accurately summarize what those sources actually say (WP:NPOV) without interjecting our own opinions or interpretations (WP:OR).
 * Please also remember to sign your comments with 4 tildes ( ~ ), thread your replies (WP:THREAD), and use the Show Preview button to avoid causing edit conflicts. Woodroar (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting we add any comment to the Brixton Buzz article with the 2003 photo, or the ITN video with the 1985 video. There wouldn't be any statement made about them.  They would just illustrate Mooji's back-story, which is already contained in the article.   I actually think that including them would be pretty neutral - people can then place whatever meaning on them they want.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.18.242 (talk) (UTC)
 * Also not an option. We have to assume that all media is copyrighted unless there's proof that the copyright holder has released them under a compatible free license. We can sometimes use non-free media if we include critical commentary about them, but we can't do that because no reliable sources make that connection. We also can't use non-free images when free images exist, and we already have the licensed main image on the article. (See WP:NONFREE for more.) Plus we don't do the whole "let the reader decide" thing. WP:NPOV is about how we, as editors, must accurately represent the available sources. It's not about striving to show all sides or create a false balance. We summarize what reliable sources say about the subjects, nothing more and nothing less. I urge you to go through the links on your Talk page to learn more about our policies and guidelines. Woodroar (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of reliable source of cult accusation
I have now added a link to the Netflix 'Cults, Explained' documentary, which showed Mooji as one of a new generation of cult leaders who make use of social media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.18.242 (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Copied from WP:BLPN: I've removed it. While the title of the documentary episode is "Cults, Explained", the source neither calls Mooji a cult leader nor calls his...religion? philosophy? organization? whatever-it-is a cult. We can't combine parts of a source to say something that the source doesn't explicitly say. That's WP:SYNTHESIS. At most, we could rewrite one of your sentences (Footage of Mooji was part of a montage showing "a new generation of leaders who are using the tools of online social media to attract fervent online followers.") but even that would be a stretch. After all, the "mention" is so trivial that they didn't even bother to name him. Woodroar (talk) 04:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I've added a different source, an Indian magazine article, though it doesn't go so far as to use the C word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.18.242 (talk) (UTC)
 * Thank you! I looked for a while yesterday and hadn't noticed that source. We really shouldn't have a criticism section—see WP:CRITICISM—so it's best to move that into the Teachings section. But the article itself really needs to be rewritten. I'll start a new discussion about that shortly. Woodroar (talk) 13:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added a new Reception section as per WP:Criticism Totorotroll (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

it's clearly a cult. look at the papers of mooji foundation ltd (the mooji charity): [] here is the annual report of 2018 [] I quote from page 3: "Volunteers The Trustees and all who are connected with Mooji Foundation would like to express our deep gratitude to our spiritual teacher, Sri Mooji, for his selfless service, love and presence. The contribution of volunteers in Mooji Foundation is invaluable, as so much work takes place through selfless service. Volunteers come forward after benefiting from Satsang, wishing to support the teachings and thus benefit others" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.87.49.8 (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Rewrite based on reliable sources
Accusations and criticisms aside, this article needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view to focus on what reliable sources say. It's fine to include some details based on primary sources—either published by Mooji or uncritical interviews and statements by him—but they should be minimal: providing basic uncontroversial and non-self-serving biographical facts, or to fill in the gaps. As I see it, these are the best sources we have: Other than that, we have a lot of poor quality (if not unreliable) sources that should be removed or given less emphasis. Many of them are written by Mooji, or are uncritical interviews of him, or uncritical collections of his statements, or links to his videos or artwork, all of which are functionally primary sources. (And when I say "uncritical", I don't mean negative. More that they repeat his statements and nothing more. There's no research or fact-checking. They're opinion/editorial puff pieces.) Once this is done, the article will be less of an advertisement and more compliant to our core content policies and policies for articles about living persons. Thoughts? Woodroar (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The BBC has won plenty of journalism awards and (though based in the UK) is international in scope. The coverage is significant. This should be one of our major sources.
 * The Guardian has a similar profile to the BBC. This should be our other major source.
 * The New York Times is also reliable though the coverage is rather trivial. Let's use what we can, but we can't put too much emphasis on its contents.
 * Publico appears to be reliable, though it's a regional source and the coverage is also trivial. We should use it, but minimally.
 * Noticias. Same as Publico.
 * Outlook. Also same as Publico/Noticias.
 * Sounds good. Thanks for that. Is there an example of a similar article that would serve as a tonal reference? Funplaysapart (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm really not sure. This isn't an area I know much about, I only got involved because of the thread at BLPN. I'd suggest checking out Featured articles, specifically Featured articles, for what the community considers our best articles. It looks like William M. Branham, Harold Davidson, George Went Hensley, L. Ron Hubbard, Anne Hutchinson are about people who could sometimes be seen as controversial, yet the articles are compliant with policy but also written well. I'm sure there are others, too. WikiProject Biography also has some tips for writing biographies. Woodroar (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks. It's applying to the biography section only or the whole thing? The introduction seems ok. Funplaysapart (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand your question. If it helps, this article is a biography, although any claims about a person are considered biographical content. The lead section should always be a summary of the rest of the article itself, so it may change depending on what the rest of the article says. Please also remember to thread/indent your replies on Talk pages. Woodroar (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ok I understand. Thanks. Funplaysapart (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have updated the biography section using only the six sources as discussed, not including the NYtimes article which did not have anything to add to this section. Funplaysapart (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have updated the rest of the article using only the agreed sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funplaysapart (talk • contribs) 13:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Great, thank you! Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Advaita or Neo-Advaita
Hello, what teacher he is: Advaita or Neo-Advaita? There is no information about this in the article, beside one mention under "see also"-section but without any explanation. Thx --W like wiki good to know 22:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, ideally someone like Mooji would fit in both the categories but since you asked me to pick one of the two: I'd say Neo-Advaita. Thanks! Highway Bird (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Highway Bird