User talk:Pellmeller

I created an account to request assistance in dealing with a group of edits to a BLP entry on me, all made last month by the same individual. The entry is under K. Paul Johnson and Kenneth Paul Johnson. Three new sections were added at once, each presenting problems of neutral POV and other issues.

These new sections present issues involving bias and relevance. “His Theosophical Past,” “Criticism,” and “Articles” all reveal that the editor, a Russian Theosophist whose past talk page entries indicate his loyalties, is giving a distorted view of my history as an author and the reception of my research. Since I have written and am now involved in projects related to several other topics, it would be just as relevant to dredge up quotes from online discussions from twenty years ago, or more recently, about my past experiences with Baha’is, or Edgar Cayce followers, or as a member of a mixed race family, or involvement with Melungeons, or the Church of Light. The latest batch of edits are problematic not just because they selectively emphasize Theosophical associations and ignore everything else but because they very selectively distort those associations.

The “criticism” section distorts the content of my books on Blavatsky by choosing commentary from an author, Aryel Sanat, who flatly contradicts the actual gist of the research—that 32 individuals profiled were in fact “the Masters” and that some of them gave rise to highly idealized fictionalizations. “Serge” has found a single author—the only one I know of-- who gets it completely wrong. He also selects an extremely negative response when in fact, the preponderance of reviews even from Theosophical journals in the mid-90s were favorable; and even though I’m an ex-member of long standing, references to me in Theosophical Publishing House books have been respectful and appreciative for some years now. A paper involving Blavatsky and Olcott was just accepted in absentia as the opening presentation at a Theosophical History Conference in London. So choosing Sanat as the sole example of Theosophical attitudes toward my books on the Masters is quite unrepresentative. But going into a who’s who of commentators who approved and disapproved of the books and why seems ridiculous. A link already provides access to such information. And most of the response to the books has been from non-Theosophists so to expand the "Theosophical controversy" sources to give balance to that issue would distort the overall response to the books.

Even more peculiar is choosing four items that I posted as discussion items on a Usenet group in the 1990s, which were subsequently reposted in an online digest as so-called “articles,” as the sole representation of articles published. There were about three dozen actual articles in print journals from that era, none of which probably merit being listed in a Wikipedia entry but all of which deserve it more than these ephemeral Usenet posts. 150 blog posts in recent years are more deserving of “article” designation that these four selections.

It would seem pointless and fruitless to bring accuracy and balance to these sections, and I would prefer that they be removed entirely as irrelevant and/or biased and contentious. It hardly seems worth the trouble to anyone else to write proper accounts of the critical reception of my books, or a proper bibliography of articles I’ve written, or an accurate account of the various organizations to which I’ve belonged, only to counter the edits of a single Wikipedian with obvious sectarian motivations. And it would be improper for me as the subject of these edits to do it myself, and a very distasteful exercise. So ideally all these edits can be deleted.

So I appeal for advice on what can reasonably be done to repair the damage done to this entry by an editor whose point of view is anything but neutral, whose additions lack balance and are contentious, and whose sources are unreliable or irrelevant. I also note that my date of birth is given which seems to be a violation of the guidelines about use of records.Pellmeller (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * If you feel there is specific information that is an issue in an article about yourself you can e-mail the team who deals with these requests. They can be reached at info-en-q@wikimedia.org guidance on how to respond can be found here WP:Biographies of living_persons/Help. I've had a quick look over he article and there are sections that could be removed per the BLP policy. I'll tidy it up and if you still want to have it looked at you can do so via the e-mail above. Amortias (T)(C) 21:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've given it a quick going over and there are some things that appear to add undue weight to aspects of your work. I've removed them mostly from the Bibliography section. I've cleaned up some of the undue emphesis on the formatting. I've also removed you DOB as per our WP:DOB policy. Amortias (T)(C) 22:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Also I couldnt find the other article you mentioned only the K. Paul Johnson article could you post a link to it in case im missing something obvious. Amortias (T)(C) 22:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Amortias. Changes don't appear yet but are probably all that is needed. I just mentioned the Kenneth because it was given in the article, but you found the only entry.Pellmeller (talk)


 * Changes appear instantly - but PCs keep the old version, and sometimes need to be persuaded to show the new version. See WP:PURGE and WP:BYPASS Ron h jones (Talk) 20:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)