User talk:Wiki946

Neutrality and civility are required on Richard Miller (psychologist)
Hi, look, I'm sorry you feel unable to express what you want to say here on Wikipedia; I can see that you have strong feelings about Miller, and that you're starting to wonder if I'm one of his supporters out to defend him come what may. Well, I'm not; I have precisely no interest in defending any yoga personality, Miller included. I've written around a hundred articles on all aspects of yoga (yes, even with dogs and beer, so help me) and in the rather few cases where I've had any sort of personal contact with the people or organisations involved, I've been scrupulously neutral: Miller and yoga therapy aren't among them. The point, however, is not about me at all, and it is quite wrong (indeed forbidden by policy) to make any discussion on any Wikipedia article personal.

Much the same goes for the content of the article. I've worked hard to set out the facts on Miller objectively and neutrally. I was sad but unsurprised to see yet another leader of modern yoga involved in inappropriate behaviour from a position of power: yes, you'll see that I wrote that article also. All editors are required to observe the Wikipedia policies of Neutrality (with respect to what we write in articles) and No Personal Attacks (with respect to what we say about other editors, no matter how inconvenient we may find them). Policy requires all editors to behave with civility, and to use neutral language and reliable, independent sources (one exception to this is to use statements made by living people about themselves, which can be used with care to report facts, and nothing else). This is not optional, but is the core of the encyclopedia. There are any number of sites on the Internet where you can write whatever you like, libel laws permitting, and your opinion is as welcome as anyone else's. Wikipedia isn't one of them: we are required to cite reliable sources for everything we write, and to attribute opinions to scholars rather than stating them in Wikipedia's voice. That is critical to making the encyclopedia work, as if we say whatever we personally feel, then nobody can rely on what is said. You may well feel that Miller's conduct was reprehensible, and that the other parties involved should be supported here; unfortunately, we absolutely must not do that. If a 3rd party, say The New York Times, publishes a report that criticises Miller and explains the case against him, then we can report that the paper said that, as long as we make it clear that it's their opinion, not ours. What we can't do is see something that somebody said on Twitter or Facebook or their blog, and cite that as a fact; there is a detailed policy on the Biography of Living Persons that demands extreme restraint from editors. It's necessary for multiple reasons, people's privacy and the law of libel among them. I do hope this is clear; it matters; and it's in no way a personal matter. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)