Wikipedia talk:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/December 2006/Uptional

Uptional's request is pretty disingenuous - if you look at his behaviour rather than his fine words, it is more destructive than construictive - he has simply deleted as much as he can get away with under the Wikipedia guidelines. The article as it existed around 17th November was a genuine attempt to convey a balanced picture of the man, but since Uptional began editing the page it has shrunk to nearly half the size. It's simply incorrect for Uptional to maintain that his/her desire is for a NPOV article when his/her behaviour implies that they are simply after a minimalist version of the page containing the least possible information. Of course Wikipedia should be accurate, but this should not mean most narrow selection of facts. There is also a place for balanced conjecture if it adds to the facts, and if not factual information is available.

To give an example - Uptional deleted an edit I had made (under my IP address) about the JMS cult in London discussing a story propagated by the cult about Jung's previous UK activities on their private message boards. Had this been queried rather than deleted, I could have cited the place message board where the story was related. Uptional removed this information on the basis that it was 'conjecture', however the article made it obvious that what was being related was a story - the language was intentionally reflecting the unverifiability of it. Under the Verifiability guidance, it's quite clear that a 'citation needed' should have been inserted instead.

This is typical of Uptional's attitude - "if in doubt, delete the entire thing". It clearly does not serve the reader to erase all hearsay about a figure who has so diligently avoided the public eye and the forces of law; whose religious organisations contain absolutely no public facing web presence whatsoever; who has a reputation as a self-mythologiser par excelence; and therefore about whom there is a dearth of verifiable factual material. If you look at the Wikipedia page for Osama bin Laden (another figure of public interest who satisfies all these criteria), there is still a lot of information there which is unsourced hearsay - despite the fact that he is subject to infinitely more scrutiny than Jung. It would serve no purpose to reduce either page to the bare minimum that can be verified - it would simply rob readers of information.

The page as it has stood since 17th Nov has actually represented a more balanced and sympathetic protrait of Jung and (particularly) his organisation than most of the cited media coverage, which tends to have a sensationalist edge to it (despite being factually correct) - Uptional seems quite unaware of how gentle a portrait the page represents, and is determined to reduce the page to a minimalist portrayal which subtly hints that Jung is the victim of an international conspiracy of repeated rape allegations orchestrated by shadowy organisations. This is the line given to recruits into Jung's cult (a term not ever used in the Wiki entry, but a description that most observers agree is entirely accurate).

I am not against the idea of assistance, but it has to be taken with a very full understanding of the context and background. This wiki page has been continually vandalised by cult members who until recently took the rather blunt approach of just deleting it, and it is quite reasonable to see what Uptional is doing as a more subtle method of attack, as the other editors have. Claims of 'threatening' behaviour are also a familiar tactic, and were partly responsible for the deletion of the only English language resource on Jung and his organisation in autumn '06. Although Uptional may claim to feel 'frightened' by the naming of another completely different individual (who maintains a public blog) as an apologist for Jung, readers would be wise to take this with a pinch of salt. Uptional's behaviour were certainly not out of character for said individual, and if he/she was a handle for this person it was entirely reasonable to 'out' them on the talk page. I don't think that constitutes a threat, and should be seen in the context of continual efforts by members of Jung's church to reduce the available information on their activities and leader in the public domain, particularly this Wikipedia article.

So, as I said, I'm not against the idea of outside help, but if it follows Uptional's priorities blindly it will be a disservice to both Wikipedia and the readers

King bongo 12:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)