Talk:Ram Bahadur Bomjon/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Overview of recent edits

• Inedia section: The Independent is a reliable source does not support claims about him carrying a sword, or promising to meditate for six years.
• Sword attack section: Nirlog is a blog and so fails our reliable sourcing standards as user-generated and/or self-published content. It links to Mysansar.com, which is also a blog. As such, the claims that are sourced only to these sites must be removed. Like it says in the edit notice in the article: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately.
• Thrashing incident: Himalayan Times (archived here), BBC, and República (República (Nepalese newspaper)) are reliable. None of the sources mention the men being of Madeshi ethnicity, though. I've summarized the sources on the points where they agree. Per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, contentious material needs to have at least two sources.
• Hostage incident: Hindustan Times and Public Radio International are reliable, though they point out that it was Bomjon's followers, rather that Bomjon specifically, who abducted the woman. Those sources do not mention sexual assault or head shaving. Unfortunately, the PRI source does not mention a Nepalese woman or violence against journalists (though the reporter incident is supported by the Nepal Press Freedom source).
• Other abduction incident: The Kathmandu Post is reliable but there needs to be at least two sources for such contentious claims.
• Journalist incident: Nepal Press Freedom is probably reliable enough (especially when cited along with the Hindustan Times piece), though there's a lot of detail that aren't supported by those sources. This research bulletin, the Youtube video, the photo on blogspot, and this news photo are synthesis of sources (some of which are not reliable), and it smacks of Doxing.
• Sister incident: Facebook posts are not reliable sources. The other source might have been reliable -- if there were more sources discussing the insinuations in that section.

Ian.thomson (talk) 16:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• Bulleted list item

Yes, I know, that's why I also added the Is Ram Bahadur Bomjon above the law? article link to The Himalayan Times, where there is also a mention of the sword incident. I read on Wikipedia that unreliable sources can be also shown, but only as a complementary when there are also mainstream ones. This is this case: The Himalayan Times is mainstream and the Nirlog blog is based on Naya Patrika (that is a real Nepali newspaper, but unfortunately not availabel online anymore). Just check also the main article, it is using blogs, cult-based websites and private Youtube films as its main sources, so double standard?

• Bulleted list item

I rewrote it swiftly, not having time to read again the whole source article. I did this part of meticulous work the previous days, but that was deleted, as you know ... There are more than five mainstream sources about the incident on the Media on RBB Controversies article, which were prepared to be shifted here. I know the case, spoke with Nepalis about it, that's why I know they were Madeshis, and here everyone knows just by seeing the surname Choudhary. I have no problem to leave out the word Madeshis though, that is not crucial. They are a very poor ethnicum.

• Bulleted list item

I have collected a long list of reliable sources (mainstream) in the Media on Ram Bahadur Bomjon's Controversies, do you have access to it? Because all these incidents have multiple sources there, five or ten! Just if you give me time, I add them here. I was in the process to do it, but today you deleted half of my work, so I have to start from zero.

• Bulleted list item

This paragraph and source was from the main article, not mine. I left it here and added where it belongs (Controversies) in a good faith that they checked the sources. The Avenues TV documentary shows an interview in English with the Slovak woman, where she explicitly says, clearly, in English "yes" when the reporter asks "have you been sexually assaulted?". Obviously also shows her head was shaved. Another part of the films shows a similarly looking Nepali victim, also broken wrist, extremely thin, shaved head. Again, these sources are stil left behind in the Media on RBB Controversy article, waitng to be merged here. Give me time and I fill up with mainstream sources which call the perpetrator Bomjon and also show teh Slovak woman's photo with shaved head. Avenues TV documentaries about it show both women and the Nepali language narrator says: "Mata Ani was ruined similarly like Marichi, and also her hair was cut". I had that source in the Media on... article. That's why I wanted first to repair the main article, because that is full of errors and bad sources. If you have deleted my edits of their mistakes, then do not be surprised that the references they used in the original article don't fit. But no problem, I can fill up the sources, just need time. (though the reporter incident is supported by the Nepal Press Freedom source).

• Bulleted list item

As I mentioned above and many times on Talk: I wrote a previosu article Media on Ram Bahadur Bomjon's Controversies, AfD. There you have around 5-10 reliable sources from Nepali and internatioanl media to support all these incidents. Either look it up yourself or give me chance and time to do it myself. I am repeating: you have caught me in the middle of the process of updating the main article and preparing to merge parts of the Media on.. article into it. The work was not finished when you deleted it!

• Bulleted list item

OK, leave out the Tribhuvan details about the Polish attacker, that is the task of police not Wikipedia. But the "video" is actually the very film which was taken by one of those five journalists, and everyobe in Nepal would immediately understand it. That film shot had been shown on mainstream media documentaries about Bomjon in 2012, like Avenues TV. News 24 and Himalaya TV, and I did add the links to them - again - they are still on the Media on RBB Controversies. They need to be merged here. The photo shown on the reliable traditonal local newspaper Prateek Daily is not Doxing! This is the same incident, if you read Nepali you can believe. The same incident with the same Polish attacker was shown in the video shot (then reused by all mainstream TV channels in Nepal, as it was filmed by a well-known journalist, I checked all info about the five men). The same Polish guy is regularly seen around Bomjon at every single occasion, even during the visit of the ex-Prime Minister, and is well -known in Nepali realities, called by locals "Dorje meme". So no one who is at least a little informed about the story, would call this Prateek Daily photo plus the film shot of the later damaged camera Doxing. But after all he is also a living person, so I am not so sure if it is OK to name him etc.

• Bulleted list item

That Facebook post is the official Facebook site of the website of khenpo Sonam Gyurme's BTMC Buddhist organization and monastery. I think I had seen that photo and obituary alo on soem website. I could search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaliage (talk • contribs)

Stop threading posts. Do not edit other users' talk page posts. If you did not cite The Independent for the sword or six years claims, then you made a completely unsourced accusation -- in violation of WP:BLP. As of your latest revision, there is no source titled "Is Ram Bahadur Bomjon above the law?" and the Himelayan Times article you did cite does not mention a sword either. You say I rewrote it swiftly, not having time to read again the whole source article -- So you admit that you were making up stuff that was not confirmed by the source! Honestly, this and the problems I list below give me no reason to trust your competence. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I will go over the Media Coverage section after I grab my lunch. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Please read my comments to the points above before rushing to delete anything again. Besides: this list is by far not all the controversies which he did. Have a look at the Prateek Daily and The Himalayan Times list in my AfD text and there you see mmany more incidents than these. Just an interesting one: he also took hostage his own mother and four siblings, four days, beating them, when they wanted to take away from him the smallest sister. She went then to police to file a report and is shown on a Prateek Daily photo in there. Or his men bribed an officer to issue a false birth certificate for him, and it is shown on a photo. DarkAges 17:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 17:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Please post succinct reasons that address the points I made above instead of rambling on with drama no one cares about. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

And don't edit your posts after someone has responded to them. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• Inedia section: The Independent is a reliable source does not support claims about him carrying a sword, or promising to meditate for six years.

The Independent source concerns the sentence: "His claim to stay three years in the underground pit had been also changed" The former sentence "Bomjon's announcements had been long controversial: he had repeatedly proclaimed to meditate six years and stay unseen by people in the jungles. However, he meditated 10 months and then started to change places surrounded by his followers, give public speeches about non-violence, yet himself carrying a sword." was there because the previous paragraph (of the version you have deleted!) had been listing the incidents when he was disappearing and reappearing with a sword! But now the whole thing got mixed up, because of your deletion, and lost the connection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaliage (talk • contribs)

I'm going to have to remove the section on media coverage. Highlights of the many, many reasons (from less severe to more severe):

• Another blog cited.
• As much as I like RationalWiki, they fail our reliable sourcing guidelines because they are WP:USERG. Also, the article cited is only tangentially related to the topic.
• One single petition from a blacklisted site is not "numerous petitions", and we really need secondary or tertiary sources documenting that there are noteworthy petitions out there.
• Kathmandu Post and Nepal Mountain News are reliable but I don't see where Kathmandu Post supports any of the claims in that section. Further Doxing attempts citing this and this don't really support any of the content.
• This Facebook post and this article are the only sources cited to accuse Bomjon of being involved in the deaths of two people. Facebook posts are not reliable (and this one does actually support the claim anyway). The Setopati.net source doesn't mention those two people at all and the closest it can insinuate is that Bomjon supposedly used some kind of "divine power" against his sister, and that she later died. Are we to believe that he magically cursed her to death or something?
• The Independent is cited for the claims "The Setopati article reveals that the blind faith that Nepalis have in Bomjon is supported by the worship that Western fllowers show him, as well as by the ex-Prime Minister's invitation and support to him" and "The tight censorship of the controversial articles and film records about Ram Bomjon in Nepal continues until today " -- @Kaliage: nothing in that Independent piece supports that claim. You're doing a better job of helping the Bomjon cultists with such dishonesty than exposing Bomjon.

Overall, the section was questionably sourced original research that was too focused on crusading. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• Inedia section: The Independent is a reliable source does not support claims about him carrying a sword, or promising to meditate for six years.

The Independent source concerns the sentence: "His claim to stay three years in the underground pit had been also changed" The former sentence "Bomjon's announcements had been long controversial: he had repeatedly proclaimed to meditate six years and stay unseen by people in the jungles. However, he meditated 10 months and then started to change places surrounded by his followers, give public speeches about non-violence, yet himself carrying a sword." was there because the previous paragraph (of the version you have deleted!) had been listing the incidents when he was disappearing and reappearing with a sword! But now the whole thing got mixed up, because of your deletion, and lost the connection.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaliage (talk • contribs)

No, not my deletion, get your facts straight and quit lazily copying-and-pasting text. Is there a reason that you posted this twice in response to two segments that had nothing to do with your response? Ian.thomson (talk) 18:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I asked you for giving me time. I worked hard many days on the Media on Ram Bahadur Bomjon's Controversies and all suficient mainstream reliable sources are STILL there. Now when you took my access from there, it is difficult for me to merge the many sources from there. I was asking you to have a look there, if you have access, because that is the answer to most of your latest acusations (unrealiable sources). Why did you not do that? Why do you accuse me half way of editing of not still having put the sources? I was going to search for the link, and in the meantime you delete the very sentence I wanted to add the link to. What are you trying to achieve by this, please? You delete the Media on RBB article, then all my edits here, and suddenly you expect that I can recreate both of them in a few minutes during this discusion? Also read my comments. But is there any will to repair on your side? I don't see it. Suddenly such a rush, and the article was in that blog-sourced fake fata state for ten years and you did not mind....DarkAges 18:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 18:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Stop saving the page when it says "Edit conflict". When you get an edit conflict, copy your post, open a new edit window, and paste your post in the new edit window.

We do not write something and then add a source -- you write something and cite the source for that statement at the same time. Writing something and then looking for a source leads to POV-pushing.

For what it's worth, I'm always suspicious of charismatic religious leaders, especially those who claim any sort of divinity. As such, we have similar views on Bomjon. However, there's a right way to do this and a wrong way to do this. You keep choosing the wrong way. Were I biased in favor of Bomjon (as you keep assuming I am), I would have just blocked you for this edit instead of giving you a redundant warning and trying to direct you in the right way.

And again, I did not delete the Media on RBB article. Don't try to blame me for the state of this article before now, either, I was not aware of it until yesterday. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I never did this. I was studying materials many years, and this brought me to writng.

Again unbased accusation! Where are you going for these...?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaliage (talk • contribs)

Stop posting in the middle of other people's posts! The material about the sword and six years had no source. You wrote it and added it to the article, with no source. Right here on this page, you said I was going to search for the link, and in the meantime you delete the very sentence I wanted to add the link to. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

That sentence did have a source, in the former Disapearances section, where many sources proved that when he was found on 26 Dec 2006, he had a sword, and answered to the questions of reporters why do a peaceloving person carry a sword. This incident is teh best sourced of all. But as I repeat, you did not give me time to adjust the text. I left out the Disappearances section yet, if you waited I could have realized that this sentence has no backing without the sources shown there. Thsi sentence was a conlcusion in the version of edits that you have deleted today. There everything was fitting to each other and links were in order. It is not possibel now to add them piece by piece, as I was writng it as a whole text where summarizations like this sentence are an implication of the previous paragraphs andsources fit.

The Media on Ram Bahadur Bomjon's Controversies was deleted only today, just after you have deleted my edits to the main article, and I protested longly. So I thought it had connection with you too. They had kept it mergable until today. It seems that the whole text and linking had been mixed up now, when I am forced to put the parts back piece by peice from my saved Word versions. It is a technical mistake, because I do not have access anymore to the Media on Ram Bahadur Bomjon's Controversies AfD text, where all the mainstream sources are there. Do you have? If yes, all the missing mainstream sources are there and had been waitng to be merged here. Every single controvesry is backed up there by 5-10 mainstteam sources. I am now forced to copy my saved text from Word, in code version, and for some reason it is not working with the links, they do not adjust. The links got mixed up. So the only solution is: 1: to return my original edits you have deleted today, and start to work on them as there was a continuum of the sources and claims backing up each other. 2: to return my access to the Media on Ram bahadur Bomjon's Controversies AfD article, don't know who can do it, so that I can merge parts of that text from Wikipedia to Wikipedia, without the need to copy it to Word. I don't see any solution than this. I cannot do the work of around two weeks in a few seconds that you are now pushing me to do immediately, not giving me time. You can accuse me of what you want, it is irrelevant, because it is not based on real problems, the problem appeared after you deleted the edits and the AfD artcile and forced me to start from zero, pasting my Word copies of the text. What is this rush, when ten years no one cared about the incorrect data and bad sources in this article?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaliage (talk • contribs)

The material about him having a sword in your last revision did not cite a source. It doesn't matter if there was another source somewhere else that might have worked, you did not cite a source. It is your responsibility to cite sources when you write something (not after but during). What part of that is so hard to understand? Honestly, your biggest problem is that you keep getting hung up on your own mistakes and try to defend them instead of learning from them and moving on. You'd generate a lot of useless drama fighting over every little thing.

Your proposed solution would result in plenty of violations of WP:BLP. I've already explained before that what you need to do is gather professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources (not blogs, not random photos from websites, not Facebook posts), summarize those off-site, combine them into a paraphrase off-site, and then post that paraphrased summary. That's how things are done here, whether you like it or not. If you have Word copies, then you can work off-site and do not need to keep posting unsourced material.

As you should already know, WP:BLP forbids us from including potentially libellous material without adequate sourcing (and, again, that means that the sources need to be presented with the material, not later). This has been explained already and you've already cherry-picked a portion of BLP closely enough that you can't earnestly claim ignorance of it. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I do have mainstream medi aosurces and I was using them in my edits, but you have deleted thos edist. It the meantime my Media on Ram Bahadur Bomjon's Controversies article was made inaccessible. So I was forced to use copy-paste from my own Word saved version, and it just does not fit to the main article as it was, without my previou supdating and correcting (which you deleted). I do have a long list of media sources and am not a plagiator. On the other hand, the main sarticle did not (and stil does not) have. How it is that you did (and stil does) not mind it? So if you coudl wait 10 years or so with the main article's blog-youtube sourcing, can you not wait until I adjust the links technically and manually refill the edits which you have deleted today? No, you cannot. Why? Because you want only to bully me, but not to find a solution and cooperation. When I write that I was searching for teh source, it was not meanst searching on Google - for G's Sake - but in my own copy of Wikipedi article I wrote myself - the Media on RBB's Controversies! But you rush to accuse me of a series of breaches and scold me that first I have to have sources and then start to write... Thats' really to much. I did not eat and sleep just because of your pressurizing and try to save bits and pieces of my many weks work, but you are just enjoying to bully me unnecessarily. This is unfair, unproffessional, and sad. If you are now suddenly so impatient, after 10 years of totally IDLE article about Bomjon, then do it yourself, I need to get a sleep and food. I am not going to let myself suffocate by your bully. Here you have the material, please copy and delet afterwards, as it is too long and fills up the space: ^{Copy and paste of article redirected as a WP:COPYVIO removed. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)}— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaliage (talk • contribs)

Re-posting material that was deleted as a copyright violation again demonstrates that you lack the competence required to improve the site. That and your continued fighting against any advice and clear singular crusade which marks you as not being here to improve the encyclopedia are sufficient reason to block you. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Blocking Kaliage from editing Wiki by Ian.thomson and removing all the very knowledgeable material he or she has contributed to the Wiki entries concerning the dangerous cult leader Ram Bomjan, just underscores what is becoming more clear every day: Wikipedia is becoming a sanctuary for paradigms, in this case the paradigm that Ram Bomjam is a fine fellow. I'll give two more examples. There is plenty of very reliable evidence that reincarnation is real. For months I have tried to add some of that material to Wiki but there was a gang of Wiki pundits who made sure everything was removed immediately. Wiki does not believe in reincarnation. A third Wiki-paradigm: Wiki has decided Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy. The article about the Assassination just writes that, while there is hard evidence that Oswald could not possibly have been on the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository at the time of the shooting (read: The Girl on the Stairs by Barry Ernest). But to Wiki that's irrelevant, what counts is not truth but the beliefs of the Wiki masters. --Mathilde2009 (talk) 20:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

removing all the very knowledgeable material - This shows that you have no idea what's going on. I'm not the first or only person to remove Kaliage's copyright and WP:BLP violations. I restored some of the material, properly paraphrased and sourced, and have expressed interest in adding more.

in this case the paradigm that Ram Bomjam is a fine fellow - You didn't even bother to read the article before you tried throwing a hissy fit about it. Have you ever thought about doing proper research before speaking?

There is plenty of very reliable evidence that reincarnation is real - That's your faith-based opinion, mainstream science finds such claims inconclusive at best.

Wiki does not believe in reincarnation - Wikipedia doesn't take any stance on the afterlife, nor should it.

Wiki has decided Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy - No, the reality-based community did based on continuing evidence instead of sticking only to amateur interpretations of the Zapruder film.

what counts is not truth but the beliefs of the Wiki masters - No, you're just upset that the professionally-published mainstream academic and journalistic sources Wikipedia's articles are based on don't reflect your personal beliefs as reality. Get over it or get off the site. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

You're wrong on all counts Ian.thomson. It's hopeless to discuss this further but be assured that (a) I researched the Bomjan material very thoroughly. I met the man in Nepal (because, as a journalist, I wanted to write an article about him), I interviewed lots of people in his surroundings (adepts and ex-adepts). Your claim that I 'have no idea what's going on' is based on nothing. (b) Regarding reincarnation I have no faith-based opinion whatsoever. What do you know about my faith, supposing I have one? What I know for sure is that it is impossible to post material on Wikipedia which indicates that reincarnation is real. I travelled around the world for two years to research evidence for reincarnation, interviewed most of the main reincarnation researchers and wrote a book about my findings. Your claim that my conclusion (i.e. there is evidence but no proof) is based on my faith or that it is my opinion, is based on nothing. (c) During the past thirty years I interviewed scores of JFK assassination researchers, went to Dallas, wrote many thousands of words about the assassination for my newspaper and read piles of books about it. Your claim that the Oswald-did-it paradigm is 'reality based' is based on nothing.--Mathilde2009 (talk) 12:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

It's hopeless to discuss this further - Yes, your continued presence on this site is a waste of time and bandwidth for all involved.

a) On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Also, you changed the subject. You made accusations about me and other editors that have no bearing on reality.

b) If you don't understand that your belief in reincarnation is faith, you don't understand what faith is. Given your other posts, you clearly don't understand what objectivity is either, so that's not unlikely.

c) Again, On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. And there's no reason not to conclude that you only interviewed fellow conspiracy theorists to reinforce your echo chamber. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)