Talk:Guru Jagat

Sources

This is behind a paywall, but seems to have more information https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/01/11/anti-vaxxers-hamlin-news-literacy-lessons/ CT55555(talk) 03:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@CT55555, The WaPo article briefly describes the NPR profile, and describes Jagat as a "popular yoga teacher who fell down the rabbit hole of QAnon conspiracy theories". It also states that she "shared fringe theories" via her podcast to her students (and I'm guessing other NPR listeners). These included Jagat's incorrect beliefs or assumptions that the COVID virus was "sprayed in airplane chemtrails and artificial intelligence mind control" (sic). Following that is a list of questions for discussion, then a list of resources including:

— “Be Health Informed” and “Conspiratorial Thinking” (NLP’s Checkology virtual classroom).

— Infographic: “Levels of scientific evidence” (NLP’s Resource Library).

• Related:

— “As Covid-19 Continues to Spread, So Does Misinformation About It” (Tiffany Hsu, The New York Times).

— “Queen of Conspiracy Theories” (“Imperfect Paradise” podcast).

All of the above resources are hot linked in the article. Netherzone (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Edits

@AlioftheGreenHeart we should really discuss the article here, not my talk page.

I reverted your edits for a few reasons, so I'll explain here in more detail and hopefully that will be helpful:

Our job is not to capture everything about a person, but to give the correct amount of balance, based on how prominent reliable sources weight them. i.e. when you changed the opening first few words to describe her as a poet, you made that the very first thing that is mentioned about her. That is not appropriate, because that is for the most part, not what she is notable for. For example, if someone edited George W. Bush to say he was an American painter and politician, someone would revert that. He is a painter, but it's not a big part of why he is notable.

So please consider the guidance at WP:DUE on how to go about weighting this kind of content. My assessment is that she is lots of things, but the independent sources are mostly noting her yoga teaching and conspiracy theory pushing. They are mostly not writing about her poetry.

On the topic of sources, we need to give much more favour to independent sources. i.e. things written by independent journalists or in academic writing is likely to form the backbone of this article. Things that are self-published, or hosted by entities that the subject has a connection with should mostly be avoided. They can be used to verify non controversial things if we have no other sources, but we favour writing that is done independently of the subject of the article.

Next is what we write about. This may seem counter initiative to new editors, but we are not here to capture everything that is true about someone. We are here to capture what is verifiable about them. Check out WP:TRUTH which explains that better.

So when you say Please advise on the best way to submit additional documented facts please note there might not be a way, we're not here to capture all the facts, we're here to capture what independent sources have to say about things.

And as I said on my talk page, the lede can only say what is already in the article below. It's a summary. So people edit the article and put citations there, then they edit the lede.

Writing biographies of people is one of the most difficult parts of Wikipedia, so you've started in a difficult spot. I hope this is helpful. CT55555(talk) 18:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I reverted a similarly themed edit by @AlioftheGreenHeart today. CT55555(talk) 13:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Sources/bias

This article reeks of bias and has not enough sources. while this article portrays her as a free thinker others would say she was a well known scammer and cult like leader. Someone with more editing experience should review this article 2600:8801:1383:DD00:4551:A3D8:7211:F0AD (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)