Talk:Preetha Krishna

The term 'lede'

@ User:Gereon K. to answer your question, I am using the term under Etymology 2 at Wictionary.org. Please also see Lead_paragraph or https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lede. merlinVtwelve (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello merlinVtwelve. Thank you for the explanation. The definition of the opening paragraph in Wikipedia is a little different. It should sum up the entire article in a couple of sentences. It is not about enticing in the way that Merriam Webster defines. And regarding the income raid tax: as I understand it is still under investigation, which means that it is not ready yet to be part of her article. The same as when a court hearing is opened. It's news in an encyclopedic sense when the verdict is spoken, not before. But it's true that there have been allegations of embezzling donations for a long time. One might argue that many newspapers write about this so it's ok to mention it. --Gereon K. (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Gereon K. I'm familiar with the usage of 'lede' within WP and some editors use it instead of 'lead', but you did not seem to be familiar with the word itself. The subject and her relatives are controversial figures. These are much more than 'allegations' as have been reported the past. These were actions by an official government body - including raids and multi-million dollar property seizures across around 40 properties owned by Preetha, and her notorious husband and father-in-law. As the result of an official judgement, she has been barred from leaving the country, which belongs in the WP article, and the raids provide context. These raids were widely reported across all major media outlets in India, and additional sources can be provided if necessary. BTW, Wikipedia is not a marketing tool, and I don't know why her personal website appears twice in such a short article? merlinVtwelve (talk) 23:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Her website is not there alone. It provides just one view, that of her own. If it was the only source it would not be valid. Since it represents one side of the medal it should be mentioned in the article. Each Wikipedia biography article and each company article contains the website of the subject. --Gereon K. (talk) 10:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Classes and Teachings

There is public access on You Tube to learn more about Preethaji and Krishnaji.

example: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OhoHRqltOPo JamesKozlik (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Comparison

When I read anything that compares a like minded group as a cult all I can think of is the cultish behavior of society as a whole. So why the comparison? Read Preethaji and Krishnaji’s Four Sacred Secrets there’s plenty of examples of how comparing alters one’s state of consciousness. JamesKozlik (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Article does not meet BLP conditions

This article is presently written with undue negative tone to disparage the subject.

WP:BLP states ‘’Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid:’’

WP:BLP states ‘’Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion’’

This page contravenes multiple rules listed in the WP:BLP policy document including and not limited to WP:BLPSTYLE, WP:BLPBALANCE, WP:VICTIMIZE

During the next few weeks/month, I plan to be editing this article. Request other interested editors to join me in improving the article. Please follow the spirit of this WP work and let us work together as mates. Please do not revert my edits / start edit-war. If you find my edits not acceptable, raise it here on the talk page for discussion. I will strive to ensure my reasoning and thought process are documented in edit comments and/or in this talk page. Ilunature (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Now you removed everything that links the to the White Lotus, as if she has nothing to do with it. It looks to me like you spotted an in your eye biased article and swing it no to another subjective bias by removing all criticism. --Gereon K. (talk) 07:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Gereon_K., I really appreciate your comment here.

I see that you are the creator of this WP page and I see your work both in the article & on the talk page, preventing and protecting it from vandalism in both directions. I 100% respect and appreciate your feedback. Let me assure you that my intention is not to bring in any subjective bias, I also want it as a neutral article.

Yes you are right, I did find BLP issues in the article when I read it. Do you agree with me? If you would like, I am happy to raise on the BLP noticeboard also.

BLP documents allow deletion without discussion, but I have mentioned my full intent on the talk page before editing. Summarily removing contentious material is permitted and recommended I read, so it can be argued I have done more than asked.

About that section many of the sources are non-existing, unreliable, irrelevant to the subject and I find content in this article is one-sided, way too old mentioning allegations, no result on court judgements. I think many are sensational reporting with no follow up. Guilt was assumed without court verdict.

Since this is a BLP, any contentious matter be removed first. And I intend to add back any of the relevant content in a concise and balanced way covering all views. Request to please give me some time and will do my best to do justice to this article you've created.

My thoughts simply cannot be expressed in a single edit. I am giving reasons for each change going one by one and applying a restructuring template. Hope you support my view and work I’m going to put in this article. Thank you! Ilunature (talk) 05:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)