The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
Anupam (talk·contribs) has been paid by Liz Lewinson. Their editing has included contributions to this article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
The section on criticism and controversy is a joke, obviously written by one of his brain dead followers. As is the talk section below. Lenz was a criminal fraud and lunatic. The article should be tagged with multiple issues.--ZadieTwinge (talk) 09:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The history of this article and its edits makes me question whether it has ever offered anything that could be considered an unbiased depiction of Lenz. If Wikipedia has been abused for 15-years or more to promote someone who, at best, was the head of a pyramid scheme predicated on preying on young students, should such an article even be allowed to exist? 2603:6080:AE01:EF33:617F:D64:1673:2297 (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it should exist, he is still a notable figure. If you have an issue with how its written just fix it. But don't include your own obvious biases either. Depict him in a fair manner and dont only include details of his life as an alleged fraud/pyramid schemer or whatever else you accuse him of. Wikiman5676 (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is a lot of the sources discussing him are pre-internet, and are not easy to get access to. I will try to rewrite in the coming days. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The video seems like a bit of a hatchet job. If the random comments above are indicative of the kind of contributions it inspires, it should be completely ignored. I feel the new criticisms and controversy section is a bit extensive and undue considering it is largely based on newspaper stories from the 90s and there is no particular alleged wrongdoing, as far as I can tell, that has been proven or even tested, apart from smoking weed when he was a teenager. Harold the Sheep (talk) 05:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is hardly undue. It was a major part of Lenz's public profile during his lifetime (there are other stories about his alleged misconduct from the 80s as well) Allegations of wrongdoing by public figures (which Lenz clearly was, based on his appearances in numerous talkshows) that are reported on by major newspapers are due to included. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That video doesnt serve as a reliable source, especially given its not so neutral perspective. But expansion of the section using reliable sources was called for to add more detail into it. I do agree with Harold its probably a bit out of proportion and too excessively detailed given the size of the article though. The same info can probably be conveyed in a more general summary. Wikiman5676 (talk) 02:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never suggested nor implied that the YouTube video was a reliable source or that it should be used in the article, so I don't understand why it is being brought up as if I did. YouTube video essays are of course not useable sources (and I agree that the video author is too credulous and sympathetic of the anti-cult movement). I think it would be better to expand other parts of the article in order to make the coverage more proportionate. There's some coverage of him in scholarly sources on New religious movements that could be used. [1]Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The mention of the video was more a reply to Harold's remarks than your's. Yes expansion of the article so its more proportional is also viable i think. Wikiman5676 (talk) 03:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC
I've expanded the section on his novels. I've been wary to include the reviews, because it's hard to assess the overall reception of a book that came out in the early days of the internet. As to the news stories that discuss Lenz's alleged misconduct in the 1980s:[1][2][3] I managed to find these on an old anti-cult listing [2] (that I don't think it a useable source obviously). I've no doubt these sources are real, but they are probably a total pain to access without something like newspapers.com Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have gone to a lot of trouble and gone into a lot of detail and added a lot of citations to create a rather large controversy section that talks about accusations from a relatively small number of former followers, the details of which were reported in various newspapers in the 80s and 90s. Some of the details and accusations seem rather general or petty or lacking in context, others just seem to be trying to insinuate something in a tacky kind of way. None of the accusations have been proven, none of them resulted in any sort of legal action against Lenz, and any specific allegations of abuse or fraud that were put to him were firmly denied by Lenz. The only thing we actually know he did wrong was smoke pot when he was a teenager. To me, the section feels undue per WP:CSECTION. Harold the Sheep (talk) 06:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lenz's notability almost entirely rests on contemporary newspaper coverage. There's essentially been no coverage of him since his death. The other sourcing in the article is frankly terrible, either stuff that was self-published by him, or a hagiography written by his foundation. I'm not editing here to bash Lenz (I wouldn't have bothered to expand the novel section of I was), but the controversy surrounding him was a major part of his public persons during his lifetime, and a key part of his notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Sex, Fear Broke Guru's Spell - by Kathy Butler - San Francisco Chronicle November 27, 1987
^Yuppie Guru: Ex-disciples Turn on "Master" - by Jim Okerblom - San Diego Union - January 10, 1988
^The Cosmic Seducer - by Sheri Senders and Kathleen Moloney - LA Weekly January 22-28, 1988
WP:CSECTION discourages dedicated controversy sections in favor of simply weaving criticism into the article body. However, i think the section is due for now as it doesnt seem like its possible to weave it throughout the article based on how underdeveloped the rest of the page is. I think another issue is a good number of newspapers who do report on Lenz highlight the controversies. Wikiman5676 (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the current tile was not the best for the section. So I've changed it to "Abuse accusations", which I think is a more accurate summary of the contents. I hope you think it's an improvement. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with the recent additions/alterations by Harold the Sheep, which I think help flesh out the article. I also noticed that there was a podcast that was put out back in 2021 entitled: "Smoke Screen: I Am Rama" produced by Sony Music, which is one of the few independent sources to have discussed him since his estate was settled. Most of the episodes are freely available on YouTube [3]. I think this is potentially a usable source, given that the podcast was produced by a major company. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've only listened to part of the first episode but it at least seems to be a sincere attempt to look at alternative perceptions of Rama and find out who he was. It's a personal exploration so possibly a bit too self-focused and rambling, but you might be right that it's usable. Harold the Sheep (talk) 04:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
