Talk:Triratna Buddhist Community

message: I think we should attach a copy of the page to a subpage here on the talk page, and carry out further edits on that, until we reach a version agreed on by all. Who agrees?--ObscureFruits (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That might be a good idea in principle, but would only work if all the active editors agree to it. I thought we were already having an Arbitrary Break on editing the article, as suggested by Digger - 'There is no deadline for the completion of this article. Just because it does not currently meet your personal preference does not mean that it should be immediately changed to something you prefer. If it takes a week of discussion or 6 months or 5 years, the correct way to improve this article is through this talk page.' - I stopped editing then, but there have been 25 edits to the article since then, mostly independent of discussion on this talk page. ISTM that I am the only editor who agrees with Digger :(  EmmDee (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems I missed the bit about stopping editing, what comes of reading when tired. Still, working on a draft as part of discussion seems fine to me...--ObscureFruits (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we revert it to the version at the time of the break, or keep it as it is at present? (As a solution to the after break editing)--ObscureFruits (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think we should keep this as it is and continue in the normal way.  There has been a huge consensus on other pages about these anonymous sites, and I for one have given a lot of thought to how to go forward.Bluehotel (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

text: BTW, Emmdee has not answered the conflict of interest matter. Bluehotel (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just reread Digger's comments, I see no actual comment that the article should be on hold indefinitely, more a suggestion that people chill out about it more (you (Bluehotel) and  EmmDee) And also, Bluehotel is right, you have not mentioned the potential Conflict Of Interest.--ObscureFruits (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

text: I would hope that the whole RS question could be resolved as follows-
include third-party references from reliable sources (positive and negative)
include FWBO website sourced info for non-controversial matters of fact (special status: Primary source affiliated with article subject)
exclude all other anti- or pro- websites unless they can be demonstrated to reach RS standards (the cult websites would not, I think, count)
The link to the Guardian article was removed because of copyright concerns, as was explained on the WP:RS/N 
There seems to be some confusion here about Policies about RAS and references and Policies about EL - it seems to me that a resolution is likely to look like:  very few ELs; article text mentioning criticisms where well-sourced.  It is inevitable that until there is more negative material published in RS then the balance will be broadly pro.  If there is a good case for criticism, get it published somehwere, and then Wikipedia can reflect it. Martinlc (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Draft

message: I've taken these tags off the page.  The reason is that their additions (now going back a long time) have the features of drive-by tagging, unsupported in this discussion as to what is considered to be wrong.
Please, if anybody feels the need to put one or other back, could you explain here exactly what you feel is POV or factually incorrect?  In that way, the points can be dealt with rationally and transparently.  Generalised hostility or affection for the FWBO doesn't do it by Wikipedia standards.
Thanks all.
I've also researched the conflict of intrest issue, and I feel there can be no doubt about that. Bluehotel (talk) 09:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV and fact check tags removed 

message: I have reversed Emmdee's latest effort for the following reasons: 
: (a) the quotation is taken from a blog, which is not RS. Although the previous quotation is also from this blog, this is in the exceptional circumstances of giving what seems to be Sangarakshita's reply to Mark Dunlop's allegations.  As it is, this section is already very short of the FWBO's replies to the controversies, but I have held back from adding those in the hope that this page will settle down into a proper, fair, encyclopedia entry, giving neutral information about FWBO.  This is not a debate page, an essay on FWBO or a platform for individual grudges.
: (b) no point is made which has not already been made.  There was a controversy in the late 1990s, over issues in the 1980s, reported in the Guardian, and that was that.  There was a debate at that time, and it is accounted for in this entry.  That discussion is now closed, and there are no RS grounds to reopen it in an encyclopedia entry.
Bluehotel (talk) 14:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Once again, then: this is an encyclopedia.  It is not a debate, or an essay, or a forum for vendettas.  As it is, there is too much comment in the entry, quite out of proportion to what one would find on other subjects. Reliance on opinion is often an indicator of a shortage of fact. Encyclopedias are about facts. That's the whole point.  To date, I think my approach has been fairly relaxed, and to include material which properly should go: for example the alleged letter by the alleged Indian mitras, who appear to be expressing their culture's deep-rooted homophobia, and is sourced here to a non-reliable source.  There is no proportional need for any more opinions from anybody on sexual matters, as the debate of between one and two decades ago is now adequately described, and proportionately expressed. BTW, you evaded the conflict of interest issue, which has been put to you many times on different pages. Bluehotel (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  So am I right in assuming EmmDee has gone back to editing but answered the potential WP:Conflict of interest issue?--ObscureFruits (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read what I wrote above on WP:Conflict of interest, on 30 June 2009 (first three paragraphs of that post)? EmmDee (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual tittle-tattle 

message: I have nominated Sangharakshita article for deletion. I'm giving notification in this page as the two article are related. Merger is an another alternative in my opinion. Vapour (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can't imagine why you would suggest such a thing.  You don't say, and there is plainly no basis to either merge the two, or to delete Sangharakshita.  One is an organisation, and the other is a person.  I could spend the rest of of my life pointing you around wikipedia to see the difference (try, say, a war and a general, or a political party and its leaders, or whatever).  But I won't.  Take a browse yourself.  You'll pick it up. Bluehotel (talk) 08:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Notification

message: An anon editor has changed quotations, which I have reverted.  In a number of cases, I have direct knowledge that the quotation is accurate, and can see no basis to go into a published extract and change it.  Perhaps the editor can explain on what basis he has polished up these quotations. Bluehotel (talk) 08:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotations changed

message: After an email to members of the Order from Sangharakshita on 06.01.10, the Western Buddhist Order  is changing it's name to the Triratna Buddhist Order. In a further email on 16.10 Sangharakshita, following a suggestion by the European Centre Chairs Assembly, made the suggestion that the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order  should be known as the Triratna Buddhist Community (this will take a bit more time to be universally adopted since all centres are autonomous).
So this article is now out of date. mahaabaala (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have reverted the name change in this article because there is no RS for it happening. I think the entry can only properly be changed when there is some proper evidence.  As far as I know, Sangharakshita, who was the founder, would not be in a position to change the name. As I understand it, FWBO is a mass of corporate entities - for the most part registered charities - and there would presumably be some form of governance procedures which would need to be invoked in order to change the name.  In any event, as I say, there is no RS, and the organization's own site makes no mention of any change of name.  Perhaps events will become clear in due course, and, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia would follow and not lead any developments. Bluehotel (talk) 09:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: fine wait for 'evidence'. We've changed the name of the Order. Wikipedia will catch up eventually. You don't seem to comprehend the distinction between the Triratna Buddhist Order and it's auxiliary organisation the Triratna Buddhist Community - which makes me wonder why you are active in the article and reverting things. mahaabaala (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Given the offensiveness of your speech, you seem to fall somewhat short of this order's professed ideals, and indeed those of what you describe, I think insultingly, as its "auxillary organisation" Bluehotel (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  BlueHotel - what is it that you find offensive? I find auxiliary (one l fyi) a helpful term when people such as yourself fail to understand the difference between Order and Community, or as we say between "effective and provisional going for refuge". We find the distinction an important one and I see no problem in emphasising it. No one from the Community has complained about my use of that word so why are you? mahaabaala (talk) 10:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: RS for name change: Teach Yourself Buddhism, new edition (can't give you page number right now). Peter jackson (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

text: RS fwbo.org as well now finally! Also http://www.freebuddhistaudio.com/talks/details?num=LOC377 a talk by Padmavajra at the name change ceremony of the Triratna Buddhist Community International retreat 31 May, 2010. mahaabaala (talk) 10:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

text: E.g. Bluck, British Buddhism, Routledge, 2010, which has a chapter on FWBO. Peter jackson (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Again, gratuitously abusive. Bluehotel (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

text: It's not a question of people being offended or insulted, Mahaabaala, it's a question of abiding by Wikipedia's guidelines on what constitutes a reliable source. Your having individual knowledge that something is the case does not, in Wikipedia's view, make your say-so an acceptable source. This isn't to call your honesty into question; it's a matter of playing the game by the established rules. Tathaataa (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Change 

message: I have, unusually, reverted edits intended to suggest that there is current controversy over this community, when there is no cited source of this claim. The previous text, to which I have reverted, made the position quite clear: that there was controversy in the 1990s, over events in the 1970s and 1980s.  Time to move on my friend.  Bluehotel (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 13:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not this letter refers to current events — and I'd assume it actually refers to events that took place a long time ago, but please feel free to correct me — your citation is not an acceptable source for Wikipedia.  Tathaataa (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Flapjack51: You need to read Wikipedia's guidelines, which I quoted. Please go read the following page before adding any more citations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability Since you haven't corrected my impression that the events you're referring to happened a long time ago, I'm going to assume that they indeed did. If you have any acceptable sources for your allegations that there is current abuse within the FWBO (or Triratna, I suppose I should say), please cite them. Tathaataa (talk) 01:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion of edits 

message: It's tempting, but not I think correct, to keep repeating "Triratna Buddhist Community" at every reference to the organisation.
Firstly, I don't think it's correct to retrospectively seek to change the historical record in an encyclopaedia. So, for example, Sangharakshita founded the FWBO and WBO.  He did not found the Triratna Buddhist Community and order.  If a context required it, most fully one would have to say something like "who founded the community as the FWBO in 1967" or whatever.
Secondly, one can never change the content of quotes.  If Stephen Batchelor said something about the FWBO then that's what he did.  One can't go in and alter his words, whether in brackets or otherwise.  He said what he said.
Thirdly, although as a quick fix after the name change this is understandable, it's not right to simply always substitute FWBO with "Triratna Buddhist Community".  The whole point of FWBO is that it is a shortened version.  The shortened version now can only be "community". In the present text, I've generally used "community" in the second or subsequent mentions in each paragraph, although even this frequency may get to seem a bit silly over time and, strictly, is too frequent.  Really, the full name should only be used in the first instance in each headed section.
These are basic principles of language, and are not matters for the community or its members to have any particular say over in an encyclopaedia.  
Personally, I think this rebranding is deeply unskillful, and these anomalies are only some of the technical issues that arise.  I think they will suffer in cyberspace, media and in drawing new support by throwing away a succesful brand and substituting something which is unestablished, cultish and tautological.  I suspect that if they had taken professional advice, they would have spotted their mistake.  It's reminiscient of the name change of the British postal service from "Royal Mail" to "Consignia".  This failed brand was changed back at enormous cost. But these are only my personal views, and irrelevant to my edits.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluehotel (talk • contribs) 08:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree in principle with your changes, although I think they could be implemented a little more elegantly. There are at least two ways that the Triratna Buddhist Community could be referred to, helping mitigate some of the repetition. The organization could be referred to as "Triratna" or as "the community," although I'd prefer to see capitalization of "Community" in the latter since it's arguably a contraction of the name. If you're not regarding "the community" as a contraction, then there's no need to stick rigidly to that wording: one could also use "the organization." Tathaataa (talk) 11:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem with contracting to "Triratna" is that, in my mind, this is like contracting "Automobile Association" to "Automobile".  Meanwhile, calling something the "Community" cap C is the kind of thing that public sector managers do (and perhaps 100 years ago everybody did), as it capitalising makes something more special.  But I don't think it does. It's like capitalising Public, Society or Organisation in an age when capitalising is very much in decline.  As for organisation, I'm not really sure this captures what we are talking about.  I think they had it right in 1967: these people are friends of an order.  Friends is a great word and I think they've boobed to drop it, not least because it throws up all these anomalies.  I'm sure a clear majority - by far - of people attending their Buddhist centres would be horrified to be told they were now members of an organisation.  All a big mistake.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluehotel (talk • contribs) 16:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Triratna" seems to be how the FWBO is now contracting its name. See, for example, this news article which has suggested phrases employing that usage as well as usages such as Triratna News and Triratna Video. With regard to your reservations about the word "organization," it shouldn't matter what people in "Triratna" prefer; they are, after all, an organization. Numerous commentators (Baumann, Coleman, Jones, Queen, etc.) have called the FWBO an organization. But as for the capitalization of "community," after looking at Wikipedia's capitalization guidelines I'm forced to agree with you that avoiding capitalization is best. Tathaataa (talk) 04:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rebranding anomalies 

message: I've deleted a paragraph tagged requesting a citation since June 2009.  It said that the old controversies were seen to have been beneficial. But there doesn't seem to be any evidence of this.  This is a shame, and I think may flow from Sangarakshita's critical failure to explain himself after the allegations in the 1990s. Anyhow, it's gone.  If anyone can credibly source the claim, by all means put it back. Bluehotel (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted paragraph 

message: Curious about why the Insight Meditation Society is mentioned in this Article as Triratna Buddhism or FWBO Buddhism has absolutely nothing to do with the Insight Group on so many levels. Any reference to Jack Kornfield and Insight, and Vipassana for that matter should be deleted, as are not true. It seems to me that mentioning them here is a way of trying to legitimize the TBC out of it's low man on the  Buddhist Totem pole. 
FWBO or TBC is more of an combination of the teaching of Sangharakshita, Tibetan traditions and what ever Teacher at the time wants to focus on. 
"Jack Kornfield, Gil Fronsdal and the Insight Meditation Society, which insist that mindfulness is essential to Buddhism, but that Buddhism is not essential to mindfulness"
Ox108 (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Presumably the reason it is mentioned is because this is an enclycopedia, and not a sectarian navel-gaze.  If you can explain what "are not true", please do.  Any scruitiny of TBC activities and those of the Insight Meditation Society show them to be very similar, if not identical, in their approach to meditation.  I suppose an expert on the subject might suggest that IMS tends to have a greater emphasis on the belly during anapanasati, but I'm not aware of an RS for that. Your talk of a "Buddhist Totem pole" and a "low man" suggest that you are not a Buddhist, or that your resort to such hate speech suggests that you might usefully refocus your energies. Bluehotel (talk) 11:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insight Meditation, etc. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Triratna Buddhist Community. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207091007/http://bpf.org/tsangha/jonesbritbudd.html to http://www.bpf.org/tsangha/jonesbritbudd.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified