Talk:Michael Roach

message: I'm requesting that an editor who has not been accused of COI revert this edit, which is in violation of the Wikipedia policy for using a self-published source in a BLP (WP:BLPSPS).   Abhayakara (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Vritti can make a case for restoration if desired, but I agree that it's SPS.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: He's already made a case on your talk page, for some reason, which is valid—I don't see any reason to dispute that source.   However, the other reason for reverting this edit, which I didn't mention because SPS seemed like enough of a reason, is that Gyatso is talking about married monks living openly with their wives, which while certainly related to the case being discussed here, is not the same as the case being discussed here, and hence requires WP:SYNTHESIS to make the connection.   I've been unable to locate any details on why these monks are married and living with their wives—perhaps the situation is exactly the same as the situation with Roach, but we have no way of knowing that, and at least in one sense the situation is different, since the fact of Roach and McNally's legal marriage is what's being discussed here, and that was not revealed until someone went through the records and found it, so while certainly Roach and McNally didn't try to hide the existence of a relationship after 2003, neither did they openly go about saying that they were married. Abhayakara (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If Gyatso is talking about married monks living openly with their wives, then I'm not persuaded that there's any synth involved here, given that it seems that Roach and McNally were in fact married.  I don't have a strong feeling about it, though -- perhaps Vritti will shed more light.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really see the synth or stretch since the word married is being used the same way in both the existing paragraph and in the interview with the Dalai Lama. Even though the marriage was kept secret until 2003 they were still married and remained so until 2010. I believe the brief opinion of the DL clearly reflects the view of the Gelugpas and is important as Michael Roach was ordained as a Gelugpa monk. I'll put the words back in with the proper source to remove the BLPSPS issue. If this is still a problem, please discuss here and I will try to understand the issue I fail to see at the moment. Vritti (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I can make a guess as to what User:Vritti's response will be, but I suppose we should let him do that.   In any case, if we are going to keep this text, I suggest removing the quote from the New York Times about it being a stark violation of the tradition, since it's essentially saying the same thing, but isn't attributed to a specific person who'd be qualified to make such a statement. Abhayakara (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, for some reason I read both paragraphs above as being from User:Nomoskedasticity—didn't mean to imply anything by not responding to User:Vritti.   The reason I claim this is synthesis is that we don't know why the Columbian monks are married.   Are they also claiming to be qualified to practice with a karma mudra?   The article doesn't say.   So by conflating the two situations, we are synthesizing the assumption that the Columbian monks are practicing with karma mudras, which are covered by the quote from How to Practice, and excluding the possibility that these monks are not qualified to do karma mudra practice, and that that is why Gyatso has spoken of them as he has. Abhayakara (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the "stark violation" reference as per Abhayakara. If another editor feels this was rash, please discuss here. As for the claimed synthesis, I don't understand this argument. The reference says married and means married as found in any dictionary. Karma mudra is a different word with a different meaning not in the reference. One required qualification for a monastic to do karma mudra practice while maintaining precepts was revealed yesterday. When we have a reliable source that states Michael Roach is transmuting human excrement into ambrosia or turning bricks into gold or physically flying in the air, etc., then this should be added to the article at that time. Vritti (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read that section of the book too.   I didn't include that in the article because it seems inappropriate to be talking about excrement in a BLP.   The talk about miracles must be taken either as hyperbolic, for those who do not believe in miracles, or as literal, for those who do.   In the former case, the statement doesn't make much sense—why would Gyatso refer to something that was impossible as a basis for being permitted to do a practice he is clearly stating is permitted in some cases.   In the latter case, I don't know what the wikipedia guideline would be—do we assume that Roach is telling the truth when he says he's qualified to do the practice, or assume he is not telling the truth?   I don't think we're allowed to say either way. Abhayakara (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Abhayakara (talk), I believe it was you who added the book by the Dalai Lama to the article. You clearly pointed out the "exception" to the monastic restrictions but you failed to include the conditions or single example of action required to uphold the exception. Some historical examples include, tying a knot in a yak's horn, reattaching a severed head without injury, being cremated and regaining the body, etc.. The office of the Dalai Lama and others have already communicated to Michael Roach that he must performs miracles and actions like the Siddhas of old to prove his claims of being qualified to perform karma mudra. To my knowledge there is no evidence he has accomplished this. If and when there is it can be added to the article. There is no argument that he legally married. The Dalai Lama's words puts the marriage aspect in perspective. In other words, I do understand your argument but find it baseless. If you want to continue this line of debate I would prefer not to be involved. I would however be inclined to examine the claims made by Michael Roach regarding his self purported realizations and spiritual accomplishments. The Vinaya vows of a monk by the way, restricts them from making any such claims. If they do, they are asked to prove these claims which explains the various requests by Lamas for Michael Roach to perform suitable miraculous manifestations and actions. Vritti (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please correct [[WP:BLPSPS]] violation. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Michael Roach. 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/20120606052328/http://diamondmountain.org/about/lineage_and_roots to http://www.diamondmountain.org/about/lineage_and_roots
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130118150559/http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-06-18/strategy/30091918_1_diamond-cutter-buddha-book-worthwhile to http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-06-18/strategy/30091918_1_diamond-cutter-buddha-book-worthwhile
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110516215132/http://www.asianclassics.org/about/overview to http://www.asianclassics.org/about/overview
*Added  tag to http://www.mtexpress.com/2004/04-04-09/04-04-09monk.htm
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) 10:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think this article should be rewritten by an established Wikipedia editor and locked against vandalism. There is minimal discussion of the most notable thing about Roach--the death of Ian Thorson and the controversial marriage to Christie McNally. Meanwhile, the talk page clearly indicates that people editing the page are extreme minority insiders with idiosyncratic ideas about Tibetan Buddhism--indicative of Roach's teachings. Furthermore, most recent edits come from accounts that don't even have user names, just anonymous IP addresses. Switfoot (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggest reversion to May 2022 version of the page located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Roach&oldid=1089002018 Switfoot (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is being distorted by students of Michael Roach 

message: Anyone who reads this article, its editing history, and its Talk page, quickly realises that there had been numerous and consistent attempts to rewrite the article, manipulate the flow of its style and tone towards a certain biased point of view (from both sides of the isle). Both, those who are affiliated with Roach, and those who create blogs to work at destroying his reputation, had tried to push the article towards a certain direction.
I believe we shouldn't allow the article (or its Talk page for that matter) to be dominated only by one point of view that stems from a clear COI.
In its current state, some sections of this article are biased against Roach.
We need to start an objective conversation around the current state of this article and where it is going.84.198.107.83 (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: On the neutrality of the article - May 2023