Talk:Michael Roach/Archive 2

message: see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Michael_Roach_.28Buddhist.29
--Kt66 20:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I left a note at the Admins noticeboard and asked them for advice

message: Here is the link to the mediation and the final result: Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Michael Roach --Kt66 23:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Mediation and its results

message: Its obvious that Ramachandran and I (and others) disagree on this issue and that we both feel we are correct and both feel we have valid reasons for feeling as such. It would be nice if we can recognise that our perceptions differ on this issue, and that we may both have valid points, or we may both be wrong. This is the nature of beings... to perceive things differently. 
So an amicable settlement, which I would like to propose, would be a compromise. Perhaps we can include the link, with a strongly worded disclaimer that the link is to a site that may contain controversial materials. We could work on the wording of this together.
Otherwise I (or others) will just keep adding the link daily and Ramachandran will keep removing it, untill we all get banned from WikiPedia for being such a bunch of wallies (yeh thick baat nahin hoga, Ramachandran Bhai... Maaf kijiye mera yaar, lekin mujhe Tamil atta nahin hain). 
In any case, its a waste of everyones valuable time, so if we can both be big about this, agree to dissagree, and come to a compromise then we'll all have grown a little and we'll all be better off (Shayad is mamla se hum dono acchi dosti ban jayegi). 
Best wishes to all
Diamondwatcher 16:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will be happy to engage in mediation. But I will withdraw from mediation unless the link is left out during mediation. If the link violates WP:BLP it must be left out. Similarly if the link violates copyright it must be left out. Since either case could make Wikipedia vulnerable to legal action, it is not fair to Wikipedia to keep the link in the article until it is reviewed and approved by someone with authority to do so. A Ramachandran 17:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, Ramachandra Bhai, you will admit that you are doing this for the sake of Wikipedia, rather than your personal devotion to Geshe Michael Roach (I have read your posts of Chatrooms regarding Geshe Michael Roach and it's quite obvious that your his student in some way. So if your doing it for the sake of Wikipedia, and there is a consensus that there is no problem linking to this site, then you'll accept that.. No?) Diamondwatcher 23:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. I have no connection whatsoever with Geshe Roach. However, I'm pretty certain that policy will not allow linking to the site, for multiple reasons. You must be mistaking me for someone else. Not only have I not posted in chatrooms related to the topic, I don't post in chatrooms at all, of any sort. A Ramachandran 04:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be possible to compromise on this point by linking to one or two specific articles on that site that all parties can agree are reasonably verifiable and not copyright violations, rather than linking to the website's main page?—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 21:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your suggestion to such a compromise. --Kt66 12:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not agree. And I'd like to remind editors that there is a formal mediation going on and that that is the place to discuss this. See the template at the top of the page. If you have an interest in the matter, you should add your name to the mediation and let the mediator know that you are joining the mediation. A Ramachandran 15:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for an amicable settlement on the critical link 

message: On the original article page there is not even a mention that the article is controversial. There should be one.
The letter from HH The Dalai Lama advising Geshe Michael Roach to stay away from Dharamsala is a fact, not an invention and should be posted here. 
Fact: Michael Roach announces himself as a geshe monk.
Fact: He says Christie is his girfriend/consort.
Fact: He wears watches/jewels and long hair.
Fact: Practicing Highest Yoga Tantra ultimately leads to the necessity to practice with a consort. 
Fact: Geshe Michael is a practitioner of Vajrayogini Vajrayana, nad is follwing in the tradition of that path when he takes a consort after his retreat. 
Fact: There is no contradition between what is expected of him, and what he does.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.209.129 (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only what is mentioned in a Wikipedia:Reliable Source and what is a Wikipedia:Secondary source can be added. Maybe we have to wait until  Tricycle will publish this case. --Kt66 23:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this link  of any help? It is of interest to note that both Diamond Mountain as well as diamond-cutter.org provide links to Lam Rim Radio  http://www.diamond-cutter.org/about/faq.html#2. -- Knverma 15:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think not. A personal statement is not the basis for verifying a controversy... --Kt66 21:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I already agreed with that part, that the accusations cannot be claimed to be true. But facts like "his teachings have been removed from lamrim.com" could be claimed to be true. But then perhaps it is not so significant, and it might be better to wait before even mentioning all this in the article. -- Knverma 00:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: this is the point: the removal of his teachings from a website is not that relevant... --Kt66 20:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevant thing is that this is not a teacher without serious controversy by many groups including HH The Dalai Lama office, and this should be stated very clear in the wikipedia page. The letters should be published in wikipedia since they're open. The 'accussations' are not gossip but based on facts, please read again the 4 facts, they're not subjective but objective. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.230.227.73 (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Lama Yeshe's commentary as well as Berzinarchives both cite the role of consorts and buddhahood within the traditions containing highest practices. Each source's authority is very great, and they are only 2 of the most readily accessible selections of a large group of sources. They all write about the necessity of consorts. From this it is clear that much of the 'controversy' stems from people who do not have very much knowledge. 72.208.102.177 (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warnings needed 

message: Existing editor consensus not especially informative wrt verifiability of cited WWW link 'Critical Link' (see article).
Additional information:
The request is for balanced review of inclusion of the 'Critical Link' in the article body. Existing editor consensus is to keep (and even expand) inclusion of this link, the description (caption) for the link, etc.  Has gone to mediation at least once.
In a word, the current discussion is about verifiability of the cited link.
Tetonca (talk) 01:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the link clearly violates WP:BLP policy and have removed it. 90.128.39.138 (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I also agree that the defamation on this talk page should be cleaned up as well. 90.128.39.138 (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Humm. Totally lost me here. What is wrong with the critical link. I think it sheds a great deal of light on the subject. It is also rather even handed and on point. Why was it removed -Vritti (talk) 06:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't see a problem with the link either, so will put it back. Johnfos (talk) 02:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Interpretation of WP:BLP Policy

message: I have removed the controversy section because there is no way to verify this information outside of Diamond-Cutter.org, run by  Gary Friedman. For information this controversial in nature, I believe that there must be more than one source verifying these claims. Personally, I find the letters from H.H. the Dalai Lama compelling. However, this information has never been published in books or newspapers—therefore, the information cannot be considered 100% reliable. I am not saying there have not been issues raised concerning Roach's ethical conduct. I am saying that we must be able to point to more than one source to prove this, especially considering that the one source we do have is the kind of website any Tom, Dick or Harry could create if they so desired. It is not encyclopedic, and no true encyclopedia would rely on such a website. It would be the equivalent of relying on a blog, regardless of how accurate the said blog claims itself to be. (Mind meal (talk) 02:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pleased to see the Controversy section returned to the article. At the same time, Michael Roach has explained his actions as being admissible due to a precedence of the past or the influence of a higher power. I would think a properly cited reference to his view would help balance the section and further illuminate the nature of the controversy. I might do it myself, but don't have the references handy at the moment. Just a thought... -Vritti (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

text: While I agree that the "influence of a higher power" bit, which I also don't understand, doesn't seem to be in keeping with Wikipedia policy (it would at least need to cite where Roach has said this), the "precedence of the past" does make sense. The original tradition of Padmasambhava preserved in the Nyingma school does allow for non-celibate lamas, so living with a partner is  not outside the bounds of tradition, especially if, as they assert, they are maintaining a celibate relationship. However, since the Nyingma "white sangha" are permitted to marry and need not take vows of celibacy, what Roach is doing is not necessarily outside the bounds of acceptable practice within Tibetan Buddhism, even if it is outside the bound of Gelug rule. Madagascar periwinkle (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nyingma School is not relevant to this article. Johnfos (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is, because it contextualized the range of acceptable behaviours within Tibetan Buddhism, of which the Gelug school accepts only a subset. Both this article and the NYT article place the controversy as within the "Tibetan Buddhist community", but the diversity of views within that community provides important context to show conflict betweens different schools on the same issue. Madagascar periwinkle (talk) 23:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

text: There's a difference between a lama and a monk.  There's no such thing as "Gelukba" vs. "Nyingma" ordination.  It's Buddhist monk's vows.  I'm enormously skeptical of GMR, but why is it that religions always focus on sex?  When was the last time a Buddhist monk gave back his vows so he could eat after midday?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.143 (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Critical link and "Controversy" section

message: Today I happened upon the following article in the NYTimes: 
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/15/garden/15buddhists.html?em&ex=1211083200&en=729a029c0a34c0e5&ei=5087
and after reading it, decided to see what Wikipedia might offer about Mr. Roach's life and work. To my amazement, the article did not include the slightest reference to controversy.
I then decided to read the Talk page. It became apparent that a substantial amount of argumentation has been made, on the issue of whether Wikipedia policy permits (or requires, or disallows, etc.) mention of the controversy.
If the answer, after today's Times article was published, is "does not permit", why in blazes not? The New York Times has been considered the, or one of the, "paper(s) of record" in the U.S. since long before any Wikipedia editor was born. Surely, if it mentions a controversy, Wikipedia can mention the controversy. Or so I would think -- I, who am not a lawyer, not a Wikipedian to any substantial degree, have never been a Buddhist and never heard of Mr. Roach nor any of the parties to the discussions on these pages, until today.
Frankly, if the existence of the controversy about Michael Roach does not make it (back) into this article, I believe it will stand as yet another example of why so many people think Wikipedia is a laughingstock. And I would regret that.  Publius3 (talk) 22:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking as someone who I think you might accuse of being partisan, I think the NY Times article was great, and I encourage you to quote it as a reference.   However, if you do so, please be sure that what you say is supported by the contents of the article.   Nobody would dispute the assertion that Geshe Michael is controversial, and I think the article does mention that controversy, so it's appropriate to use that here, as long as you don't venture off into left field with new information you think pertinent that is not sourced from the article.  Abhayakara  —Preceding comment was added at 07:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it is a good article which presents facts not mentioned in the controversy section, namely that both Roach and his partner assert that they have and are keeping their vows of celibacy within this relationship. I've modified the controversy section to reflect this, and also note that the NYT article nowhere asserts that Roach has broken any vows, only that there is concern that he appears to have if the relationship is not indeed celibate. As such the previous stronger wording of the Wikipedia article was not actually supported by the reference. This also has been corrected. Madagascar periwinkle (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  new york times article about Michael Roach mentions controversy 

message: Assuming good faith with other editors here, I find that the frequent editing or removal of the controversy section must be based on a lack of understanding as to what the controversy is about. Allow me to clarify. Michael Roach has become a bhikku (Buddhist Monk) by taking ordination and making vows to live and behave within the rules of the Vinaya. He has broken these rules by keeping his hair long, wearing jewlry and and associating intimately with a member of the opposite sex. To verify this, look at a picture on the main page of the article and then read the Vinaya text-.
The nature of the controversy is the breaking of Vinaya vows and while doing so, continuing to wear the robes of a monk. In a WP:NPOV article, the facts are presented so that readers can make up their own mind what this may mean if anything. The office of the Dalai Lama has criticised this behavior, as have others, while most people could care less. The controversy is not simply about celibacy or the lack of it, it is about the breaking of vows and rules of the Vinaya and continuing to wear the robes of a monk. This is seen as very bad form within the Sangha, hence the controversy. -Vritti (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The issue should be better described. It should note the differences in robes, and that Nyingma of the white sangha are entitled to wear robes and give empowerments, even though they are married and non-celibate. It should not leave the impression that Roach's qualifications to teach are in any way diminished. Madagascar periwinkle (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Drukpa Kunleg once said the very same thing about the Karmapa.  It caused quite a scene, but we all had a good laugh afterwards.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.143 (talk) 03:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the controversy in the Controversy section is actually about 

message: As the first line of this article states, Michael roach is a teacher of Tibetan Buddhism of the Gelugpa school.  He has had nothing to do with the Nyingma school and so discussion of the Nyingma tradition is not relevant to the article. Johnfos (talk) 03:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is, because it contextualizes the range of acceptable behaviours within Tibetan Buddhism, of which the Gelug school accepts only a subset. Both this article and the NYT article place the controversy as within the "Tibetan Buddhist community", but the diversity of views within that community provides important context to show conflict betweens different schools on the same issue. Alternatively, the article could be modified to say that his behavior has caused controversy within the Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism, unless you have sources for criticism from other schools? Madagascar periwinkle (talk) 13:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with Johnfos. Not only is the matter not relevant, it is off the point of the controversy completely. The Nyingma ordination you are referring to is for lay people, not monks like Geshe Roach. You are mixing apples and oranges and confusing people. The Vinaya reflects the required discipline and vows taken by monks, to be monks. If you feel the need to wear long hair, jewelry and have a female partner, you embroil your Sangha in controversy. Take off the robes and there is no controversy. -Vritti (talk) 07:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nyingma school material

message: External links should be kept to a minimum (see WP:EL), and WP is not a collection of links (see WP:NOTLINK), yet this list of additional links has been repeatedly inserted at the end of the article: Johnfos (talk) 00:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe there is no clear violation on WP:EL. But WP:NOTLINK states an encyclopedic context is required. While there is nothing in the article about Tibetan language classes. The Spiritual Partners serie has a horrible video and audio quality. Species8473 (talk) 05:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Linkfarm