Talk:Bo Lozoff

message: I believe at least the recent article about Mr. Lozoff (http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A263212 The two faces of Bo Lozoff) should be included in the external links section. Please stop removing it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.221.66.238 (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The allegations were made by a source that meets WP:V and WP:RS. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, everything is properly cited and referenced, and therefore can not be held as libel. If the source is found to be incorrect and later issues a retraction or is found guilt of libel, then we can have a discussion as to its validity. However, until then, your non-sourced edits are being reverted. Please not that despite using multiple user accounts, all your edits are being considered collectively. Removing the material again will result in a report at WP:3RR, and a potential block on both of your accounts. -epicAdam(talk) 14:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

text: The standards of WP:V are that Wikipedia operates on "verifiability, not truth". The article does make clear that the allegations of abuse are according to the newspaper, so readers can decide for themselves how much weight should be lent to the information. However, I have clarified that a single program of the foundation was closed, and not the entire foundation itself.  As for the information about the books and humanitarian awards that you inserted, that information needs to be cited, especially the direct quotes attributed to The Village Voice. The HKF board would not be an appropriate source because Wikipedia operates using third-party sources. Especially in controversial cases like this, the HKF undoubtedly has an interest in portraying their organization and its founder in the best possible light. Therefore, it is necessary to find other published sources (newspapers, magazines, etc.) that contain the information. A direct link to the VV article would be the best. For future communications on talk pages like these, don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically add your user name. -epicAdam(talk) 19:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits 2008

message: I've inserted what I believe to be Bo's correct date of birth at the top of his article. If anyone has any better information, please feel free to correct it.
Just one more thing, since I'm aware that there's a lot of controversy surrounding Bo - I'm a fan too, but Bo never claimed to be perfect and in fact went out of his way to disabuse people of the idea that he was beyond criticism. 
When an interviewer once suggested to him that his stewardship of the community was "terrible", he said something to this effect; "Yes it is, and I'm sorry, but no else was doing what I tried to do (set up and run a halfway house for prisoners on their release) so it was either me or nobody."
Meltingpot (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of birth

message: * - WP:Templates
The new warnings at the top of this biography ("The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies"), etc., are confusing because of the eight references and four external links, only one, humankindness.org, is a primary reference. Can you please explain?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthcon (talk • contribs) 16:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Truthcon - I added them in response to comments at the BLP noticeboard. There is some doubt among editors as to whether or not this person is really independently notable to require a biography here. If you have a read there and lets attempt to address the issues raised by article improvement. - Youreallycan (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Templates

message: Hello Youreallycan,
Thanks for such a quick response. I am so confused here. If you Google Bo Lozoff's name you will find over 7400 websites today that refer to him and his legendary work in prisons around the world. The Dalai Lama has written forewords to two of his many books, there are many youtube interviews with him under a site called "ihanuman" and other sites. His own organization, Human Kindness Foundation, is actually fairly small without a big internet presence. I am just someone whose life was helped by his work and I know nothing of writing Wikipedia biographies. I have no idea who created this original one, but I know from personal correspondence it was not Lozoff or his organization. So your editors' concerns that he is not really a notable person is very confusing to me. His first book, "We're All Doing Time," has about a half-million copies in print in English alone, and is also in several other languages. How is he not notable? I don't know how to fix this; I just don't like seeing people tear this man down after all the good he has done.Truthcon (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is tearing him down. We have guidelines of independent reliable notability that is required at wikipedia for a biography. WP:NOTABILITY and independent sourcing as specified here - WP:RS - what you can do to help if yo u are well informed about the person is to present some reliable independent articles that support things you comment on , like - half a million book sales, and anything else you know of. Is he a notable author - WP:AUTHOR or has he written a notable book -  Wikipedia:Notability (books) - Youreallycan (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Did you click on and read the comments in regard to notability in this discussion? Wikipedia:BLPN#Bo Lozoff if not please do. Thanks  -Youreallycan (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Please note, this and this indicate Lozoff is associated with Keyboard Culture, and that it's essentially a networking site. This doesn't pass as a particularly reliable source (other than to show that he's associated), and the claims there do not help to show notability as far as in-depth coverage by multiple independent third parties. Please also note Goodreads and Thinkexist are user-generated content, much like Wikipedia. They aren't reliable in the way required in a living person's biography. JFHJr (㊟) 06:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Independent notability 

message: Our articles must be written from a neutral point of view. We can't and won't simply publish an article praising an individual and ignoring reliably sourced and verifiable controversies. Upon reviewing this article's history, it's obvious that special purpose accounts have been abusing Wikipedia for their own ends. Editors wishing to change this article must back up their changes with reliable sources. Biasing this article one way or other wills stop - even if it means disabling accounts from further editing. Rklawton (talk) 02:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The section currently under "Nonprofit work" is minimizing and does not provide a realistic picture of how serious the allegations and admissions are. The more accurate description, which has been around for over a year should be included, and I will restore it. Will refer ahead in the paragraph under "Nonprofit work" to add cohesiveness to the article. Floorsheim (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

text: I've removed the section dedicated to allegations. They need not be mentioned twice within the article. Please see WP:BLPN for its thread on this topic. JFHJr (㊟) 22:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've attempted to remove some prose from the list of writings, an insignificant award, and a false cite: "Deep & Simple" as the inspiration for the 2010 award-winning documentary "Mister Rogers & Me."www.misterrogersandme.com. My edits have been reverted. I'll refrain from edit warring, but the restorations require an explanation. Especially the citation to Mister Rogers, which does not support the claim at all. JFHJr (㊟) 22:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

text: The award requires a third-party mention, beyond the recipient and the group giving the award, to show its significance. Otherwise, it's without any enduring biographical significance and should not remain. And instead of restoring crap citations in reverts, fix the problem by providing the citation when you restore it, not after. What you've cited to now is actually what I read before deciding the source doesn't support the claim. Mention of Lozoff appears among several named individuals: The brothers’ travels led them to Durham, North Carolina, where Mister Rogers' friend, mystic, activist and author of “Deep & Simple,” Bo Lozoff, shared three core tenants of a deeper life. This language does not support the contention that Bo Lozoff's book inspired anything. You're performing original research at best, and at worst repeatedly misrepresenting the source. JFHJr (㊟) 23:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

text: Thank you, Truthcon, for engaging in discussion. I do have faith that, through reasoned discussion, and by aligning our interests with that of making Wikipedia a quality online encyclopedia (cf. WP:SOAP), the content disputes occurring here can be resolved. I believe part of JFHJr's concern is not that the references to the awards are fraudulent but that it's not verifiably clear from them that the awards are notable enough to justify inclusion in Wikipedia. Can you provide some third-party verification that the awards received are significantly notable? Also, while it's clear that Lozoff is a significant author, Wikipedia may not be the place to give an exhaustive bibliography for all of his works. I will ask that you stop edit warring concerning this subject matter or any other and that JFHJr remain civil. --Floorsheim (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

text: It is more than ok for you to add your two cents, Molliegiles. It is encouraged and appreciated. You might also consider adding a bit of personality to your user page. Just a little goes a long way. Having your name show up in red can be interpreted by other users to mean that you're not invested in the community and its interests. --Floorsheim (talk) 02:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: While I do think it would be helpful for Truthcon to read carefully over WP:NPOV, it's important for all editors to recognize that civility is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia and to assume good faith on the part of everyone involved, i.e., in this case, to avoid explicitly accusing other editors of being biased. This is important to prevent the discussion from escalating and getting personal. It's much better for editors to point out which statements, edits, etc. they find to be biased and offer suggestions. I do like the "incidents" language that Molliegiles suggests. I agree that the Independent Weekly article is a highly noteworthy source for our subject, and I will remind that the standard of inclusion for Wikipedia is verifiability not truth. We don't have any third party sources to support any statements about how seriously or not seriously any number of people take the article, so we can't include any original research concerning that.
I'd like to point out the following quote from the Independent Weekly article:
Despite his teachings against harmful sexual behavior, several female volunteers and one female parolee also allege that Lozoff, who claimed to be celibate, had sexual encounters with them during one-on-one counseling sessions, in which he initiated kissing, touching, and oral and manual sex as a method of spiritual healing. While some of the sexual encounters were initially consensual, the women volunteers say others were not, and that his power over them and the Kindness House community prevented them from speaking out or rebuffing his advances.
These allegations, many of which Lozoff does not deny, prompted the self-styled mystic to close Kindness House...
This being what the article says, it is original research for anyone here to say which allegations he does or does not deny or to say that this was not the reason Kindness House actually closed unless anyone can find a reliable source making such claims.
I then propose the following language:
In 2008, several ex-parolees and volunteers said in interviews with a reporter that Bo had been sexually and emotionally abusive at Kindness House. Lozoff does not deny many of the alleged incidents and, although he maintains that his actions were not abusive, has stated that his radical beliefs and lifestyle made him a "terrible choice by God" as leader of the community.[6] Kindness House closed in 2006 as a result of the allegations; Human Kindness Foundation continues to operate the Prison-Ashram Project.
--Floorsheim (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a few comments. First, I can't access the source right now because it's "offline". Second, assuming there's nothing else material in the source other than the quote you've provided, I would be fine with the language you suggest (change Bo to Lozoff). Third, I don't see anything uncivil in JFHJr's phrase "crap citations". Truthcon is a WP:SPA and has been editing only this article since he first started editing in March 2011. He has been blocked for edit-warring in the past. He has been singularly unhelpful in his more recent edits. I see no particular reason to accord him good faith, but even if I did, I wouldn't consider the term "crap citations" anything except being blunt in response to Truthcon's behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

text: It's been over 24 hours since the article was last edited, so I will go ahead and put in the section proposed above, which seems to have the full support of Molliegiles, Truthcon and myself along with the tentative support of Bbb23 and opposition from none. Bbb23, as you should be able to verify now, the source itself is quite lengthy. This is my best effort to distill the most relevant points that it makes with regard to this issue without giving undue weight. --Floorsheim (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Allegations

message: I'll again ask Truthcon to stop edit warring Re: this section and to instead strive for a consensus version with JFHJr and others. My comment to JFHJr about civility was in reference to his use of derogatory language, i.e., "crap citations." Especially in this case, he should be aware that Truthcon is new to the notion of what a proper and improper Wikipedia reference is and should show more patience. There is nothing uncivil about nitpicking. It is necessary and encouraged in order to make Wikipedia the best online encyclopedia it can be. 
Question: does the documentary itself say that it was inspired by Lozoff? From what you said, it sounds like it does. If so, you could cite the documentary for that statement. --Floorsheim (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not an issue of controversy. It is an issue of encyclopedic standards as set forth in the handful of policies you've been repeatedly referred to. Your statements regarding Mr. Rogers requires a reliable source that directly supports the claim you're making. So far, you've given ample inference, but no "inspiration" or anything close. And despite repeated caution, you've insisted on citing to a source that does not support that contention. To address your other concerns, Wikipedia does not use styles such as "His Holiness" in deference or in reference to anyone. Only in direct quotes. See MOS:HONORIFICS. Otherwise, third party coverage is required to indicate significance of the music and writings. Amazon is a store and doesn't count. I advise you to quit calling it "nitpicking." At this point in your editing history, it just means you don't have time. JFHJr (㊟) 01:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell from searching Google, the only thing Rockin' Monkey Recordings has produced are Lozoff's CDs. Does anyone have any information on this company?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

text: As a fan of Lozoff and a long time Wikipedia editor, this conflict is making me sad. Truthcon, I know you adore Lozoff, but Wikipedia does have very specific guidelines that seem to be enforced sporadically, but do need to be adhered to. This article doesn't need to include everything about Lozoff - there are other sites for that. You could even start a blog about him or contribute to his sites. But let's keep the peace on Wikipedia. Keep it simple; it's not worth the stress and emotion you're investing into it. GreenGlass(talk) 04:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

text: Wanted to provide this third-party reference for Lozoff's writings, which describes We’re All Doing Time as "well-known". I think more can be done with this reference in terms of establishing Lozoff's notability but for now will insert it next to the "We're All Doing Time" title. --Floorsheim (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, it seems to me that Amazon is a sufficient reference for the fact that We're All Doing Time has a foreword by the Dalai Lama. Thoughts? --Floorsheim (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the article - very detailed and very disturbing. In any event, I made a few copy edits to the article material (thanks for your work, Floorsheim). The only thing substantive I did was to remove the Ashram phrase as I found no reference to it in the main article. The source you found for the book is not a reliable source as it's just a personal blog. I didn't remove it but I don't think it can remain. Until we have a reliable source for it, the supplementary cite to Amazon to show that the Dalai Lama wrote the foreword shouldn't be added.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks and I'm happy to be of assistance. :) Thoughts on either of these as citations for the book? ,  --Floorsheim (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  The first one (Theosophy) is no good as they simply accept reviews from readers of their website ("Readers are welcome to submit reviews or comments on books or video material, or titles they feel are worth reviewing, to theosnw@theosophy-nw.org."). The second one (RALPH) is harder to evaluate because it's not clear how they do the book reviews. The Lozoff book review was written by Ignacio Schwartz, but who is he? No indication I could find who he is or how the review was posted to the site. I'd be reluctant to use it. You know, the Indy Week article mentioned the book twice. Two of the parolees at the Kindness House mentioned the book. I haven't worked it through my brain, but instinctively, I like that better than the other sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

text:  Ok--and the first Independent Weekly article has some useful stuff in it, too, including other material that could probably be used to expand the article. I do think it would be nice, though, to have at least one source other than Independent Weekly. How about this article (excerpt) from  Integral Yoga Magazine? --Floorsheim (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

text:  Here's a pretty solid one although it only talks briefly about the book. --Floorsheim (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: For the book and for the foreword, I would use the Indy source and the other two sources you've found (Yoga and Boston Phoenix). Together, I think they justify inclusion of the material. Your persistence is admirable.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

text: Thanks. :) Went ahead and put those in for now. But plan to make some major revisions to that section, including a description of We're All Doing Time's notability. --Floorsheim (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

text: I have read exhaustively about the difficulties with this entry. Well, all I want to do is list the dates of his birth and death. The current death date on here is not even correct. Or, if wikipedia minds me editing (I don't have access to edit), then edit it yourselves, because this entry is inappropriately written. Parth Lozoff (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Writings

message: 2601:A:3700:5:4436:846C:D47E:3545 (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2015 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bo Lozoff. 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/20110707173518/http://ascentmagazine.com/articles.aspx?articleID=83&page=read&subpage=past&issueID=11 to http://ascentmagazine.com/articles.aspx?articleID=83&page=read&subpage=past&issueID=11
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bo Lozoff. 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/20110104233055/http://www.humankindness.org/bolozoff.html to http://www.humankindness.org/bolozoff.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) 00:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified