Talk:Michael Roach (Buddhist)/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Maintaining NPOV

It appears that there are some fundamental issues between traditional Buddishism and Michael Roach's teachings/lifestyle/claims. I suggest that a summary be worked out on this talk page, with appropriate references. Do not include rumors/unverifiable allegations; nor quotes from open letters, etc. An appropriate review before posting — to be careful to adhere to WP:BLP — is a good idea. — ERcheck (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion is the section I suggested above New Ways after a Three-Year-Retreat based on self-published sources (the three PDF files with the public announcements): I could verify the sources as been published by Geshe Michel Roache's organisation, and published at his internetsites which are used also for reference in the article now. But the sources are not accepted by some WP's. So this seems to be investigated by other WP:Admins/Editors as well. I have not the ability to understand all the rules related to that case clearly. (Please exuse my stubbornness and just ignore me if needed.) I leave it to you the experienced Admins and editors to refute or accept the sources. If the letters are not accepted at the moment there are no other sources (besides the biased critical site).

The Wikipedia:reliable source states on that:

Self-published sources in articles about themselves

Material from self-published sources, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as there is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it, and where the material is one of the following:

  • relevant to the person's notability, or, if the material is self-published by a group or organisation, relevant to the notability of that group or organisation or
  • not contentious, such as basic biographical information. All information of a self-published nature should be looked at with a critical eye.

it should also be:

  • not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing;
  • about the subject only, and does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
  • subject to verification by other sources.

Self-published material should always be reported as the POV of the publisher, and not as general fact, until such time as there is independent corroboration of that material. The reputation of the self-publisher is a guide to whether the material rises to the level of notability at all.

In general, if a self-published source is reliable, then other reliable sources will cite it, until then, it should be avoided.

So I see no real contradiction about my sources from GMR's site as being used as "Self-published sources", isn't it? --Kt66 15:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
There's no problem with them as sources—except that they are no longer on the web-sites in question—but I still don't know what they are supposed to mean.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 17:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
There's also the problem with interpretation of sources. As an encyclopedia, WP must report on interpretations originating in other sources. We as Wikipedia editors must not interpret them ourselves, that would be original research. So, if the texts have multiple possible meanings or readings, ambiguities, etc., we must find a secondary source that interprets and discusses those meanings. Ekajati 18:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. The principals in these sources are being circumspect, and it's not clear from reading the removed text what message we are supposed to be getting. In the absence of some source to explain it, I don't see the point of its inclusion.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 01:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


The problem with the article as it currently stands is that there is not a mention of the contraversy at all. And its a significant contraversy, dragged around till infinity on few large buddhist internet forums, surely that much is an acceptible assesment to all sides of the discussion? Some mention must be included otherwise how can this be called NPOV? Diamond cutter site seems the most obvious choice of refference, why consider it any less appropriate than GMRs sites themselves? As a primary, not secondary source, of course, simply to note that there is a contraversy, theres no need to affirm them as objective, unbiasted etc..Ill check back this discussion and if a dialogue on this remains as stagnant, Ill add the link anyways..--83.131.151.15 18:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. But we have different opinions here. Whereas user:ekajati and user:HanumanDas argued against the inclusion of this link, users:Sacca and me wished to include it. User:NatKrause appeared open to include it. He sopke not aginst including it rather he opposed the reasons of user:HumanumDas for excluding it. Until now we follow the views of user:ekajati and user:HanumanDas, maybe you have to discuss with them and learn the WP:rules to discuss this point of including/excluding the link on a deeper level. I fail that qualifications. Regards --Kt66 21:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont find it acceptible to use WP:RS as argument for exclusion, because there is no such thing in existance as secondary source on this matter to judge reliability of these sources, and primary sources will be inherently biased in this case due to its contraversial nature. If such a criteria is applied, then the entire article needs to be deleted. On the other hand significant elements of the contraversy, like the letter from the private office of HHDL are indeed verifiable, and uncontraversial in existance and content (supposedly could be in interpretation) and must be mentioned regardless of the inclusion of that particular site, so to bring the entire discussion on the contraversy down to the question of the inclusion of a link is itself too simplistic an. Its only easier to have a compilation of the other side of the contraversy on one place, and the contraversy itself is pretty widespread, like that site, without judging their merit. Also its totally not true that the fact the site in question does not sign the names of all participants (especially given the cultish nature of some allegations) that this apriori discredits it as a source - the policy that was misquoted here was first discussing external links, not reliable sources, and this need not be the case of using them as external links - as that policy says. "Wikipedia articles can often be improved by providing links to web pages outside Wikipedia which contain information that can't or shouldn't be added to the article." - so if you say, go to the page on Beaufort scale, youll see at the bottom linked a few good sites that expand on the information given in the article but are nonessential for its content because the source of information for the text of the article itself is rather a book named under the refferences. Clearly this is not the role diamond cutter site should have for this article. Also the policy simply says 'normally avoided', nothing more, which is logical given the nonessential nature of those links otherwise it would lead to the proliferation of that section of some articles into a web directory on the topic. This rule would imo more likely imply on cutting some of the nonessential links to his organisations, that are crosslinked on one site anyways. Otoh, biographies indeed need to be treated carefully, however gurus also need to be treated with extra scrutiny. Also without question the self published information should not be treated as true but only as a POV of the author, no sane person would suggest any differently. Open letters of verified and verifiable authenticity otoh could be refferenced without issue.

Rather whats of more importance here is the use of that site as a primary source of information, and it being linked under references, where it perfectly qualifies, and used as such for simple noncontraversial information like claims of realisation, those few letters from other lamas on his claims of realisation, and from HH Dalai Lama his possibility of attendance, the letter about taking down of his talks from LamRim Radio, christianization of teachings (like the videotapes of such a service), the pretty blatant fact that hes a monk openly in a relationship with a woman and claiming tantric+realisation justification for this etc, that are accepted as true from all parties anyways, only interpreted differently. Well, theres no need to interpret anything on an encyclopedia, so it should be easy to avoid problems..

Furthermore I find it unacceptible that given a situation where theres no consensus, the article stands in a clearly NPOV position, with no mark about any dispute etc, and with the position of one group of editors only taken into account in that version. Also I see no attempt to actually improve or give a different or indeed any kind of presentation of the substantial points of contraversy, but just an argument about a particular link essentially tangental to the core issue here. I seek for no particular confrontations, but will surely insist on a NPOV mark on the article as long as something about the contraversy is not stated, and will edit in some attempted versions of the article soon, after getting hopefully a bit more feel for the positions and concerns of other editors. --Aryah 23:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You have not taken into account the restriction placed by the rules about biographies of living people. No self-published sources of any kind can be used as sources. It is my firm belief that because WP:BLP insists that we err on the side of caution in respect to biographies of living people, that there should be no linking whatsover to sites which would not qualify as sources.
Please don't take me for a supporter of the subject. I am not and have never been a student of Michael Roach. I understand the nature of the complaints about him, but unless these are given voice in a newspaper, magazine, or book which can be cited, or the website of a real organization which is a registered corporation, profit or non-profit, where the names the CEO, board of directors, etc. are known, this material does not belong in Wikipedia, nor should it be linked to from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a web directory.
Even from the point of view of a paper encyclopedia staff doing research, the controversy does not exist unless it can be documented from reliable source. That said, months have gone by an no critic of Roach has been able to provide sources that meet WP standards. In such a case, I do not believe it correct to put an NPOV tag on the article, and I will remove it.
If you can provide material that meets WP standards, I, at least, would be happy to include it. I am not trying to protect Roach but rather extend the protection that WP policies were designed to afford to living persons to him. He has as much right to this protection as anyone else. —Hanuman Das 00:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I certainly understand the concern for preserving wikipedia standards of protecting individual persons from encyclopedic defamation. As I see, the material themselves, the videos on the google video, and the three letters can be mentioned without problem. The problem is AFAIK they are not published so much as circulating. Many people wrote emails to the stated authors to confirm their valitidy and got positive answers But I dont know if they are actually published in some quotable form besides that site. And furthermore Michael Roach also admits their validity and this is stated on his sites too, so though invisibe as a wiki source its paradoxsically verifiably true and furthermore consensually taken as such, thats really a crazy situation, IMO! I mean its not dificult; any editor in doubt can check by email, and if still claims he got the response they are invalid, an admin can check by email too, and then punish the editor for the lie (in that eventual scenario) on some severe and on a by that editor previously agreed upon way. Alternatively, maybe googling up the letters in questions for other sources? Simply there are quite sufficient, reliable and consensually agreed informations about the existance of the contraversy, Its insufficient a reason that the technicality, if even correctly interpreted, that if a particular site presenting it should not be linked, the whole issue should go unmentioned. --Aryah 01:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, they can't be mentioned unless they've been written about by a third-party, mentioned in a newspaper, journal, magazine or book, or published on a reputable website. For example, if the Dalai Lama letter is published on the Govt of Tibet website, it could be mentioned and quoted from, as long as a citation is provided that links to the letter on the site, or alternatively, if it were published in a book or journal, that book or journal could be cited, preferably with page numbers, etc. The point here is that things like email, blogs, mailing lists, , personal websites, etc. cannot be used. Neither can "self-published" information except in exceptional circumstances. For example, if the Dalai Lama had a verifiable personal website and published the letter, it could still be used as he is an extremely notable individual. However, if I put the same letter on my website, it could not be used if that were the only copy, as there would be no way to verify that I hadn't made it up out of whole cloth.Hope this helps... —Hanuman Das 02:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

So, the letter of the lamrim radio administrator about taking down of GMRs lectures and the reasons that happened would be permissable if it was published on the lamrim.com itself, as long as a citation os provided that links to the letter on the site? This would be the equivalent of a newspaper editor publishing such a letter in an issue? --Aryah 02:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This: http://www.lamrim.com/dmtn/openletter.html --Aryah 02:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No, because it is self-published; it's published by the owner of the site on his own site: that's self-published. If they were publishing somebody else's letter such as the Dalai Lama's letter, it would be fine (provided that the Dalai Lama had given permission to publish the letter, of course, since he is the copyright holder and WP cannot link to material posted in violation of coryright).
Now, if Roy's letter were published on a site that he didn't own, there would still be the question of whether Roy is a notable person. The opinions of notable people are of interest. My own, for example, would not be, as I am not notable, nor am I a recognized writer or reporter or someone who has established a track record of reliability in my communications.

Buy such a definition no editorials would ever be a permissable source of information. cnn.com is also self published, right? But, note that diamond-cutter did just that - published somebody else's letter. And also in your previous example with hypothetical Dalai Lamas letter on his site would also be a self published information by this criteria, and you previously claimed it could then be quoted. And is there any information taken from michael roaches sites thats not self published? If his sites can be used as a primary source on him (and numerous articles do this), or if his books can be used as a source, then simply finding mention of that information on his site will be enought for it to be included? Can I search other biographies of varios persons and will you agree that if information they published in their books or in their sites is used in many of them, then that similar criteria can be used here? The only thing Id be interested in pulling out of that letter is the fact those lectures were taken down from the site called such and such because admin of it had misgivings over the contraversy developing around the issue of etc... GMRs own site has letters about this too. Is this a 'self published' information and unadmissable too? So, youve got his site saying something, youve got an anti-site agreeing with it and youve got an unrelated site also agreeing and no mention of this fact at all is to be made? So, in your gutenberg-centric vision of sourcing, pretty much no internet information could ever be used at all. untill the printing press rolls over that information its useless. This is a ridiculous definition of 'self published' --Aryah 00:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

What about this then:

Using the subject as a source

In some cases the subject may become involved in editing an article. They may edit it themselves or have a representative of theirs edit it. They may contact Wikipedians either through the article's talk page or via email. Or, they may provide information through press releases, a personal website or blog, or an autobiography. When information supplied by the subject conflicts with unsourced statements in the article, the unsourced statements should be removed.

Information supplied by the subject may be added to the article if:

* It meets verifiability, NPOV, and no original research policies. * It is relevant to the person's notability; * It is not contentious; * It is not unduly self-serving; * There is no reasonable doubt that it was provided by the subject.

So, certainly, mentiones of the contravery on sites by Michael Roach can be used extensively in this article? Wheres the issue with Kt66s use web archive of self publication of the subject about the contraversy? Also what about this public recording of Michael Roach himself on a pretty reputable source - http://www.archive.org/details/Star_in_the_East_8Mins - so he can be quoted saying that mahayana evolved due to the influence of thomasine christians and that everything that the bible says is literally true and can this be called a highly contraversial assesment or should we ignore a few millenia of buddhist history too? --Aryah 00:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


I also note that you have misinterpreted Roy's letter. It doesn't say that he has taken down GMR's teachings. In fact, it say he has left them up! He says he has simply made them harder to find and get to by not linking to them from the main page. That's one of the reasons primary sources like letters are rarely used. People are always trying to spin them to make them mean what they want. —Hanuman Das 14:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Im avare of this, and said it only in simplification. Thats because Ive followed the e-sangha forum discussion about that letter, and the letter was taken down completely, and put back on the site for refference when we inquired to the administrator about its authenticity, for refference, not because its claim that the lectures were still online but taken off of the main page was still true. Google doesnt find them anywhere on that site anymore and the lamrim.com links as stated on Michael Roaches site (and the links that used to work that were discussed on e-sangha) dont work any longer so they have clerely been removed completely in the meantime, but in any case 'removed from the homepage' is good enough for the point - making a mention of any kind... --Aryah 00:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I note that there is no "about this site" information that I can find. It doesn't say who owns it, nowhere can I find Roy's last name. The domain registration itself is anonymous, through DomainsByProxy. Looks like a personal project by a single individual without that kind of information. I'm sure it's a great resource, but it doesn't look like a reliable source for a letter by its own owner to which he doesn't sign his last name. —Hanuman Das 15:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ive seen in highly recommended on e-sangha quite a few times, by moderators of that site... It is linked from http://www.lamayeshe.com/general/links.shtml and lama yeshe is prety notable, to say the least, from http://www.dalailamafoundation.org/members/en/xivVideo.jsp and this is an organization mentioned on http://www.snowlionpub.com/pages/news21.php and http://www.tibet.ca/en/wtnarchive/2005/7/8_6.html (both as notable as a tibetan buddhist site can ever hope to be) and many other sites of buddhist temples (like http://www.gandendheling.org/links.html , http://www.shedrupling.at/KC/deu/deu_reso/links.html , http://www.samantabhadra.org/links/links.html) as a good resourse. So I definitely insist that that resource is as notable as some newspaper might be, and that the open letter can be treated however one would treat a letter of an editor published in a newspaper. Essentially if this site cannot pas the bar of notability, then theres barely any site online about tibetan buddhism that could. Isnt it high time to remove links to Michael Roaches sites then?--Aryah 00:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

With all this endless discussion on what is a reliable source or not, in practice, it should still be possible without being a Wiki-lawyer to mention that there is a controversy? I think that everybody here can by now knows that there is something going on. I think people should be informed about controversial teachers, in in my POV this is more important content then his date of birth... rudy 00:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No, and No. Links to Roach's site are specificly allowed by policy. You can't even mention the controversy until it has been mentioned in real media. You are pushing the river. If there really is a controversy, you just have to wait until it gets real media coverage of some sort. The open letter simply cannot be used: the author didn't even have the guts to sign his full name. The site has no information about who publishes it, and even the domain registration is anonymous. No. I must say that everyone publishing this information seems to be pretty gutless.

I've added some examples of media coverage that is acceptable. Identifiable authorship (first and last name), a known publisher (such as a yoga center that publishes who they are, where they can be found and phone number on their website. That's what you are looking for. I didn't find anything about any controversy on any acceptible site. That tells me that people are afraid of legal action in response. That sort of legal action could also be taken agaist Wikipedia, another thing that WP:BLP is intended to prevent. —Hanuman Das 03:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

the person in question is:

           Lam Rim Radio

           c/o Roy Harvey

           2603 Chanute Trail

           Maitland, FL  32751-4012

           USA

That information is available all over their mailing list, and on about 60 other places available by google, including sites of various buddhist centres. They also say they are ``world's oldest and largest Tibetan Buddhist Internet Radio Station broadcasting around the world 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.`` which would be quite a notable title, no?. They also have a TV program at lamrim.tv and they opened that service with a broadcast Venerable Kirti Tsenrab Rinpoche (lineage holder of the kalachakra tantra) allowed of kalachakra initiation ceremony by that channel. Theyve broadcasted HH Dalai Lamas teachings in the meantime.. Im sure the open letter is not signed because its adressed to a person familiar with that widely available piece of information.. I find the claim that this site is an unacceptible source absolutely unacceptible itself. Youve not discussed the issues of 'self published' sources and the various changes of positions and absurd conclusions? --83.131.157.49 06:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Heres some more detailed info on the site: Some guys are into cars, others are into golf or fishing, still others like to spend their free time building high-powered trebuchets to see just how far they can toss a pumpkin.[1] Outside of waterslide parks and camping with the family, I like to see how far and wide I can stream packets to listeners throughout the world for little or no money down. In a small corner of my basement lives the network operations center for the Internet’s first and currently largest “Tibetan Buddhist” Internet radio station. The lectures are usually on various philosophical topics and typically run 1 to 2 hours in length. When I'm not providing a live broadcast, "The Station" server streams various MP3 files from its local hard disk. I started doing this casually back in late 1999, but things got serious a short time later when I provided audio streaming services for the 14th Dalai Lama’s lectures at Shoreline Amphitheater here in Silicon Valley.

From a networking perspective, my connectivity consists of a megabit SDSL

(1.1Mbps up / 1.1Mbps down) from Speakeasy ­ a very progressive and scrappy ISP that’s deservedly become the nation’s largest independent broadband provider. I pay a couple hundred dollars a month for unlimited bi-directional transfers and half a dozen static IP addresses. Should I need a little more bandwidth for a special event, a simple phone call and their provisioning system makes it happen almost at once. Overall network stability, availability, and throughput has been rock-solid. Speakeasy also includes unlimited nationwide dial-up service; you'll see later why this is important.

My servers are all Intel-based, either donated or so low cost as to be free. For instance, last year I bought 3 1-rack unit 750Mhz servers from a failed dot.com liquidation for $125 each. Sold one online for $500, thus paying for the other two plus profit. My primary webcasting box is a dual 500Mhz 3U that a listener gave to me. ........... So this supposedly very obscure site that has no info on it actually has easily trackable details about the server configurations and is part of the logicstis of the lectures that HH Dalai Lama held in Silicon Valley. And that obscure administrator also is mentioned on acknowledgement page of http://www.dalailamafoundation.org/members/en/thanks.jsp - seems he provided hosting services for them... --83.131.157.49 06:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC) What about this - http://www.lamayeshe.com/talktous/newsletter/e-letter9-04.shtml :

I hope you are well. We just returned from His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s wonderful teachings in Florida. His Holiness taught on Padmasambhava’s Garland of Views. If you’d like to hear these teachings, please visit Lam Rim Radio. If you’re not familiar with Lam Rim Radio, this will introduce you to it. Run by Roy Harvey, it contains a wealth of excellent teachings.

So the site is recommended the influential FPMT organization, and demonstrates again how non-secret and openly stated the full name of its administrator is. Still think an open letter about exclusion of GMRs materials from such a site by that sites administrator is not notible enough? Is there anything to justify this besides a fetish for gutenberg? --83.131.157.49 06:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC) here another noted site linking it and another clear statement of his full name - http://kalachakranet.org/ikn_news.html --83.131.157.49 06:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It's still self-published - written by the OWNER of the SITE and PUBLISHED ON HIS OWN SITE. Don't you get it? Regardless of how reputable the site is, self-published primary sources aren't permitted. Now I'm done with this ridiculous discussion. Your comments are way too long and are simply complex arguments intended to get around WP:BLP. Wait till a neutral thrid-party source covers the story. Isn't patience a virtue in Buddhism? —Hanuman Das 14:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Hanuman Das. So far, there are no sources which meet Wikipedia standards. I also agree with him that sooner or later the story will be picked up by a newpaper or magazine (Is Tricycle still being published?), at which point what is reported about the controversy can be included. I personally will be adding any such material the moment I find it, not because I disapprove of Roach in any way, but because NPOV demands it. Until such time, I think the article meets NPOV in that there are not yet any reliable sources which report the controversy. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 18:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Writing an editorial-like information is not self publishing, nor is lamrim in the business of self publishing anything. From a wiki article on self publishing:


Self-publishing is the publishing of books and other media by the authors of those works, rather than by established, third-party publishers. ..... ...... The key distinguishing characteristic of self-publishing is the absence of a traditional publisher. Instead the creator or creators fulfill this role, taking editorial control of the content, arranging for printing, marketing the material, and often distributing it, either directly to consumers or to retailers. Less often, the author prints the material, usually using a xerographic process or a computer printer. ..... There are a number of reasons that writers choose to self-publish, although one of the most common is that their work is not of interest to a commercial publisher. Publishers must be confident of sales of several thousand copies to take on a book. An otherwise worthy book may not have this potential for any number of reasons:

   * author wishes to retain complete editorial control over content (see below)
   * author is unknown and does not have substantial resume
   * popular topic but of interest only in a small geographic area
   * addresses an obscure topic in which few people are interested
   * content is controversial enough that publishers do not wish to be associated with it
   * author wishes to obtain a larger percentage return from retail sales

Occasionally an author may choose to self-publish for reasons of control, because they want access to their customer list, or because they love the business of publishing. When working with a publisher, an author gives up a degree of editorial controll

So clearly this is about whole editions and books published so that the autor of them would have a media in which to expess oneself, probably because they couldnt be published on another way, and clearly thats not the use of lamrim, sometimes being used as infrastructure for a visit by HH Dalai Lama.

This is what policy actually says:

Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims.

Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject (see below).

Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers that print gossip much of which is false. While such information may be titillating, that does not mean it has a place here. Before repeating such gossip, ask yourself if the information is presented as being true, if the source is reliable, and if the information, even if true, is relevant to an encyclopaedic article on that subject.

..... How precisely isnt lamrim.com such a third party source? if trycicle publised it on their magazine/website, wouldnt that be self-published if any of the owners of the site wrote there? Like they apparently do in say "editors view". Imagine if this contraversy was published but there, or as a similar open letter explaining why content by Michael Roach will no longer be published and not as an article. How is this different from the site that publishes 99.99% multimedia recordings of famous buddhist teachers, but also contains a letter? Also note that the only interesting thing about this site is not some second hand account of the contraversy but the very fact that a content (not created by that administrator - but by Michael Roach) was taken down, because of the contraversy. So thats certainly not as if there was Theres no mention in [WP:BLP] that editorials should not be used, or would this seem remotely implied.

All you are saying is that there must be a reliable secondary source for something to be even mentioned. And this is against the policy, this is what it actually says on primary sources:

Public figures ......... Material from primary sources should be used with care. For example, public records that include personal details ........


Non-public figures

Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are nevertheless entitled to the respect for privacy afforded non-public figures. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability. Material from primary sources should generally not be used unless it has first been mentioned by a verifiable secondary source. (see above).

So note that in both cases primary sources can indeed be used - in a case of a public figure (which a guru inherently must be due to the sensitivity of his role) 'taken with great care' and in a case of a non-public figure -'generally not be used..' - again leaving place for exceptions.

So, could you give an example of allowable primary sources that mention this contraversy? And hasnt it allready been established that if that primary source is a self publication of the subject himself, like the information Kt66 dug from archive.org of sites by Michael Roach, that this is indeed allowable matherial regardless? How did those edits look and whats the problem with them? As far as patience goes, I have no problem with this, only find your criteria for inclusion extreme and changing, and with a bias against internet sources of any kind so wonder if differet sources wont be eliminated on a similar way. Quite possibly Im simply not understanding your position to enough detail and its possibly strict but iron-clad and assured eventual inclusion. But the question is rather if wiki policy allows some inclusion, not if some particular interpretation does, regardless of 'patience' so I hope for more opinions on it too..

--83.131.147.34 20:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)