Talk:Michael Roach

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

Stub

This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

[edit] Archives

[edit] neutralized the passage on study

According to a Geshe who was studying in GMR class at Sera, GMR studied all together 5 years - whereas for the lowest Geshe degree 15 years of extensive study are minimum. The degree was passed to him without that he has done any exam. It was a honorary geshe degree he received because he has sponsored Sera so extensively. So using phrases of "extensive study" are not neutral that's why I removed it. Also what a Geshe is, is written in the related article, so I removed the phrase (akin to a Doctorate of Divinity). The article should be grounded not pushed up. kt66

[edit] included http://www.diamond-cutter.org Diamnond-Cutter.org link at Michael Roach per discussion we still had and User:HanumanDas' requirements of inlcusion

When we had the discussion about including the critical link mainly User:HanumanDas and user:Ekajati were against it. All other editors were for including or at least not against it. Because User:HanumanDas argued:

I am happy to include a critical link - as long as the publishers of the site have the balls to put their names on it. I can create a site that trashes you in a few moments work (if I knew your identity) - would you want that information then linked to by WP? —Hanuman Das 23:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC) (see archive2)

I now included the link and the responsible person, because the website owner gives his name on the website, see: http://www.diamond-cutter.org/about/about.html Regards, --Kt66 12:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I believe that H.D. meant to say "authors" rather than "publishers". That is, the content is still anonymously authored. These people need to have the guts to put their name on their complaints if they want to be linked to from Wikipedia. The same legal issues apply. The site is still just a bunch of anons talking shit about somebody. Gossip does not deserve to be linked to from WP. There is no way to determine the veracity or reliability of anonymous sources. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

to make it short, there is one person in charge for the site. What user:HanumanDas's main point was will be a speculation in a way and he stopped his WP activity. The site lists also an official letter by the office of HH the Dalai Lama so you can not say this letter has an anonymous authorship and that the office of the Dalai Lama offers "nons talking shit about somebody" and "Gossip" when stating the obvious things: "We have seen a photograph of you wearing long hair, with a female companion at your side, apparently giving ordination. This would seem to conflict with the rules of Vinaya, and as you know, the Gelug tradition makes a point of upholding these very strictly. This unconventional behavior does not accord with His Holiness's teachings and practice." Is this gossip? From my POV the reasoning you offer now is quite biased and not well reasoned, so I can not accept your removal and will reinclude it. If you disagree either give better reasons or lets ask minimum two or three unbiased Admins. Regards. --Kt66 17:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the Dalai Lama letter. That brings up a couple of other issues:

If the Dalai Lama wished to publicize this letter, he would have it posted at the Office of Tibet website. So link to it there.
As you may or may not know, the author of a letter holds the copyright to that letter. I see no evidence that the Dalai Lama gave permission to reprint His less. In fact, the basic fact of who holds the copyright is not even mentioned. Wikipedia policy prohibits linking to sites which violate the copyrights of other.
The same goes for letters by Michael Roach republished on the site. Those letters were sent to specific individuals. I see no indication of Michael Roach having given permission to republish the letters. Even if they were or are published on his own web sites, those sites are copyrighted and other sites may not simply republish his letters.

Now there are two reasons not to link to the site: anonymous potentially libelous content AND possible copyright violation issues. The latter is serious, and I will be looking into having the site blacklisted for copyright violations so that it CANNOT be linked to... Ekajati (yakity-yak) 14:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

my feeling is you are not neutral and just misuse rules for avoiding any critical link regarding Michael Roach. I asked two person for their opinion we'll see what their view is. Regards, --Kt66 09:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I left a note at the Admins noticeboard and asked them for advice

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Michael_Roach_.28Buddhist.29

--Kt66 20:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diamond-cutter.org does contain copyright violations

An anon on the BLP noticeboard denied this, so I checked myself. This is what I found (copied from my response on the noticeboard):

Yes, there are copyvio letters written by Michael Roach and other documents belonging to Roach and/or Diamond Mountain there. They are in PDF format and linked from http://www.diamond-cutter.org/references/documents.html. The copyvios include the links titled

Letter to Lamas (open does not mean anyone else can publish without permission)
Diamond Mountain Spin (this one has a copyright notice at the bottom)
Spiritual Partners Poster (poster image rights belong to Diamond Mountain)
Yoga of Business Poster (ditto)
Tantra in America (transcript of a talk, rights belong to Roach)
Magic of Empty Teachers (another talk, has Diamond Mountain logo on it)

These are all copyright violations. The site has no right to publish any of them. A Ramachandran 05:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

OK it seems no way to include this link. So we have to wait if something is published elsewhere... (maybe in Tricycle: The Buddhist Review) --Kt66 00:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I must point out that using work from another source without permission does not in itself constitute a copyright violation.

The use of these materials on this diamond-cutter.org is NOT a copyright violation as it constitutes "Fair Use" as specified by the BERNE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF LITERARY AND ARTISTIC WORKS:

US COPYRIGHT LAW defines fair use in this way, in section 107:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Reference from - http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

You are wrong. Fair use does not allow the use of a work as a whole, but only covers the use of quotations in the context of another work. The quotations must generally be less than half the content of the new work making fair use of the quotations. The key word in fair use is use. You are not a lawyer, and you don't know what you're talking about. The site violates copyright and cannot be linked to. If you continue to insert the link, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. A Ramachandran 19:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

A) How do you know I am not a lawyer?

B) Actually YOU are wrong....

The US Gov't Copyright Website states: Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances. (From http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html)

NOTE: The use of this quote itself is "Fair Use", so please don't comment it out like you did on my previous post

Maybe Ramachandran it is you who are no a lawyer. I believe that the site may be validly linked to under wikipedia rules.

QUESTION: who has the final say about such matters at Wikipedia? If you continue to remove this link then maybe we'll have to try to have you locked from editing wikipedia.

I would like to formally request that you undertake Mediation on this matter with a 3rd Party, with a view to arbitration if this fails.

Go ahead, take it to mediation. I'm quite confident of the facts and Wikipedia's policy. You'll have to create an account though.... A Ramachandran 01:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with mediation as well. So we can find a proper dealing with it. Thank you both. --Kt66 12:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Mediation and its results

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)

[edit] Suggestion for an amicable settlement on the critical link

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I agree with your suggestion to such a compromise. --Kt66 12:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Ekajati/Ramachandra/Hanuman Das Sockpuppetry Case

The latest information on the sockpuppetry of the non-collaborative "trio" above, really one user, who've been active on this article, and taking similiar inflexible positions regarding critical material on similar articles:

User:Ekajati Suspected sockpuppeteer Ekajati (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

Suspected sockpuppets Chai Walla (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) Baba Louis (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

Report submission by --Pigmantalk • contribs 01:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence Ekajati (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is under a two month ban for sockpuppetry. Currently confirmed sockpuppets of Ekajati are Hanuman Das (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), A Ramachandran (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), and Tunnels of Set (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). Hanuman Das changed his account name and was previously under the user name Adityanath (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). While still under the Adityanath account, two accounts were found to be sockpuppets of the Adityanath account: Baba Louis (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Chai Walla (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). See here for findings.

Since Hanuman Das is a sockpuppet of Ekajati, then accounts found to be sockpuppets of Hanuman Das are therefore socks of Ekajati.

As of 1/29/2007, Chai Walla is working on Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath [1]. This means Ekajati is using this sock to evade the ban.

Above advisory posted by --Dseer 03:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this really the case or mere a joke? Why does no WP:Administrator publish this Sockpuppetry Case? From where did you receive this information and is this accuse of sockpuppetry based on facts and reliable? Is there an Admin who can confirm this Sockpuppetry Case?

If all three persons - who worked so hard to ban the critical link - are the same person than we put in the link right now, because all three of them would have just misused the Wp rules for banning the critical link. Besides them nobody else agreed to ban the critical link. --Kt66 21:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Kt66, please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ekajati.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 21:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Astonished I can only say in German: Das ist der Hammer! Ok, no need to block the link any more. --Kt66 21:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ekajati/Hanuman Das/A Ramachandran and probably other "socks" were active all over Wikipedia, agreeing with each "other", and trying to block critical links against many controversial spiritual teachers using threats and intimidation, like you've seen here. Since the issue is simply adding the link to experts on the critical POV relative to a subject to confirm that there is a controversy, not to endorse the controversial material or cite it in the article, Ekajati's position was too extreme and biased against NPOV. In the Andrew Cohen article, Ekajati threatened other other editors with banning if they restored a critical link he deleted, and also reported them to the BLP noticeboard. The difference there was that some of us editors recognized his approach from several articles and were not intimidated by his psuedo-legalisms, non-collaboration and threats, pointed out both in discussion and at the BLP noticeboard in wikipedian logic why he was wrong, biased, and was threatening other editors, and restored the link over his objections, and so called his bluff. Having taken mediation training, I assure you that you can't mediate with someone like that with a devious agenda, sometimes you have to be bold and trust yourself when a review of contributions shows a non-collaborative agenda, and contest them wherever they take their argument. While you have to be cautious, the fact is such critical links are quite normal, I can think of a dozen regarding different figures, and none of them have been shut down by legal action, despite the claims of our sockpuppets, and I can prove if it comes to that. Besides the logic I used in the mediation case, which among other things points out that the leader has refused to try and refute the charges on that site despite offers to do so, there is the simple fact that history with NRMs shows that usually these ex-followers have more evidence than they disclose, and if they were forced to testify under oath to defend against a lawsuit, the NRM might well come out much worse. Since Ekajati has been active in trying to circumvent bans and creating sockpuppets to support his agenda, although all known sockpuppets have been blocked, he may try to sneak back, so all those interested in the Wikipedian logic by which Ekajati's assertions were rebutted in the Cohen article should read here: [[1]], and here: [[2]]. And here is the mediator's favorable comments on the same logical position at the Ken Wilber article: [[3]]. Now that the biased deletionist and sockpuppet master is gone, here's to an NPOV article! --Dseer 05:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort and contributions! --Kt66 11:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warnings needed

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)

These statements by an admitted Roach advocate "protesting" criticism (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) are obviously not facts, they are opinions and editorializing, and are disputed by recognized authorities. Editors having such a Conflict of Interest pattern should cease editing the article to avoid being found in violation of Wikipedia policies, and will find such POV edits promptly reverted. --Dseer 02:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

All these above contradict the vinaya rules for monks (fact) so he's at fault. This is not speculation so it should be stated on the page.

All over the world, buddhists are very concerned by the behavior of this person. This should be on wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.230.227.73 (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

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)

Is this link [4] 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 [5] http://www.diamond-cutter.org/about/faq.html#2. -- Knverma 15:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I think not. A personal statement is not the basis for verifying a controversy... --Kt66 21:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

this is the point: the removal of his teachings from a website is not that relevant... --Kt66 20:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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).

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) -qhats

[edit] Reliable source

1. Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight. --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V#Questionable_sources

2. Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people, either as sources or via external links. --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP#Reliable_sources

3. -Critical Links- contains an external link.

The critical link should be removed immediately. I have tagged it with BLPsources and removed the caption. I do not have the experience to understand what happens after mediation (this has gone to mediation once already; I read the background of this article extensively and saw the debate and mediation). That is why I did not remove it, outright. Did mediation fail in its function? I don't know enough about this.

4. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space. --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP

5. This Talk page is itself deeply in violation of #4 (IMO) ('Fact' this and 'Fact' that, bypassing obvious WP:BLP and/or WP:V restriction disallowing those comments here). That was a surprise finding while composing this entry. Fits several pieces of the puzzle together for me wrt 'what good does it do, if the material is removed from the article but advanced in the Talk page?'

Obviously, the Talk page should also meet the standard. Anyone who wants to investigate the subject of the biography can go to the Talk page and find things there that did not make it into the article, proper. That's circumvention. There is policy for this. (That had always puzzled me).

6. These are only my opinions (and edits). I also removed 'American' and 'controversial' from the lead sentence, the other day (was not logged in; sorry).

7. I would definitely support a more experienced editor who removed such content from this Talk page (and all archives). Is this commonly done on Wikipedia? The policy pages demand it is done. Is it done in practice?

8. I know less about GMR than when I first heard of him last week, while googling 'criticism FPMT' (17th entry was 'critical link'). I came to Wikipedia for background on GMR.

Tetonca 00:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the critical link should be removed. There has been extensive discussion on this previously. Also, Micheal Roach did not "Found" Andin International. He was merely employed there. He apparently became an important part of the company, but he did not found it, no matter what you may read in his self published biographies. -- Simmonstony (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes there has been extensive discussion on this previously. Nevertheless, WP:BLP is abundantly clear on this (I cited the relevant texts above). Whether or not MR founded or was employed at Andin International is entirely unknown to me. If you assert it, what is your source? I don't know what the source was for the original material. If it's verifiable, and can be sourced, it should stand. I have no idea if it is true, and there do not seem to be sources to discover this, available on the Internet. Critical sections on other WP:BLP that I've seen tend to cite referenced materials with ISBN numbers, and they type the citation into the article, as those books are infrequently published online where one could just link to the citation.

Actually I do not know the importance of your edit -- I do not know what Andin Int'l is, except I tried visiting their web site in connection with what little research I could do on this biography online. It is an interesting story, and helps me to understand the sociology of Buddhism in the U.S. Your edit wrt Andin (to my limited knowledge) doesn't seem especially troublesome, especially if it is 'true'. I'd like to see your source, though.

A well-known person (apparently MR is that) is entitled to self-publish a biography, and I believe (I have not checked this thoroughly) it counts as a reliable source (verifiable) here.

Tetonca (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sock Puppetry

Previously, this article has been the victim of abuse though sock puppetry, resulting in at least 3 user accounts being blocked. Those user accounts seem to have been created for the sole purpose of removing the critical link from this article, and keeping the article from any criticism of the subject.

Oddly, user Tetonca has turned up on this page, with little history and seems to have taken up the exact same agenda, using the exact same reasoning as the previous sock puppets.

Whilst I am not accusing Tetonca of any wrong doing, and will assume good faith, I feel that the page should be watched closely.

What did flag my attention is Tetonca's wish to also clear the talk pages of any materials that reflect the critical link.

The critical link has been discussed at length and unless there is consensus between several editors then it should remain.

-- Simmonstony (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You will note my User:Tetonca page links to my WWW site, which gives my real name (and archive.org contains records of that page dating back many years). No puppets here.

----

The Michael Roach article's talk page is, in my opinion, in violation of WP:BLP; in my opinion, this is an algorithmic matter that follows directly from policy (WP:BLP, etc.)

I do not understand the role of consensus wrt policy violation. Seems to me that being 'bold' is called for when the policy states things should be removed immediately. The next step is to ask for less-vested interests to look at the article. That seems like the right thing to do here, to me.

I would absolutely concur there is much editor consensus to keep the critical link, and they did a fair amount of back and forth on how to caption it. No argument there -- but I acted because I believe the editor consensus was nevertheless in violation of policy.

Even through mediation (and this puzzles me).

If nothing else I've added my voice here to say there definitely is not 100% consensus.

If you know how to attract good, balanced attention to the article, I'd be most grateful to have other voices weigh in on this. Especially those that have no interest in the outcome, other than to see WP:BLP upheld.

Criticism is meaningful in a WP:BLP. Many WP:BLP articles contain verifiable criticisms of the subject of the biography. I fully support verifiable criticism in any WP:BLP, including this one. That way, it stands up to legal challenges, and the public benefits in the long run (as does Wikipedia).

It also brings scrutiny from outside the world of M. Roach's approach to Buddhism, to that world (or more importantly, to the public) which, I think, is useful.

In fact, I came here looking for just that. Verifiable criticism of M. Roach. To get beyond the he-said-she-said stuff I don't understand (seen on that forum--yes, I read extensively there, and IMO the public is in no danger of not noticing that site exists, with or without a Wikipedia mention of it).

Thank you for your time.

Tetonca (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interpretation of WP:BLP Policy

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

[edit] Critical link and "Controversy" section

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)

The section titled "Critical link and "Controversy" section" has no citations. Wikipedia indicates these entries must conform to certain standards - which it doses not. Please inlude referances and citations immediately.

               ==Controversy==

Michael Roach's behavior has caused considerable controversy within the Tibetan Buddhist (need citation) community because he continues to call himself a Buddhist monk and wear the robes of a monk, despite breaking his monastic vows (need citation) by taking a female partner (need referance), wearing his hair long and wearing jewelry. The Office of the Dalai Lama has spoken out against Michael Roach (need citation), stating in part, "We have seen a photograph of you wearing long hair, with a female companion at your side, apparently giving ordination. This would seem to conflict with the rules of Vinaya, and as you know, the Gelug tradition makes a point of upholding these very strictly. This unconventional behavior does not accord with His Holiness's teachings and practice."^[1]

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)

Clearly the above note makes no sense. ("admissible due to a precedence of the past or the influence of a higher power?") Articles need to be written in a manner that is keeping with the intetn of Wikipedia. Not in a manner that is based upon personal opinion or psycholgical issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.209.129 (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

Nyingma School is not relevant to this article. Johnfos (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

[edit] new york times article about Michael Roach mentions controversy

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)

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)

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)

[edit] What the controversy in the Controversy section is actually about

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-[6].

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)

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)

In my opinion, the matter of the controversy was much better described prior to your edits today. The article is about Geshe Michael Roach, not Tibetan Buddhism in general. Geshe Roach is a Gelugpa Bhikku/Monk. The white sangha of the Nyingma are lay people and not ordained as Monks but initiated into practice. Lamas may be householders or may be also ordained as Monks, but the term is a title for a respected Buddhist teacher and is not synonymous with Monk. These are confusions you have introduced to the article. You have removed mention of the three points which were cited and at heart of the controversy. Geshe Roach's long hair, wearing jewelry and taking a female partner in violation of his Vinaya vows. You state, "It should not leave the impression that Roach's qualifications to teach are in any way diminished." The entire body of the article is dedicated to Geshe Roach's life and history as a Buddhist teacher. It is not our position as editors to give any positive or negative impression, but to present qualified information in line with WP:NPOV. In the this way the reader can make up their own mind based on the quality of the information. There is a controversy with Geshe Roach because he has broken his vows, yet continues to wear the robes of a monk. The controversy is that simple. Let readers make up their own mind as to whether or not Geshe Roach is a qualified Buddhist teacher or not. If Geshe Roach removes his Bhikku robes their is no controversy or controversy section. -Vritti (talk) 07:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nyingma school material

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Cutting out diamond-cutter.org

The controversy section is now a long rambling section which takes up almost half of the length of the article. It seems to me that one particular editor has got carried away with demonstrating his/her erudition rather than sticking to the topic at hand (see previous section on Nyingma school). Is this really what Michael Roach supporters want? I would have thought something shorter and less prominent would have been better.

In any case there is no way that the diamond-cutter.org site can be excluded altogether. This site has been mentioned on this page for a long time, and there is no reason to start excluding it now. Much of what is said in the NYT article supports what is said in diamond-cutter.org, which enhances the site's credibility as a reliable source. Johnfos (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag

I'm adding a POV tag to this article because essential diamond-cutter.org material has been excluded, and so the article is not neutral. In particular, the following paragraph has been removed: Johnfos (talk) 19:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Michael Roach's behavior has caused controversy within the Gelugpa community because he continues to call himself a Buddhist monk and wear the robes of a monk, living with a female partner,^[2] wearing his hair long, and wearing jewelry.^[3] The Office of the Dalai Lama has spoken out against Michael Roach, stating in part, "We have seen a photograph of you wearing long hair, with a female companion at your side, apparently giving ordination. This would seem to conflict with the rules of Vinaya, and as you know, the Gelug tradition makes a point of upholding these very strictly. This unconventional behavior does not accord with His Holiness's teachings and practice."^[4]

Please do not post material from diamond-cutter.org on the talk page either. The site clearly does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources or the requirement for sources in biographies of living persons, particularly the clause here, which reads, "Self-published material may be used in BLPs only if written by the subject himself." Since Gary Friedman is the owner, editor and publisher of diamond-cutter.org, a partisan site intended to diminish the reputation of the subject, it simply cannot be used or linked to, the way I read WP:BLP. The NYT article is a much better and more reliable source. They are cautious, as Wikipedia should also be, not to make statements that Roach has broken his vows, as that is a matter of belief, opinion and interpretation and rests primarily on the contested assumption of non-celibacy. Such statements are potentially libelous and should never have been permitted to be in the Wikipedia article unless quoting someone who said so. In any case, the proper place to discuss whether or not the sources meet WP:BLP is on the related noticeboard as indicated at the top of this talk page. Please take you concerns to that venue. Madagascar periwinkle (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Interested parties may want to be aware that the issue is being discussed at WP:BLPN#Michael Roach. Shu Li Yen (talk) 12:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Madagascar periwinkle asserts that "statements that Roach has broken his vows, as that is a matter of belief, opinion and interpretation and rests primarily on the contested assumption of non-celibacy." This statement is not correct in any way. The Vinaya gives the rules which govern the behavior of monks. Anyone who is familiar with the Vinaya and its purpose can look at pictures of the subject and see evidence that the vows are not being observed. This is the same observation made by the Office of the Dalai Lama. There was no mention of "celibacy" or "non-celibacy" in the article until they were introduced by Madagascar periwinkle. Secondly, the consideration of legal matters such as libel are more than a bit obscure since the truth is a complete defense against libel. No one has suggested that Michael Roach has breached the law of the land, but has failed to observe the rules of Vinaya as photographic evidence suggests. This observation is shared by Thekchen Choeling of the Office of the Dalai Lama whose letter, published with the author's permission can be found http://www.diamond-cutter.org/dalai-lama-office/dalai-lama-office-denounce.html here. -Vritti (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't care about any of that. Whether a site meets the criteria for reliability is the only issue that I am interested in. Please bring the discussion to the place where it will get the attention of editors who have experience making this determination, WP:BLPN#Michael Roach. So far, the opinion of the BLP montitoring editor who has reviewed the site is that it is not suitable, which means it should not even be linked from the talk page. Shu Li Yen (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It is probably topical to note that the individual you identify as "BLP monitoring editor" [FaithF] is a new editor to Wikipedia since April 30th of this year. Since this article has been repeatedly attacked with the same tactics by [Ekajati] and socks, I'm beginning to have some difficulty with WP:AGF. -Vritti (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice that about User:FaithF. But please stick to the subject. Regardless of the history or who first pointed it out, this is a simple matter of applying existing guidelines. The initial user who brought it up may well have been right, even if they were wrong about other things. This is why I have requested, twice now, that the conversation be carried on in the correct venue. This is not a content dispute. It is a question about whether a source is reliable. I am beginning to lose WP:AGF myself due to the extreme resistance there appear to be to discussing it on WP:BLPN. Are you so attached to using the source that you are afraid to discuss it in that venue? Shu Li Yen (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The diamond-cutter website has been reason for ongoing edit wars since 2005. Perhaps it would be a good thing to drop it, and the New York Times can now be used as source. The website also consists of mostly anonymously written material, that could be an issue with the high verifiability standards for biographies of living persons. Species8473 (talk) 23:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see what is gained by using and linking to such a questionable site. Shu Li Yen (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Diamond-cutter.org has stood the test of time, and now the NYT article confirms the basic information contained in the site. The NYT article is an essential source, however, diamond-cutter.org provides supporting details, which are useful when writing an article such as this.

All materials on diamond-cutter.org are edited and approved by Gary Friedman, who has been an active student in Tibetan Buddhism since 1990 and has undertaken extensive retreat and study.[7] Johnfos (talk) 06:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply at WP:BLPN#Michael Roach. Short version is, none of these arguments can override the fact that the site is self-published and according to WP:BLP cannot be used in a biography of a living person. There are no exceptions to this rule, and thus your arguments cannot overide the rule. Shu Li Yen (talk) 12:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Michael Roach, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. Guidelines: Chinese Manual of Style - Naming conventions Indic Manual of Style - Naming conventions Japanese Manual of Style Korean Manual of Style - Naming conventions Tibetan Proposed naming conventions
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh) The dialog on the talk page has unfortunately become a public debate on a recent controversy concerning Michael Roach's Buddhist practice, with all parties equally guilty of long, rambling, irrelevant discourses in support of transparently petty agendas, accompanied by the usual slew of self-interested page edits and deletions. As a result, the sustantive content of Michael Roach's accomplishments to date have been left out, while the trial by croaking frogs wages. comment by user:St3veh