Talk:Norwich Buddhist Centre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Buddhism 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 Norwich Buddhist Centre, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.



[edit] Criticism section

Ophirwedge says (11:08, 15 April 2008 ): 'Criticism is unjustified and innapropriate given the charitable status of the Norwich Buddhist Centre and the length of time that has passed since the allegations would have been relevant.' However, this appears to be Ophirwedge's personal opinion of the criticisms, since they cite no sources to back their statement, or to back their version of the criticism section in the article.

Readers should be informed of the nature and sources of any criticisms, so they are in a better position to judge whether and to what extent the criticisms may be justified. Otherwise the article is unbalanced, and could be seen as merely publicity material on behalf of the NBC, combined with an attempt to brush criticisms under the carpet, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Therefore I have reverted the article back to the previous version. EmmDee (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative Perspective on this Criticism

The *NBO – Network of Buddhist Organisations is one of the main Buddhist Representative groups in the UK today. It's membership is broad and includes groups from all traditions – including the Amida Trust, The Buddhist Society, Western Chan fellowship and the FWBO – to name but a few. I'd like to quote a line from their website – "The FWBO Files set out to blacken the reputation of one of our members, and much of the material contained in them has been regurgitated in the current attack on the NBO. The FWBO Files have been thoroughly discredited, although they are still in circulation". This is quote is from a longer statement which can be read in full at this address *[1]. It is signed by many of the most respected and prominent Buddhist teachers in the UK today, such as Jamie Cresswell. Chair. (Soka Gakkai International UK), Sally Masheder. Secretary. (Western Chan fellowship), Caroline Brazier. (Amida Buddhist Order), Rev. Saido Kennaway. Treasurer. (Order of Buddhist Contemplatives)

This document also contains details of the 'Questions raised about the fwbo in parliament' and shows unequivically how there is no substance to them and they have not been pursued. EmmDee's contribution seems to suggest that the allegations of misogyny & sexual abuse were raised in parliament and were therefore live issues that the UK Govt were looking into. What emerges from reading the transcripts is that one person (No other representation has been received by the Department) complained to one MP about the fwbo and the MP was questioning whether, in the light of allegations about the fwbo, they should be awarded money from the CDF grant. The govt statement goes on to say that The decision was made that the criteria was satisfied and the award of funding was made.

I corrected your link to the 'longer statement' above, which previously gave '404 - page not found' I presume this is the page you wanted to link to, my apologies if it isn't. Your link to the NBO itself still doesn't seem to work.
It may be that the seven signatories of the longer statement are 'many of the most respected and prominent Buddhist teachers in the UK today', but it would be good to cite independent sources for this, otherwise it is just an unsupported claim. One of the signatories, whom you don't mention, is Dhammarati of the FWBO, so this raises the suspicion that the statement may not be entirely impartial.The statement doesn't appear to provide any reasoning or evidence to support its claim that 'The FWBO Files have been thoroughly discredited', though perhaps this evidence is provided or referenced elsewhere on the NBO site?
The FWBO Files weren't mentioned in the original (properly sourced) criticism section in the article, which you have deleted, and replaced with an unsourced 'Critical Perspective' section, plus a 'Counter Criticism' section, which really ought to be called 'Counter Criticism to some other Criticism which wasn't mentioned in the original Criticism section which has now been deleted.' Its a bit of a confusing mess, plus the link to the NBO article doesn't work either.
As regards your second para above, could you clarify how the NBO document 'shows unequivically how there is no substance' to the PQs? You say that 'EmmDee's contribution seems to suggest that the allegations of misogyny & sexual abuse were raised in parliament.' The allegations of misogyny & sexual abuse are mentioned in Coleman's book, and the sentence about the PQs referred to the wider issue of cultic behaviour - 'Throughout 2007, a number of questions were raised in the UK Parliament concerning allegations of cultic behaviour against the organisation.'
You mention 'one MP', actually there are two MPs (John Leech & Mike Hancock) who have between them submitted PQ's to 5 different government departments (HO, DCLG, DH, DfES, and DfCSF), not just the one representation to one government department you mention.
The NBO document is a bit selective, it only mentions some of the PQ's. One it doesn't seem to mention is:
Oral and Written Questions from 11 October 2007
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington): To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, pursuant to the Answer of 16th July 2007, Official Report, column 75W, on the Faith Communities Capacity Building Fund, what investigations took place into the allegations made against the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order, the New Kadampa Tradition and Soka Gakkai International before her Department took the final decision to grant funds to the three organisations from the Faith Communities Capacity Building Fund. (157746)
P Dhanda The Department considered information received from the Information Network Focus on religious movements who provide objective information to Government relating to minority religious groups before agreeing that the funding could be released.
INFORM is a controversial organisation, considered by some to be in effect a cult apologist organisation and hence of questionable objectivity. I can cite sources for this if required.
Another PQ not mentioned in the NBO document is:
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South):To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, what guidance he has issued to schools on dealings with organisations which have been the subject of allegations of cultish behaviour, with particular regards to (a) Friends of the Western Buddhist Order, (b) New Kadampa Tradition and (c) Soka Gakkai International; and if he will make a statement.(152364)
(Sept3)
Kevin Brennan (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Children, Schools and Families) The Department has issued no such guidance. Religious education syllabuses for maintained schools without a religious designation are drawn up by an agreed syllabus conference which advises the local education authority. The non-statutory framework for Religious education was published in October 2004 and provides that pupils should be taught about Christianity, at least one other principle religion and a religious community with a significant local presence. It is up to schools and local authorities to decide upon resources and teaching methods and this would include checking the credentials of any organisation they chose to work with.
In view of the fact that the NBO document is selective and reports only some of the PQs; in view of the allegations in "The NBO and Cults" [2]; and in light of the fact that both the Department of Health and the Home Office say they have made no assessment of the extent to which the NBO is representative of Buddhists in the UK (see replies to PQs of 24th July 2006 and 4th Sept 2006), which was one of the questions raised by "The NBO and Cults", it is not at all clear how you come to the conclusion that the NBO document 'shows unequivically how there is no substance to the Questions raised about the fwbo in parliament'. EmmDee (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Who's who

Three people : Mark Dunlop, Gary Beesley and Juergan Shnake (aka Verdex) are all known to be actively campaigning against the fwbo (Beesley is also against the NKT and Soka Gakkai int) Dunlop was an order member and one of the founders of padmaloka retreat centre. He had a long term relationship with Sangharakshita – the founder of the fwbo. In his account of his relationship with Sangharakshita he claims to be a victim of sexual abuse. People who knew Dunlop at the time would not agree with this perspective and describe him as confident, clear and somewhat aggressive. Dunlop was 22 at the time.

From my involvement with the internet and understanding of writing styles – I'm 99% sure that EmmDee (M D) is none other that Mark Dunlop and would appreciate if he came clean and declared his POV in this discussion……

It is almost inevitable, with the best will in the world, that individual editors will each have their own individual POV. That is why Wikipedia policy is that articles should be based on cited reliable, third party sources, and not on editors' own personal views. See [3]
'This page in a nutshell: Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source.
'The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiability" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.'
The properly sourced Criticism section has been deleted, and replaced by an unsourced Critical Perspective section. This is not in accord with Wikipedia policy. Therefore I shall reinstate the earlier sourced Criticism section. If you feel that the cited sources are not reliable, or are otherwise inappropriate, please discuss this on the talk page, and wait for a consensus to emerge, before deleting this material. I will leave the unsourced Critical Perspective section for now, to give you time to come up with some sources.
Also, please sign your comments using 4 tildes (~).EmmDee (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)