Talk:Sogyal Rinpoche

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
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 Sogyal Rinpoche, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Wikiproject_Buddhism
Tibetan Buddhism Portal

This article is part of WikiProject Tibet:Tibetan Buddhism, an attempt to improve content and create better coordination between articles related to traditional religion, cultural practices and customs in Tibet. Please participate in improvement by editing Sogyal Rinpoche and related pages, or visit the WikiProject Tibet main page for more details on the projects.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Tutor

I am a bit confused. It says that he was tutored by Dzongsar Khyentse Choki Lodro, but then it refers to Jamyang Khyentse. I thought he was referred to as Jamyang Khyentse Chöki Lodro, and that his incarnation was Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche. Where have I gone wrong?--Goffperu 21:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

"one of the most renowned teachers of our time" This statement is definitely not NPOV Davidreid 05:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reports

Indeed. In Sogyal Rinpoche's case *some* reports are disturbing: http://www.well.com/conf/media/SF_Free_Press/nov11/guru.html Greg Walkerden 22 Sep 06

[edit] Civil suit

What is the name of the civil suit that this article says was filed? I can't find it on FindLaw. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.142.98.102 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Useful Article by Mick Brown

From what I've seen, this is the definitive article on SR and allegations of sexual harassment:

Mick Brown, "The Precious One", Telegraph Magazine, 2 February 1995, pp.20-29.

Not available on the internet as far as I know. Johnfos 01:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing links warning

This article only has one external link and the links warning comment is overkill. Not standard and not necessary... Johnfos (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


Sorry, I disagree. This was put there after a lot of spammy links were removed, if I recall. It is a standard template, Template:NoMoreLinks. People tend to put lists of dharma centers, projects, etc., etc., etc. on the articles of Lamas which are not appropriate. The only links present should be to sites which have more biographical information on the subject. GlassFET 22:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
There haven't been lots of spammy links on this page for ages. You can't seriously think of adding a No more links template to a page that has only one external link? Johnfos (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
At the time it was added, there was a reason. There is no reason why it should not be kept. As far as I know, there are no other serious biographies of the subject online. Do you have a specific link to propose? GlassFET 22:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I don't know why you keep adding it to this talk page, it's in comments, it can't be seen. GlassFET 22:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
After saying that there were no more useful links to include, you have now added three more pro-Rinpoche links, making a total of 4 pro links. Please be aware that this will most likely attract the attention of those who will seek to redress this imbalance. Johnfos (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Whatever you say.... the critical links are all contained in the references... GlassFET 18:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The external links section is not for "pro-and-con" (and it's certainly not required that every "positive" link in an article be balanced with a "negative" one - all that's necessary is that the available information be summarized in as neutral a way as possible). The criticisms are dealt with in the article and linked in the references. If people feel tempted to repeat all the reference links in the external links section, or add critical links without confirming their reliability, well, that's a good reason to have NoMoreLinks, isn't it? Please also keep in mind WP:BLP. - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 23:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

Having a hidden comment requesting that users exercise caution doesn't seem like a big deal. It simply reminds people of WP:EL and WP:SPAM, and says that if "there are already plentiful links" to propose additions or replacements on the talk page. There are a lot of other issues to be resolved in this article. Debating such a minor issue as this only serves to distract from handling the larger disagreements and concerns. Vassyana (talk) 13:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Criticism is generally not placed in the lead, especially when it is simply unproven allegations settled out of court. The material is already in the article elsewhere.

Ahem, unproven allegations? It may have been settled out of court but that does not in anyway diminish the seriousness of Sogyal Rinpoche's conduct. Clearly, the victim was too fragile to endure months of having to give public testimony. Note that she has never come out and bared her soul in the media, she has remained anonymous due to the gravity of the experience.203.214.4.25 (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


I don't particularly like the "timeline" format of the article and would not object to a separate "Criticism" section to call it out. That's how it is done in most Biographies of living people. GlassFET 23:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I would like the timeline format changed to the usual wiki style. Putting the Criticism section in is a good first step. I like it where it now is. Also the Criticism section needs to be expanded to specifically mention that the lawsuit was a $10million one. This is an important detail that is missing.Sereness (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)