Talk:Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo

COPIED FROM Longchenpa Archive from 22:18, 23 July 2008

Dear Lonchenpa,

Why must you persist to restore derogatory and false original research on Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo?

"plagued" is derogatory. You have repeated deleted my efforts to tone down your language with synonyms and cause and effect relationships.

"her third house" is not supported and suggest harm to the articles subject. Again, you've deleted my efforts to tone down and amend your original research to remove harm.

"guru yoga" adds context for the wikipedia reader's benefit. You seem intent on an agenda to give the reader a single view on financial harm. Adding balanced context is our editorial responsibility.

I am about to make a complaint to others about your editing. I suggest you collaborate and work to provide a neutral point of view through bringing balanced context for the readers benefit.

Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

First off, you were jumping into a conversation that had nothing to do with you. I've deleted a partial conversation that you reposted here where you didn't know the other half (which was on another user's page). Do not do that again.

I'll make comments that are relevant from my experiences.207.188.250.60 (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

They're irrelevant when you don't know the rest of conversation. People tend to put half a conversation on one talk page, and the other half on the other. It's hard to follow that way unless you were involved in the whole thing. Longchenpa (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and as for your complaint -- be my guest. I have done nothing wrong. Longchenpa (talk) 03:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's was relevant because it was a redundant point I've made to you about Harm. You have been warned many times about this issue. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I have not. I have not received any kind of warning on this site. That is completely untrue. Longchenpa (talk) 03:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

If you read above in this long discussion, I've warned you. I feel like you are being evasive to the issue.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Plagued as derogatory language

Second, plagued is not derogatory. It is the mildest of many options ("surrounded" etc.). It is unacceptable to blame-shift to critics, especially when the critics are her own teachers, the Washington Post, and other very reputable sources. Bear in mind that Alyce Zeoli assaulted a monk and nun. She was arrested. She has a $100,000 a year salary. She has numerous houses, a swimming pool, and collects tens of thousands of dollars worth in gifts every year. Her monks and nuns go broke trying to pay her salary. She and KPC were investigated by the FBI for death threats against a tulku in New York. These are all valid reasons for criticism.

You continue to add poorly sourced harm to this article. Sourceless allegations are not even to be on the discussion page. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are thinking that harm = all negative information. Based on the conversations with Curious Blue (above) Wikipedia means "harm" in the legal sense, such as libel. Longchenpa (talk) 03:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree Harm is not just negative information, it must be original, poorly, or unreliable sources negative information. For good reason, the standards for harm are higher than non-harm (see WP:HARM.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Plagued brings in an ugly image, which is not appropriate. I don't intend to blame either party things progress in a natural cause and effect order, that is what I wished to express. That's been my focus. You seem to be intend on focusing blame on people in an sbversive effort to have other blame the Article's subject. That's a harmful application of Wikipedia.207.188.250.60 (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... troubled is better than the other options you added ("harrassed by" I think it was?). But it's not great because it implies that we know her state of mind, and we do not.

Plagued is a carefully chosen word. It does not have any implications about her feelings or state of mind, and does not suggest the veracity of those "pointed questions." It implies that the pointed questions are negative, which they are, and that they have been problematic, which they have been -- but it doesn't take a side. Longchenpa (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Plagued promotes a derogatory dis-eased image. We know not of the dis-ease either. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this is an English issue. "Plagued" does not mean "diseased." One can be "plagued" by a swarm of mosquitos, for example. Longchenpa (talk) 03:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Plagued has it's roots in diseased, ala Plague. You're wrong, mosquito are a common cause of plague. I find your argument to be disturbing and evasive. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Original Research in Liberation Farms sentence

Third, I'll pull the "Liberation Farms," but let me remind you of my point: if it is okay with you that she has so many houses, why do you wish to cover up her third house? I can add instead her yearly beach houses, and the rest of her wealth as quoted in the book and various newspaper articles.

It not Ok with me when you make unsupported original research that could be harmful. That's what I've been trying to tell you over and over again. It not OK with my when I see you post inaccurate statements to move your financial harm agenda forward. I am Ok with my amended Liberation farms statements. 207.188.250.60 (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Guru Yoga

No, what you wrote represents a complete misunderstanding of Guru Yoga. You seem to believe that giving money to the guru is Guru Yoga practice. It is not. Guru Yoga is a specific vajrayana practice that has nothing whatsoever to do with money. Longchenpa (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You and I don't get to decide what Guru Yoga includes. Guru Yoga is 100% relevant to her ordained activity, no mater what it includes. Guru Yoga is entirely relevant to the "Failed Monastery" section because is has to do with the ordanied activity. No matter if Guru Yoga includes financial issues or not. The section is not labeled "Financial" to meet your narrow agenda. Guru Yoga provides the reader relevant context to the section. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The Tibetan Buddhist tradition has very clear and specific definitions of what Guru Yoga is -- it has nothing to do with financially supporting the teacher. If financially supporting the teacher were Guru Yoga, then none of Penor Rinpoche's monks are practicing it. Longchenpa (talk) 03:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, (know so much) tell me under what practice(s) is giving money to the Lama covered? Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Multiple reverts

I have added both positive and negative information to this article over the last seven months. I ran this article past some of the participants in her biography from Random House. They felt it was overly positive. I had bent over backwards to be fair, and as a result it is out of balance and far too positive considering Alyce Zeoli's actions.

I've notice you bending over backwards toward rejecting my efforts to collaborate. 207.188.250.60 (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC) Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Untrue. As I mentioned on your talk page, I'm not going to make this personal. Longchenpa (talk) 03:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

When you revert greater than 3 times, after I've made multiple proposals, that's not in line with Wikipedia policies. And shows you are inflexible with your own agenda. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

My agenda is an honest, well-written article, nothing more, nothing less. It would be nice if we had more pictures, too. Longchenpa (talk) 03:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Great! You've included in this a staunch effort to select and expand fincnail issues. I'll say that's in your agenda too.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you reevaluate your criteria for a neutral point of view article. Positive or negative is not the correct way to balance views, negative implies harm and should be entirely excluded. Balance implies converging views from multiple verified sources, it's not a single black an white choice, it requires context and specificity before drawing the line about what's appropriate. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Writing you've added "negative" information can be considered and admission of intent to harm.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The third opinion covered this. Harm doesn't mean no negative information. Longchenpa (talk) 03:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Correct, harm comes from original, poorly or unreliable negative information. You often tread the line on the original part. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Mirabella article and Random House Biography

Have you read the Mirabella article, the biography by Random House, the Tricycle article, and the various Washington Post pieces? If you haven't, then how can you gauge what is balanced?

Yes, I've read these. I gauge what is balanced from what I read in the article and sources. 207.188.250.60 (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

So you choose not to use them. Longchenpa (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've considered and applied them. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen you quote them. Longchenpa (talk) 03:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't find them relevant the Tibetan Buddhism. Only really a ordinary view on the extraordinary. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Polices

I do understand you are a devoted student of hers, and I acknowledge that any negative information about her is upsetting to you. But being her student does not make you a fair and balanced editor on this subject. You cannot delete or spin well-established facts. Longchenpa (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

What's upsetting me is that you are violating Wikipedia policies, toward harming the article's subject. Where you get your information about me and the assumptions you are making about me are very troubling. In my efforts here, I am a first a balanced editor, working to bring context to the readers. 207.188.250.60 (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I am by no means violating Wikipedia policies. As I've said before, many, many, many times:

This is not private information. It is widely known. It appeared in Mirabella magazine which has a circulation of 600,000 people, The Buddha From Brooklyn by Random House which has gone through two printings in both hardcover and paperback, and it was in Tricycle magazine (the main Buddhist review) circulation 60,000, and it also appeared in the Washington Post Magazine, circulation 750,000.

In magazines and newspapers alone -- not even including the biography -- this information has been made available 1,410,000 people. Random House is a very large publisher so two printings is no small run. Not to mention that Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo participated in the Buddha From Brooklyn. Longchenpa (talk) 03:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Derogatory and/or unsubstantiated information suggesting that the Temple is buying personal property could be interpreted as harm. It's a violation, no matter the source. PERIOD. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

If material is well-sourced, it may be appropriate for inclusion, even if it is negative. Sometimes, people do negative things, and sometimes sources do report on them. I have seen no dispute to the fact that the questioned material is sourced, nor as to the reliability of those sources, so I see no reason to support failing to include the information these sources provide. Finally, I would strongly encourage anyone involved with the subject of the article to note our guidelines on conflicts of interest. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. The "Liberation farms" material in question was not well sourced. We have no dispute on this and I believe we agree it's not verified except to us. The dispute was in regards to its harm.

I've reviewed WP:COI and must declare I have nothing to materially gain by working on this article nor in promoting anything in relation to this article or it sources. 207.188.250.60 (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC) Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't call for the third opinion, Zulu Papa 5 did, but thank you very much for your assistance. Longchenpa (talk) 02:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

As a few folks have suggested, I've started to rewrite this article. First by reorganizing the relevant content under "Bad Karma and the Buddha from Brooklyn". Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Unacceptable. You've asked for your third opinion from Wikipedia. You have it now. Longchenpa (talk) 02:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Well you propose a reorg/rerwite. There are too many main subject headings, this can be reduced to start.02:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Zulu Papa 5 (talk)

That's untrue. I did not propose a rewrite or reorganization. Longchenpa (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I just asked you to propose one. In place of constantly reverting mine.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall the suggestion and I certainly don't recall agreeing to it. Longchenpa (talk) 03:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Read my request again, perhaps you'll recall it right in front of you. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Section 5 to 8 combine

Sections 5 to 8 can be under a New Section Title, I am at a loss to please you. There are too many main sections in this article, as it is now. 03:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Zulu Papa 5 (talk)

Didn't we already go through this with the Undue Weight discussion? Yes, you brought this up before. The answer is unchanged. No, we can't condense the one mainstream biography published by Random House down to a small section simply because you don't like some of the facts it contains. Longchenpa (talk) 11:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Longchenpa, I mostly agree with your edits to this article and you've done a fine job. However, I would say that in this one case at least, ZuluPapa5 is correct. Even though The Buddha from Brooklyn covers her life all the way back to 1985, the allegations of corruption in the press did not start occurring until about 10 years ago. Unless The Buddha From Brooklyn cites some evidence of public criticism back in 1985, the mere fact that it covers her life back to that point does not support your proposed edit. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, I agree with making the various controversies of Jetsunma all fall under one heading. I'm not suggesting that any information be removed (definitely not) and the current sections could still be sub-headings. However, when it comes to controversial figures, having everything fall under one heading "controversies" or "criticism" seems to be the norm. No information should be removed, but it would just simply look nicer and be easier to read. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't know the history of the criticism of Alyce.

The criticism started at Black Rock pre-1985. The Center For Discovery and New Life split off from the New Age group partially because the new age group had accused Alyce of creating a personality cult.

The next severe criticism came from Penor Rinpoche in 1988, during the Rinchen Terzod. Alyce had called herself a living buddha in the press. He shut the doors, although several people were in the room with him who later reported it, and yelled at her for 20 minutes to "stop calling yourself a Buddha! If you are a Buddha then what do you need me for? You can give the Rinchen Terzod. I can go home." It was reported in the press years later, but it was well-known at the time. (Alyce told her students that he was merely removing obstacles to her long life. She told him that she had been misquoted by the press.)

The next wash of criticism came -- well, there were the people who did the documentary video and compared KPC to snake-handlers, but I don't where that video is -- and there was the Nyingthig Yabshi in 1990 where visitors complained about how little KPC members knew about Buddhism and the teacher Penor Rinpoche sent in 1990, Bakka Tulku, who didn't get along at all with Alyce and left a few months later (she ordered every trace of him to be thrown in the trash). But the next wash of public criticism came in 1990/91 when her husband left KPC. It was an ugly divorce, battled in the courts for about a year. In the court documents he accuses her of hiding assets, and Alyce did have students (an ani among them) hide some of her assets in their bank accounts. Michael went to Naropa university, was with Sarah Harding for a while. He knew were all the bodies were buried. KPC's reputation was shredded in the Kagyud circles and has never recovered. His charges were so specific (and with no attempt to shield himself from his own involvement), that at a gathering of three-year-retreat graduates at Salt Spring, Pema Chodron of Gampo Abbey wouldn't allow KPC to even be mentioned: "We will have nothing to do with something so impure."

Following that, in 1992, Lingtrul Rinpoche came to give teachings on the three roots. Alyce hosted a divorce party attended by the entire sangha and several visiting Tibetans. At that party she had an effigy of her ex-husband made and had the sangha yell at and vilify her ex in effigy. (They had a banana for his... which Alyce smashed.) Then they through the effigy into the driveway where the students drove over it and pissed on it. The Tibetans were shocked and talked to Lingtrul Rinpoche, who refused to teach vajrayana, switching to compassion, cut his teachings short and never returned. Word of this spread in the Buddhist community again (unfortunately reaching her ex in Colorado). This was widely reported in the Buddhist community (confused students spoke with teachers at the Kagyu center in Frederick) and reported in the press later.

In 1994, Kusum Lingpa recognized Steven Seagal as a tulku, and Alyce as the incarnation of Mandarava. Penor Rinpoche supported the Seagal recognition formally but not the Mandarava one. Hollywood gossip columns buzzed with amused sarcasm about Seagal. (Oliver Stone, Kusum Lingpa's student, covered for Kusum Lingpa in Us later, claiming that KL hadn't recognized Seagal.)

In 1996, Alyce gathered her entire ordained sangha to witness her beating a monk and nun. Students who'd witnessed it went to the Kagyu center in Frederick, MD, as usual, and the story spread immediately. Alyce was arrested for battery.

In 1996, Penor Rinpoche wrote a letter to Alyce to stop calling herself a Buddha, take care of her monastics, and to stop wearing so much paint on her face.

All of this is a matter of public record. With the Seagal mess, which broke into the mainstream press a couple years later, Alyce's story quickly followed. You can't say that criticism of her began when the news hit the mainstream press. It's just simply not true. Putting it in a separate section section is ridiculous since controversy has dogged her every step.

Most of the good information about her is from the same book (such as her entire early life section). Are you going to put that in the separate section, too? You'd have to put the entire wiki article in a "separate section." Longchenpa ([[User talk:Longchenpa|talk

21:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

What I know is the sentence you wrote has nouns "Press" and "Teachers" and the verb "Trouble" the number must apply to the verb to the nouns. The Press seems to start 10 years ago. Unless you whould like to source to Jetsunma, who's life began in 1949? That would be about 60 years of trouble. Seems like anything else in that sentence, would be original research.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you ZenWhat, Controversies is an appropriate new section title. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Lonchenpa, you continue to publish harmful original research on this Talk page. That's a violation of WP:HARMZulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Years of Trouble

Dear Lonchenpa, please list a citation publication date for any "troubles" before 10 years. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

How about we go with the rule that there really isn't a way to determine the exact date that questions began to arose (unless there is a specific 1st criticism that appears to have started the thing) and just say that there has been criticism "for years"? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Bad Karma and The Buddha from Brooklyn

My concerns about Bad Karma and The Buddha from Brooklyn as sources is that they offer very little of Tibetan Buddhist context.

For consideration, I see the most relevant context for this subject is Guru Yoga and Ngagpa, who as I understand have a very controversial history for the obvious reasons they don't have to take celibacy and poverty vows.

If as you say Longchenpa, that Guru Yoga doesn't include financial support, then what practice does included financial support for the Lama? The reincarnated Lama are given control of vast amounts of wealth. It must have come from somewhere?

As for all the supposed financial corruption alleged in the sources, I've seen nothing from the U.S. Government to say that money has gone to private benefit. Seems to me all the money has gone to non-profitable missions, including the supporting the Temple's mission which, I assume includes supporting the Lama to meet this mission. I've only seen the tax issue become a concern for lost students with malice intention to harm. Only a few dare to work on correcting and resolving the difficult issue.

Frankly, I am little tired of folks playing up financial corruption issues as if their continued alarm points to a fire. For 10 years now this message has been heard, and as best I can tell, the folks administering the finances have been working diligently to comply with the complicated tax rules. Truly dedicated folks are addressing the issue. The provocateurs can move on to other things now.

Financial allegations are valid issues to include in the article, it doesn't seem like it a truly defining part of this articles subject for two reasons, the non-profit administration and the government are the defining subjects in this discussion. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me. Let me list to you the sources interviewed for The Buddha From Brooklyn:

H. H. Penor Rinpoche

Khenpo Tsewang Gyatso

Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo

Tulku Rigzin Pema

KPC Anis and monks: Aileen, Alexandra, Arene, Catharine, Dara, Dawa, Dechen, Ella, Palchen, Rene, Rinchen, Samla, Samten, Sherab Khandro, Sophia, Kamil, Konchog Norbu, Richard Dykeman, Thupten Tashi, Yeshe Nyonpa

KPC lay practitioners: the Colacurcios, the Finneys, the Kurkowskis, Wib Middleton and Jane Perini, the Sommervilles, Doug and Shelley Sims

Her ex-husband and consorts: Michael Burroughs, Sangye Dorje, Sherab Khandro, etc.

Then Bob Woodward wrote a blurb for the back cover and helped with some of the editing. Bob Woodward. The Dalai Lama's press agent is one of the advisors.

How can you possibly say this isn't the Buddhist perspective? The Buddhists were all interviewed, including some very important people. Unless you want Wikipedia to abandon its encyclopedic nature and write from the perspective of pure view in a Buddhist sense. We went over this in April. You can't expect that of an encyclopedia. Longchenpa (talk) 22:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You have a point there. What I intended was to bring in the Tibetan Buddhist perspective, for the most part these are all 1st gen American practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism. I am interested how Jetsunma's activities can be placed in context to her peers in America and Tibet. There's not much written about this to draw from published sources However, I feel we have a responsibility to cross reference where appropriate. This means Trungpa and Ngagma to me. I believe is is possible to cross reference for the readers benefit without providing original research. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Blame Game

Dear Longchenpa,

I seen no Wikipedia policy to support your reasoning that "Blame" or "Blame Shifting" is a valid reason for adding, restoring or combining content. If fact, I would assert that Wikipedia is not a forum for "Blame". I strongly suggest you consider the issue in terms of "source attribution" and context. More specifically, what qualites does source offer in presenting the issue. Please avoid playing Blame games on wikipedia. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "what qualites does source offer in presenting the issue"? Longchenpa (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I mean when editors work to provide a balanced view, they don't take excessively from one source. As far as blame is concerned, if editors recognize that a source is apt to "blame" or not "blame" then the balanced view can recognize the sources as such and apply that attribute to the source. So if we are to follow, blame as an attribute, then we can say the sources you support are the "blame Jetsunma sources". I don't wish to label then as such, because to be balanced, we must find, "don't blame Jetsunma sources". I really don't want to blame anyone, because that's for authorities to do. Simply and properly attribution the source of the info to the info is appropriate for us. I would prefer to attribute the sources as "Controversial Allegations".Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles do draw from mostly only one source when there are no other sources available. The allegations aren't controversial for anyone other than Jetsunma's followers. Sherrill is a neutral party, her book was given a positive review by Tricycle Magazine, and later Will Blythe followed up with an article on it too. I don't see what's the issue here. It seems to me more like this incessant POV-pushing is somebody's guru yoga. All your proposals involve white-washing the article. That isn't welcome here and everybody knows what's going on when contentious editors edit articles within a narrow range of subjects. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 03:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me, I am not in favor of white washing the article. Simply, following Wikipedia policies with regards to harmful original research. Please be specific, where you accuse me of white washing. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me again, the controversial issues are such because they involve potential harm. So far the parties involved are Jetsunma, donors, ordained, a CPA, consorts, and a whole list of names sources and among us. I must disagree they are only controversial to the followers.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 04:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed the Wiki Policies, what I was really trying to express in this section is here, apologies for my confusion, Blame implies a bias that must be substantiated: see: Attributing and substantiating biased statements MUST SEE WP:SUBSTANTIATE to appreciate biased source attribution, with out playing the "Blame Game" Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 04:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Archive

Is there a point to this section, other than just personal attacks? Next time, put a link to the policy. There is no need to quote it directly and it makes it harder to actually work on improving the article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the point is I wish to begin collaboration on characterizing the Bad Karma and Buddha from Brooklyn biases. Longchenpa had made a few "Edit Summary" comments that my efforts toward this were "Blame Shifting". I asked for clarification here on the talk page and then absent a response, I found a Policy that bester expressed my intentions. Which were not "blame shifting". Please don't archive just yet. I've cut out the policy copy. Thanks.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If he is not responding to this section (and I find large article discussions like this not particularly fruitful), there is no need to continue with this section. Still, I applaud the effort. My suggestion is to follow my lead and have tons of very particular, very short sections here discussing specific text either to insert or delete or change. Is there some wording in the article in particular that you do not totally agree with? I'd suggest focusing like that and looking for sources for there and then seeing if those sources can help elsewhere. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I am picking up this discussion a new section on Source Biases.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 04:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I've considered this to be another iteration of Zulu Papa's argument that negative information equals harm and have ignored it. We've been through this multiple times, a third opinion was consulted (see Third Opinion above), and I consider the matter closed. Longchenpa (talk) 12:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I hold a standard that negative is harmful unless it meets the criteria to be beneficial to the reader.. As far as this section, my intention is to characterize the sources biases to put them in perspective. Info is harmful when it harms the subject and it harms wiki. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. "Negative is harmful unless it meets the criteria to be beneficial to the reader..." And who decides what is beneficial to the reader? Longchenpa (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Simple, the editors do by applying the wiki polices and guidelines, with consensus. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:HARM and WP:BLP

Dear Lonchenpa,

I've posted a few relevant statements from WP:HARM and WP:BLP here, in an effort to have you better abide them. You continue to violate privacy by posting original research on this Talk page. You also exceed 3 reverts without talking on the talk page. When in doubt, the burden is on you to seek consensus first, when adding potential negative information.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the long copy-paste of the policy. ZuluPapa, dumping several paragraphs of policy quoted on a talkpage is both disruptive, redundant, and belligerent. Simply mentioning the policy is enough. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 11:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I apprecaite your effort to remove redundancy. However, I find your characterization to be wholly inappropriate, provocative and offensive. My intention to help Longchenpa was ignored. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Archive

There was no harm intended with creating the Archive. I keep getting messages to do this, it is getting very long. I tried my best. Is there a point that we can reduce to that is Ok with you? Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 04:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to remove sections that are cleared archived and not being discussed. If there is a section that someone wants to talk about, copy that section back out. There is no need for a huge talk page like this. If nothing else, just link to the archived discussion section and start a new one. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur with this. The point of archiving is that previous discussions are preserved and readily available without making the active talk page awkwardly huge.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#When pages get too long
• Help:Archiving a talk page.

— Athaenara ✉ 08:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Why then pull out parts from the archive that nobody is discussing? Longchenpa, what is gained with this additional text that couldn't be done with just a simple link to Talk:Jetsunma_Ahkon_Lhamo/Archive_1#War_Cry_Copyright? I'm removing them. It's annoying to keep coming back and seeing a mess. It also makes the archives next to useless if they are constantly being changed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The way I've found archived discussions is to go into the history of the talk page, locate when it was archived, and then follow that link to the archive. This was a real hassle. Since you mention linking to them there had to be an easier way. I see the links to the archives now. We have so many templates it was buried. I should probably do the same on the 1951 Occupation of Tibet article, too, eh? Longchenpa (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for archiving!! Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Abusive" home

Needs a source. There is a potential living biography violation there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ricky, I suspect it's in The Buddha From Brooklyn, but I don't have my own copy, atm. Longchenpa can probably provide a citation. If you want to remove it until he does, that's reasonable. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 11:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's in The Buddha From Brooklyn. I don't have my copy with me but I'll add the cite later. This is not disputed information, repeated by Alyce often. Longchenpa (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Abusive home is not contentious with what Jetsunma has disclosed, however the issue must be treated with respect. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not her but you are making possible accusations against her parents, which is a concern. The policy says that anything potentially controversial, even positive, should be removed if there isn't a source. Remember that the WP:BLP policy came about through a single sentence on a page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Haven't been able to get online till now this evening. It's part of Alyce's image. The comparison she makes is between herself being born in an abusive home and Christ being born in a manger. It's not contentious information. Longchenpa (talk) 10:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, got the source. Alyce's stepfather beat her, beat her younger brother Frankie with a saw and the kid had to be hospitalized when he was five. Her mother protected her husband when the doctors pressed for explanations of Frankie's injuries. Longchenpa (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I see. It must be handled with extreme care. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 04:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Prayer vigil

Could someone explain the importance of the prayer vigil to the article? The section seems more about the crystals and how the temple is doing. If the problem is the temple's finances, that's the issue, not the prayer vigils. That stuff could easily be condensed into a single sentence in one of the controversies section. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with condensing it and moving it to the controversies section. A lot of the details: the weight of the crystals, the retreat afterwards, etc., aren't really relevant. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think the prayer vigil should go in the Kunzang Palyul Choling article. Longchenpa (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The prayer vigil really has nothing to do with Jetsunma. It should not be removed, though, until the information is added to the article on KPC. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, she started the prayer vigil. It began with her. Saying "really has nothing to do with" is an exaggeration. It would be better in the KPC article except for one part / reason , the motivation for her starting the prayer vigil it is very relevant to her biography.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a temple activity. She doesn't even participate. Longchenpa (talk) 10:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfair, she leads prayer in temple activities. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

She doesn't take any prayer shifts, and that's what we're talking about, the prayer vigil. She occasionally comes for tsog, but even then it's mostly on special days. The prayer vigil is definitely a temple activity but not something she does. Longchenpa (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You are holding the limited view. The Prayer Vigil is the center of continuous activity. Jetsunma is participating when it is expanded to her events. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Zulu, could you explain what you mean? We have (1) a single sentence early on that "She taught a version of Jim Gore's Light Expansion Prayer and the group began a 24-hour prayer vigil in the basement of their Kensington home[13] inspired by her experiences when she searched for a place to pray and found locked doors." and then (2) "in April 1984, they began a prayer vigil." The rest of Prayer Vigil section is about the creation of the corporation, the crystals, etc. Look, I removed the first sentence and other details about the vigil and want to focus on the financial situation (or alternatively, the expansion with the corporation, the Universal Spirit, etc.). Is that better? One question though: is the original vigil dedicated to ending suffering? If so, I think it sounds better up in that first mention. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. The Vigil is dedicated to the end of suffering, much like all the temple activities. This dedication is given at the end of every prayer or practice. She started the 24 hr prayer vigil because of a traumatic event in Brooklyn where she went to a church to pray, and found locked doors. Thus, she was set on having 24 hr open doors at the Temple for folks in a similar situation. (I had a similar situation like this one New Years) This is significant motivation relevant to her that should stay in here article. The only source I can site is in a video of her teaching. The other significance is that what she has started has run for over 24 hrs for over 20 years. This is no small feat and is bound to last beyond her years and be a defining aspect in her (non-tabloid) story Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I've no qualms with the prayer vigil. Penor Rinpoche has consistently praised it. But she doesn't participate. Longchenpa (talk) 12:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ricky81682 Please be sure to move Prayer vigil to Kunzang Palyul CholingZulu Papa 5 (talk) 04:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, FYI, Google books has a copy of the Buddha from Brooklyn available here if anyone wants to search through it. Ok, the unbroken Post piece gives a source for that (I really can't add more than a sentence but you can expand it if you want Zulu), and I've copied over some information to the other article. Someone can try to get that background fleshed out there if they wish. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I checked the Google books link for The Buddha from Brooklyn. It doesn't have the whole book, just snippets. Too bad. That would have been easier than the index. Longchenpa (talk) 11:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Poetry excerpt

I've removed the excerpt from her poetry as reproducing it would probably be a copyright violation (similar to what's done for music lyrics). If there was some secondary source that discussed the nature of her poetry, that would be appropriate (and would qualify under fair use doctrine) but just having it as a primary source is not. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's seems somewhat relevant to the Consorts sub-section. Take a look. The poetry isn't simply quoted merely for the sake of quoting it, as with music lyrics. It's cited to give context to a situation where a student separated from her, in a relationship. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 11:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's in the The Buddha From Brooklyn and not a copyright violation. I can excerpt only the relevant portions of it, but the poem would look considerably worse as a result. This has been discussed before. I'll add the prior discussion back to the page. Longchenpa (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've re-added the prior discussions here and here. Longchenpa (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's referenced in The Buddha From Brooklyn, then fair use seems pretty easily justified. By that, I mean if Sherrill can cite it though fair use, Wikipedia can cite it through fair use for the same reason. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I see the mention in the Consorts section. However, just saying "she wrote poetry like this", while perhaps interesting, doesn't really tell the reader why they should care. I understand why the poem is there, but not why anyone should care that she wrote poetry like that. All I see is that she wrote the poem for a specific reason, but that doesn't signify why it's important to her overall biography. It's not like every single thing she's done in her life should be recorded (the entire consorts section seems too gossipy and irrelevant other than a few). It needs to have relevance to the article as a whole. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned about the "tabloid" tone in this article, but really must atribute that to that just 2 sources are cited 41 times in this article.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 04:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You can, but I just see it as a question of what editorial content to include. The sources aren't the problem, it's just a question of why it's relevant. I'd like some secondary sources actually "criticizing" something she's done (we have a little bit in the discussion about the care for the monks) as opposed to picking-and-choosing facts about her to include. Is there something unusual about her consorts? Is there a controversy about her having those consorts? The divorce ceremony seems sort of relevant but the trainer, the construction worker, the musician, etc. could all really be merged into a single personal life section higher up. I took out the more extraneous details. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, we can put it in context. Her consorts are extremely important and politicially influential at the temple. They are portrayed by her as a source of rejuvenation and change in her life. They effect the entire tenor of the temple and she's taught that they should treated as extensions of herself. They influence her teachings. For example, when she was with a native American shaman in 1996 she began giving native American "quest" teachings and cultivating her connections with the Hopi, moving to Sedona. Most of her students followed her from Poolesville, MD, to Sedona, AZ. When she was with the construction worker, she gave teachings based on football games. When she was with the woman who was a personal trainer, she gave her "don't be a weenie" seies of teachings based on their work-outs. When she was with the musician, she formed and sang the lead in Sky Dancer. Politically, the consorts are highly influential. For example, the musician is the one who pressured the temple to double her salary to 100k. He had that influence solely because he was her consort. These aren't fly-by-night affairs. These people have a big influence on her, what she teaches, and vital decisions made at the temple. Longchenpa (talk) 11:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to head out, but I re-read your question. I can go into the nature of the controversy (Pico Iyer and Sherrill both address it) later. It's actually both common and an important issue in Tibetan Buddhism. Longchenpa (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes thanks, I appreciate "why it's relevant" reasoning. There is little said on her vocation as lama. Specifically I wish to source a summary of her teaching / teaching style. That would be very relevant and beneficial to the reader.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 05:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Zulu, why not put it in yourself? I mean, there's plenty of independent sources on her style (some of the articles there do talk about it) and if not, I doubt there'd be any controversy if we used her self-descriptions of her style. That'd be much more helpful over just wishing the article focused on that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to. The challenge I expect is that this would come from Palyul Productions which has recorded nearly everything. It a separate org with a questionable editorial review process. Thus it could be easily challenged, however it would be entirely relevant. We had a long Talk page on this in the past.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 22:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

We've been through this before. Palyul Productions is her self-publishing wing. Jetsunma hires, fires, and appoints all the staff of Palyul Productions. In fact, when asked about why she has a $100,000 a year salary, the reason given to Mirabella was that she makes the decisions of CEO for the temple organizations.

Self-published material is not acceptable. Without even taking into account the poor quality of Palyul Productions' materials. (How many times did Kusum Lingpa bring the opening and closing prayers to a screeching halt to correct errors?) Longchenpa (talk) 09:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

See new section below on Self Published Sources in Biographies, wiki policies support them.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ricky, the poem seems important enough, because it's a rather bizarre poem to write to somebody who recently refused a relationship with you. It was important enough to be mentioned in Sherill's bio, so it seems relevant enough to be here. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 03:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The poem is interesting, when placed in context. I've seen worst among broken lovers. It's not clear why any one would care or how it benefits the Wikipedia reader. I can produce poems of her's with greater benefit, recited many times a day and of less provocative value.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 04:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ricky informed me when I asked about consensus (below) that we need to be bold. All right. The fair use issue is resolved since it's published in the Buddha From Brooklyn. If we want to be conservative we can quote excerpts. It's in. Zulu, I believe she has other poetry somewhere. Longchenpa (talk) 09:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Consorts

Thanks as well. However, it seems like the consorts should be weaved into a timeline more if that's the case. Instead of simply "here's what happened generally and here's some consorts", it should be "marriage and start, leaving Michael, trainer, construction worker, musician, etc." with details as to her teachings. That way we can get more of her teachings, which Zulu wanted, into the article without it becoming an argument about what she's teaching now versus in the past (which is which I suspect would follow). Let me try it out a bit. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I hope my changes helped. I think if there's more about each of the consorts (like dates), including details of how they changed the temple structure, financials, teachings, etc., I think that they can be fleshed out more in the "After Michael" or whatever section, including subheading if they are worthy of that. Everyone feel free to mess with the headings and structure. I'm just trying to see what works to tighten and keep things in a clear order. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This time line is OK with me, but I also want to avoid a tabloid perspective. We'll see how it progresses. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing Chögyam Trungpa working toward a Chronology seems like the best path.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 04:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added context to the consort controversies. I think now that we have controversies section, this needs to be split. We should chronologically address the consorts and their influence on the temple finances, teachings, and so forth as part of the history section. Then under the controversies address the divorce party, the public vilification, and so forth. Longchenpa (talk) 10:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I view the Chronology as a cross reference to put the article text in time context. The text doesn't have to flow in time order. I prefer the text follow a topic order that is most relevant to the reader in terms of the subject's notability and then cross refernce with Chronology. This means that events that most notable for the subject in the public view are listed first among the article's sections. Let's start a Chronology and then refine the sections. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ending the unending edit war over 10... 23... 20... several...

How about "many"? The lowest number Zulu Papa has suggested was 10, and I don't know anyone who calls "10" several. I'd have no argument with many however. Longchenpa (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"Many" is a bit ambiguous. I think your original proposal for "23" was just fine. If I wsa to compromise, I would say at least "20 years," because you've already demonstrated that the criticism has existed for that long. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 23:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with 20, or 23, or many. Longchenpa (talk) 23:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll maintain a "primary source" is required to post this contentious number. Extracting a number from a secondary source, is misleading.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Previously, your definition of "primary source" was Jetsunma herself. Has that changed? Longchenpa (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Not much, Jetsunma is the primary source for original research in this article (e.g. Jetsunma is the original source). Practically, deriving a number must cite the orginal primary source, else it could be orginal research. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that unless Jetsunma herself says that she's been criticized for 23 years, it can't be included? Does the same go for her arrest? If she herself does not say she was arrested, it can't be included, even if it is documented? Longchenpa (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No that's what you say, in being a greedy reductionist, taking things to an absurd point (allbeit with false assumptions too). I am saying a primary source is required, you must not extract or derive a number, unless is cites a specific source for that number. Press and Teachers are the nouns, you must cite the primary source the incidents that are related to trouble. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I still say it's a dumb argument at all. I'm pretty that from day one there is was always SOMEONE who criticized her for something. The fact that there is criticism is just another set of weasel words. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the argument is silly and I don't have a problem with just "years" either. However, I don't think you should make changes that ignore the consensus of the group. Previously we didn't have a group and there was an automatic deadlock on every decision, but now it's changed. Longchenpa (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's kind of silly too. However, we must protect the article from suspect harmful information. Why would it be so hard to find an earlier source if there were a valid source? Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, with regards to another set of weasel words. The issue here is specificity. Numbers are specific. Weasel words are not specific, that's why they can cause trouble. Years is not specific. I can live with years, however I feel another will come along and change it again.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The definition of "harm" in wikipedia is a legal definition: is it actionable in a court of law, could someone (for example, wikipedia) be sued over it? Longchenpa (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The point about harm is editors should prevent it and not contribute. We have a duty to be conservative as a precaution. By time harm get's defined in a court of law, it's too late. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Remember that consensus isn't set in stone. I'm trying an alternative and being BOLD. If everyone reverts and starts again, I'll live with it. If people feel that knowing it was "23 years" or "10 years" or "16 1/2 years" that she has had controversy, so be it. Using "many" or "several" is silly and I wonder if the whole sentence isn't necessary. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Good. I have no problem with that. And yes, of course the sentence is necessary, or else the intro won't summarize the content of the article. Longchenpa (talk) 09:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Contoverises Section Removal, tabloid editing returns

Removing the Controversies section and reorg has greatly disrupted this article. What is emerging is a list of sections that directly corresponded to The Buddha from Brooklyn. Thus it should have an intro to reflect this and this source bias should be addressed. It seems like the tabloid issues are coming back into the article. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the Controversy section to be like other biographies. Chögyam Trungpa is the best example outline for this article going forward. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Did someone remove the controversies section? As far as the article matching the structure of The Buddha From Brooklyn, not at all. And I should hope not. It jumps back and forth in time quite a bit. As for following Trungpa's Rinpoche's layout, I don't see anything wrong with that at this point.

I removed the quote about her voice because the write-up was for an online seller selling the CD. Wikipedia doesn't link to Amazon.com or similar businesses. When we have something else for an acclaim section we can add it back in. Longchenpa (talk) 09:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Self Published Sources in Biographies

Longchenpa, these policy says self-published sources are allowed in biographies.

• Wikipedia:BLP#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source
• WP:QS
• WP:SPS
• WP:SELFPUB

I am aghast you didn't learn this last time around.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPF enforcement relief

The tabloid aspects of this Article are subject to WP:NPF enforcement, which by my read says negative information must be substantiated by Primary and Secondary sources to be included. There is not sufficient notability when negative information comes from a single primary source. Thankfully, relief is on the way for any agenda to include irrelevant negative information by publishing on Wiki.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)