This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
if one reads the opening "biography", he/she will find that it contains many unanswered questions, as well as incomplete thoughts. for example, one sentence says Roach "returned" to the US -- but it doesn't say where he returned from. i believe that Roach's extensive training included study with Tibetan teachers at Sera Mey is what qualified him for the title of "Geshe" -- and yet there is no mention of this in the bio.
someone needs to update the biography so that it is complete, (while still being concise).
"Roach has since taken to wearing Armani suits, rather than a monks robes, and has been inviting his students out to nightclubs in New York. This is reported to be creating confusion amongst his followers, and that many of his students are leaving him."
I just read the Page Six article cited for this paragraph, and this summary looks to me to be highly biased and contentious in parts. First, "has since taken to wearing" is questionable pending further verification - we do have him in the story wearing an Armani suit at least once, but "taken to" is questionable as it implies two things: that he never did before (seems likely) and that he does as a regular matter of course (less likely).
Second, although there is a statement that some followers are confused, there was - unless I miss it - no claim at all that "many of his students are leaving him". That may well be true, I don't know, but Page Six didn't say it (unless I missed it somewhere).
My own perspective is that the Page Six story is highly questionable for a number of reasons and that unless and until we get confirmation from other sources, we should be very cautious about it. The story cites as a source a Yogi instructor but admits to faking her name - not exactly a journalistic hallmark to give rise to confidence.
I'm also concerned that whoever added this material has misrepresented it. The story is quite clear, for example, that Michael Roach denies that his prior relationship was romantic, but we had him "admitting" that it was - in directly and obvious contradiction to the source cited. That's really bad. (I'm about to study the history to see who did that.)-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 05:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
"Everything is going into chaos. It's all exploding," says Erin, who's close to many of his followers. "People are switching partners, and some are leaving him."
"We are not allowed to have sex, but in yoga there are practices that involve joining with a partner," he explains. "They are secret, and you are not allowed to disclose them. You might think of them as sex, but their purpose is to move inner energy. It takes very strict training. There would be penetration, but no release of semen." Sex or no sex, the two developed a unique bond, and their unorthodox message attracted thousands of followers around the world, including in New York and Arizona—where in 2004, they founded an unaccredited Buddhist University and retreat center called Diamond Mountain.
Might as well go into it thoroughly. He also says that sex isn't allowed, but intercourse is, as far as some rituals go YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm dismayed to visit this wikipage and find that, once again, there are individuals trying to distort basic facts so they resemble truth. This page previously had a section entitled "Controversy." Unfortunately, this section has been removed, watered down, and sublimated with the new title "Spiritual Partnership." Michael Roach is likely the single most controversial figure in American Buddhism and his wikipage should reflect that controversy (as well as his many laudable achievements). A Gelug-pa monk has taken vows against wearing his hair longer than two finger-widths, wearing (diamond) jewelry, and engaging in sexual activity whatsoever. To take a tantric consort for completion-stage tantric sex, a monk must give back his vows. To my knowledge Geshe Roach has not given back his monk's vows. Though he is a gifted and charismatic teacher, his activities do not accord with a Gelug-pa monk's behavior. His students and friends come to this forum and try to obfuscate, dilute, and, it seems, in fact remove the section outlining why many find Geshe Roach controversial. This does a disservice to Wikipedia, the very nature of which is to provide information to those wishing to find it. Fledgling readers coming to this page to find out why Michael Roach is so controversial will have to leave roughly as clueless as when they came because a few editors here are engaged in a relentless campaign to obscure the controversy surrounding Michael Roach. 152.133.7.130 ( talk) 16:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
==
User:Yworo asked for an example of what I think the section should look like, and since we don't seem to have had any new reviewers, I decided to take a stab at it. I pulled in some new references, in particular the "Get to know us" article, in which Geshe Michael and Lama Christie go into some detail about the incident with the Office of HHDL. I hope this comes across as a constructive attempt at NPOV, because that's what I was shooting for. If not, please tell me what I got wrong.
I think it is generally OK, except I'm not crazy about the paragraph starting "Geshe Michael's openness . ." I don't think Thurman's quote should be removed. Sylvain1972 ( talk) 20:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I was referring to Thurman's quote “there is a tremendous amount of opprobrium by the Tibetan monks; they think they have gone wacky." But on reflection I agree that it is lacking in specificity and is perhaps not so useful for that reason. Archtypical Thurman in that regard. Sylvain1972 ( talk) 16:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Someone needs to rewrite the paragraph(s) to explain what the controvery IS. WHAT are the two of them "practicing" together? Is it a matter of "holy monk found with secret girlfriend"? Lotta quotes about how it would be "superhuman" of him to "practice" with her, but again, what are they TALKING about?!
I've read the page 4 times now, and I can't even get the basics! 66.3.106.6 ( talk) 02:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to add some new material to the article that's not related to the spiritual partner section. It probably won't happen for a few days at least, but I'll do a work-in-progress page as a subpage of my user page so that interested editors can comment on it before it goes live. The article is very out-of-date right now--it doesn't really talk at all about the Enlightened Business Institute, which is Geshe Michael's big project right now, and it's also missing a lot of information about his books, translation work, ACI Phoenix, and so on. There is some text I'd like to add to the spiritual partner's section as well, but I'll bring that up as a separate matter because it seems to be of interest to a number of editors. I think the other stuff should be pretty non-controversial. Abhayakara ( talk) 01:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I tried to trim down the controversy section because it's quite long and rambling, and it's not clear what it's trying to say. Unfortunately, User:Sylvain1972 apparently did not agree with my edits. I would challenge User:Sylvain1972 to come up with a more concise way of making whatever point it is that he or she is trying to make here. It's frankly bizarre that a Buddhist monk who's been teaching since the 1970s, who has founded several major Buddhist projects that are in widespread use beyond his own sangha, and who has done many, many interesting things in his life, gets half of his Wikipedia article dedicated to a practice that some Buddhist practitioners consider controversial, but that in fact the Dalai Lama says is perfectly permissible. The mere fact that someone finds these practices questionable doesn't seem like a good reason to be talking about body fluids in the Wikipedia page.
So, User:Sylvain1972, could you try to articulate what it is that you want to say here on the discussion page, so that we can try to figure out a way to say it that isn't so long-winded? Alternatively, if you feel that this is an article that ought to be longer, so that the controversy section would be a more balanced part of it, it would be awfully nice if you could help to expand the other sections of the article. Abhayakara ( talk) 18:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Gah, or her wife or his husband, of course. Abhayakara ( talk) 04:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm with you. There are some significant issues here, that needn't be explicitly discussed here, but are nonetheless implied (and are discussed in the articles cited). Karmamudra is NOT ideally supposed to be a romantic partnership - it is a religious partnership. Not that it matters, but personally I question the possibility of that sort of exclusivity - and Roach himself said that it didn't turn out that way for them either. They did indeed have a romantic relationship, with all of the complications that implies, by his own admission ("It got kind of high school" he said. !) Also - their secrecy was never very, well, secret. Their students knew, so they went public before the whistle was blown more widely. Most Tibetan Buddhist leaders were highly skeptical of their highly irregular "karmamudra" practice, and were vocal in their opposition, or so reports say. So - I find the passage covers the issue, with citations for those who wish to dig up more of the dirt, or understand the issues. 48 hours ago, this page read like a Michael Roach pamphlet. It is considerably better now. Tao2911 ( talk) 19:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah - Michael Roach. He talks about how their relationship became colored with typical American romantic realtionship programing, and that this was not in keeping with the spirit of karmamudra. The high school bit, etc. Reread the interview, with any devotional goggles removed. Also discussed pointedly is the end of their relationship due not to some enlightened, clean, mutual agreement, but because she left him for their attendant. This is significant to the casual reader - ie me. To fail to mention that, when it is discussed clearly in the source for most of the events being detailed, is a gross oversight, and smacks of biased POV. I read this page, thought it was waaay too positive and hagiographic, encountered the controversy bit, read the actual sources, and had that assessment further confirmed. Tao2911 ( talk) 04:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I have zero desire to get into "general discussions" (against WP guidelines) of what you think romance is or isn't. Your bias is crystal clear. I don't have one here. I have no opinion about this guy whatsoever. I don't need to. We go by sources here. The section is on "controversy", as the header states. The article is in fact called "Monk-y Business: Controversial NYC guru Michael Roach", for heaven's sake. The quote is as follows: "Last summer Christie left Geshe Michael for another man. Ian Thorson, a young student who had once served as the couple's attendant...had come between them....the couple's spiritual partnership came to a dramatic end. Now both Geshe Michael and his followers are devastated and questioning what, and whom, they believe in. "It's chaos" says Erin." It goes on. And on.
You can feel whatever you choose to feel about this. But it is a major newspaper article. They were not sued. Roach participated, and his statements support all the allegations in the article. There were no retractions. I see no reason to question this source, or in particular this assertion, which is presented with absolute NPOV in the entry. Do not remove it again, or you face accusations of edit warring, and administrative sanction. Tao2911 ( talk) 21:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
The article might want to include the newspaper articles about Michael Roach suggesting that people should look beautiful and dress up, and his hitting the clubs as not seeming to make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.147.58 ( talk) 15:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Someone added a bunch of text about the recent tragedy at Diamond Mountain. I think if there is some way that this can be written so that it is relevant biographical information about Geshe Michael, then it would make sense to include it here, but otherwise it belongs in a biography page about Ian or about Christie. I suggest that the authors write a bio page for Ian or Christie if they feel this is something that needs to be documented in Wikipedia. Abhayakara ( talk) 23:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Look, you clearly have a bias here. I'd suggest you review guidelines about editing on pages where you have a clear POV ( wp:npov). For instance, your suggestion to create a new page is classic content forking. I suspect you are a follower of the subject in which case it is suggested you not edit on this page at all. Given your bias, I make this case here for others, as I suspect you will argue against the inclusion of this material no matter what - given that you would remove the totally NPOV material about other controversy around him as reported in the New York Times and new york Post. Roach is a religious teacher, a spiritual leader. You didn't have any problem with highly inflated puffery that constituted most of this article when it shone his spiritual activities and organizations in a positive light (much of which I have edited to be more neutral). You only wish to remove the negative material. The death of one of his most senior students, whom his "partner" left him for (as reported in the Post), and the subsequent controversy and upheaval being created in his organization, can not and should not be left out of any thorough profile. I am not affiliated in any way with this guy, or his purported spiritual tradition. I am informed enough however to know that if I am to read a profile of him, I would expect this material to be there - just as I would if the founder of some other spiritual "university" had his partner (and most senior TEACHER) leave him for a senior student, later marry, then stab, said student, and then find him dead while they were alone in a cave having been kicked out of said university, all while claiming to be practicing according to the Buddhist retreat guidelines of their teacher, that they believed themselves to be following. Well...it's such a no-brainer that your repeated removal of it completely outs you as biased. And btw, there is no rule that says material needs to prove some kind of personal guilt to be included - it is of high general, and institutional, significance - and THAT is the guideline. So please leave it alone, and allow other editors to weigh in if they have opinions. Tao2911 ( talk) 20:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
If i can weigh in, the link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christie_McNally redirects to the Roach bio page, so therefore in my opinion either we make a separate christie McNally page and link it to the roach page, or we remove that redirect.. Tao2911... why dont you write that page. I think its a good idea and i think youd be a good person to do it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.142.222.226 ( talk) 04:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Changed Diamond Mountain University to Diamond Mountain Center as this is the official wikipedia page for that institution. The name 'University' is also not used on the official website other than as a strapline under the logo. There is no official use of the term 'University' that I can find on the website. If anyone feels this should be changed back, then please also change the wikipedia page so that Diamond Mountain Center redirects to Diamond Mountain University and not visa versa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.85.78 ( talk) 00:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
It is a matter of reliable sources (including recent articles in the NYT and the Independent) that are making the connection. I agree we shouldn't get into details of McNally and Thorson, but the basic fact of Thorson's death following their expulsion from the retreat belongs in the article, given that that's a connection good sources are making. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 16:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
We have had some discussion (not enough) on WP:BLPN about the recent edits where User:Nomoskedasticity has tried to introduce text indicating that Michael Roach dumped Christie McNally and immediately went to New York to go clubbing, when the source that talks about clubbing says that McNally dumped Roach, and the source that talks about filing for divorce doesn't give any context as to why Roach filed. The claim that Roach instigated the divorce is not sustained by the sources, and the juxtaposition of this claim with the clubbing claim tells a story that is contrary to the source material as well.
If you really, truly think this text needs to be in the article, please get someone who is neutral to agree with you. When I've raised this on WP:BLPN, nobody has supported your position, and several have argued against it. Arguing with you about this over and over again is a huge waste of time. Don't you have anything better to do? Abhayakara ( talk) 05:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
It seems that User:Tao2911 is back and wants to add back the talk about Ian. The very tenuous claim that a distraught mother blames Geshe Michael for the death of her son seems to be the basis for claiming that this paragraph is notable. I think this is highly questionable, but I'm not prepared to unilaterally decide that the paragraph has to go. However, if the paragraph does need to be here, it needs to be complete and accurate, and not draw conclusions not sustained by source material. In particular, if you leave out Geshe Michael's long letter explaining what happened, and why Christie and Ian were asked to leave, the added text makes it sound like Geshe Michael is the villain. So I've added a sentence summarizing the letter. I think it makes the paragraph more balanced.
User:Tao2911, if you want to make more changes, it would be nice if you could participate in a conversation about what you are trying to communicate and why you consider it notable, rather than leaving us to guess what you may have intended. Abhayakara ( talk) 04:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the edit User:Nomoskedasticity made on the bases of WP:SPS, I don't think that applies here. WP:SPS is specific to things like personal blogs, public postings on forums, tweets, and group blogs. Diamond Mountain Center is a 501c(3) religious organization with a board of directors, and this open letter was published on their web site, which is not a personal blog or a group blog, but rather the online public face of the retreat center. I can see where you might be tempted to say that it's still self-published since Geshe Michael founded Diamond Mountain, but then you are essentially claiming that the DM board are meatpuppets, and I would think you ought to justify that claim with some kind of sourced evidence. Abhayakara ( talk) 06:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
In case of such controversial figures and material, like we have here, no, arguments saying that the Diamond Mountain website could somehow be considered a valid "secondary or tertiary source" are utterly absurd. Of course it's not. The independence of the board is exactly the question in a number of places. Nomo is exactly right to call it into question here. Diamond Mountain is Roach's baby - you can't extol it as his creation, and then use it as independent source! Abhayakara is an admitted follower of Roach; considering this, I think s/he is doing ok with some edits - by basically no longer fruitlessly fighting the entire flood of information that is becoming available from an astounding wealth of reliable tertiary sources (that happen to include most major newspapers in the English speaking world.) Clearly, this editor would like to see this page be a glowing portrayal of their guru. Happily, there are other people here too. My motives, you ask? To have a decent, NPOV overview of this guy. I think we have one at the moment. Probably for a brief moment. Tao2911 ( talk) 15:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
User:Tao2911, the fact that you have the various beliefs that you state above does not make them true. In order for them to be in the article, you have to have a source that says what you say above. You do not have a source. Therefore, it does not belong in the article. "The board is not independent?" Which source said that? "It's Geshe Michael's baby?" Which source said that? Furthermore, even if it's Geshe Michael's baby in the sense that he founded it, it's legally an independent entity with a board. It's not appropriate to presume something that's not stated in a source.
BTW, your motives really don't matter here. What matters is that you are making non-NPOV edits. Maybe you sincerely believe that your edits are accurate. That belief is not sufficient to establish that they are. To establish that they are, you need sources. The sources can't merely imply what you would like the article to say. They have to say it. The fact that these articles you are citing—as full of innuendo as they are—never actually come out and say what you are trying to say should tell you something. Abhayakara ( talk) 16:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
At the moment, I think the article is in pretty good shape. The only point of cognitive dissonance I have is that Abhayakara hasn't been booted from editing this subject due to an obvious conflict of interest. Vritti ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Are you proposing we delete it? He's your guru, after all. Tao2911 ( talk) 15:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm asking why you haven't proposed we delete it: why you think it's interesting to talk about a person who, according to you, has never done anything of significant aside from getting ordained and then practicing with a partner, and then having someone die nearby a retreat center he founded. Abhayakara ( talk) 18:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I had included this passage, which has been removed for notability issues. I'll make my argument following:
In 2010, Roach submitted a video proposal for a television show on the Oprah Winfrey Network to be chosen by online voting. In the proposal he states, "When I was young, my mom got breast cancer and just before she died she put me into a Tibetan monastery. I stayed there for 20 years and became the first American geshe, or Buddhist Master. Nowadays a lot of people come to me with their problems and dreams and I help them figure out what karma they need to get things they want." The proposal has not yet been selected for production.[23][24]
Ok. So the lead says, "Roach's teaching includes the view that yoga and meditation can lead to financial prosperity. He has at times been the center of controversy for his views, teachings, activities, and behavior."
This quote directly demonstrates nearly everything in this passage, in a succinct way, in Roach's own words - better than many other parts of the entry. It is a proposal, viewable online, for a television show on the Oprah Network. This is exactly the kind of information the general reader, to whom we are told to be writing for in guidelines, is going to be interested in. We also have it referenced in a critique of Roach that is used by the New York Times, and other sources, cited throughout the article - in the Elephant Journal, an influential and highly regarded online and print subscription magazine. I think it genuinely fleshes out the article, and is a great opportunity to see Roach himself talk about what he's about, his views, and shows his aspirations. Why wouldn't we have it in the article? Such material is often included in profiles of less, and more, well-known figures. Tao2911 ( talk) 15:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
First, basically nothing you say here carries any weight since your bias is heinous and damning. Second, your analogy is utterly fallacious. The summary at OWN is FIRST PERSON, it is not pretending to be an independent summary. Third, I have watched the video, and read ROACH'S summary; it is perfectly suitable and accurate. Fourth, the issue is a none starter until I find a source that passes muster. So, you can stop now. Really. Go back to all those pressing issues you claim we are distracting you from. Please. Tao2911 ( talk) 13:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
User:Tao2911 your edit history is public, you know. And it shows a pretty clear POV. The summary is unattributed. We know that Geshe Michael spoke in the video because we see him speaking. Both are primary sources, but one is not reliable, because we don't know who wrote it, and the other is reliable, because we see Geshe Michael speaking. Primary sources are generally not usable because using them requires interpretation, which would be WP:OR. So I'm glad you've concluded that you can't use these. But please dispense with the accusations and just do your job as an editor. A good start would be to remove all the text you've added to the article that's not backed up by the sources you've cited. Abhayakara ( talk) 16:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Tao2911, I'm sorry, but it is now clear to me that the Elephant Journal does not meet WP:RS. The question is not whether it's prominent or well thought of. The problem is that it is, in its own words, an "open forum". The journal owners explicitly disclaim responsibility for what its authors write. They say they are simply providing a platform for others to write their own stuff. I'm confident you will disagree with me -- and so I suggest that you raise the question at WP:RSN. In the meantime, per WP:BLP I will have to remove anything that relies solely on a source in this "journal". I'll add that some of what I saw made for a fascinating read -- but there's no way that source is going to pass muster here. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 05:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
User:Tao2911 recently made the following change:
to:
This change is inappropriate. If the stabbing incident is not notable, it should be removed in its entirety. If it is notable, it's notable enough to describe in context. I originally just reverted User:Tao2911's revert, but then noticed that the editor who added the text has no edit history. Since User:Tao2911 has a history of accusing me of sockpuppetry, I decided to revert the edit back to User:Tao2911's version and explain here why I think the edit was good. Abhayakara ( talk) 16:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm the user who made the edits that you reverted. I've never edited wikipedia before, but the timeline of events is right on the Diamond Mountain website. I'm also frustrated that media outlets might get the sequence of events wrong if they look at this page. The stabbing incident did not occur shortly before the expulsion, but a full year prior. It was that McNally *spoke* of the incident on February 4 of this year. Some retreatants did know about it, but no one told the board. 96.246.62.95 ( talk) 16:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Current page is factually inaccurate as to timeline. My edits were removed, however.
Retreat began December, 2010. McNally was both its director and a participant. She and Thorson had their own cabin. On February 4, 2012, McNally gave a "Great Retreat Teaching" in which she mentioned an incident in which she had stabbed Thorson. This event, according to an account posted in April 2012 on her behalf by an assistant ("A Shift in the Matrix"), had occurred a year before, in February 2011. The actual audio of this talk is not posted online, unlike the other talks given the same weekend.
The Diamond Mountain board met, and also sought legal counsel, before asking McNally and Thorson to leave the campus for one year, and stripping McNally of any leadership role.
The couple left the campus on February 20th. Thorson died April 22. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.62.95 ( talk) 16:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Abhayakara,
Previous disputes about the content of this article have no bearing on the fact that dates on the current page are wrong. The right dates, given in my edits, are available from multiple sources, including the Diamond Mountain retreat's own website. I am an independent editor, and have worked as a magazine fact-checker. It does not make sense to me that I need to do tons of research on the accusations and counter-accusations made by previous contributors to this page in order to be qualified to correct factually inaccurate data. There's something bizarre about that. A wrong date can stand because I am not sufficiently educated about some insider thing known as "sockpuppetry"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.62.95 ( talk) 16:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
1) Retreat started December 2010:
http://diamondmountain.org/an-open-letter-from-geshe-michael
1a) McNally as its spiritual director and also participant:
http://retreat4peace.org/about/lineage (end of page) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ixnay99 (
talk •
contribs)
17:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
2) Stabbing incident revealed Feb 4 2012 (ibid) plus, youtube videos of the other talks given that weekend, plus http://diamondmountain.org/node/33
3) date of actual stabbing: http://www.scribd.com/doc/90220087/A-Shift-in-the-Matrix, page 2 of actual text
4) Date of couple leaving retreat: http://diamondmountain.org/an-open-letter-from-geshe-michael, also the NY times article, but I believe they also got the date from the official letter, which they cite
5) Date of ian's death, april 22 2012, -- every news story that has been written about this event http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/us/mysterious-buddhist-retreat-in-the-desert-ends-in-a-grisly-death-639159/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ixnay99 ( talk • contribs) 17:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
To be clear here, I think your edits are correct, and thank you for documenting them thoroughly. I just want to avoid a situation where someone accuses me of being you, because we happen to agree on this point. I pointed to past investigations solely for the purpose of warning you of that possibility. AFAIK, the person mentioned in the previous investigation is a student of one of Geshe Michael's students, who lives in Israel. I am sure an IP trace would have confirmed that, but none was done, and the investigation was closed without resolving the issue. Thanks for setting up an account! Abhayakara ( talk) 18:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Also, BTW, be sure to sign your edits to the talk page. You can do this by ending what you write with four tildes. Abhayakara ( talk) 18:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
ok with the above sources, I'd like whatever approving bodies to reconsider my edits, which replace the paragraph currently beginning "In January 2012" with:
McNally was appointed director of a three-year meditation retreat that began December 2010 at Diamond Mountain. She and her husband, Thorson, participated in the retreat and had their own cabin. In a "Great Retreat Teaching" on February 4, 2012, Christie McNally revealed an incident in which she had stabbed Thorson in February, 2011. Following meetings by the Diamond Mountain Board and outside legal counsel, the Board voted to remove McNally from any leadership roles and to ask the couple to leave the campus for one year.
Ixnay99 ( talk) 18:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
1) I'm interested in precision. Thence the distinction between when the stabbing took place and when it was revealed to the board. Without this distinction, we perpetuate the confusion that has appeared on blogs, etc, where it is assumed that the stabbing must have shortly preceded the expulsion. No, Christie writes that the incident took place "three months into the retreat."
2) I added the legal counsel thing because currently the article is really vague about how they came to be expelled and by whom. It uses the passive voice and does not say who asked them to leave.
3) The problem with tertiary sources is that once one of them gets a fact wrong, the subsequent reports incorporate the same mistake. The primary sources were used as the basis for a number of facts in the Times article, so it seems weird to prioritize the latter.
4) Are you the owner of this page? Like when you say "no to these edits" are you the decider?
5) I think in your "not so subtly" comment you are implying I am a supporter or whitewasher of the biography subject, somehow invested in distancing him from events? I'm not, and also in rereading my contribution I can't figure out where you got that idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ixnay99 ( talk • contribs) 18:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
6) According to Christie in her emergency call, Ian was "unresponsive." [1] What's your source that he was actually in fact dead for a full day prior? Ixnay99 ( talk) 19:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Tao, I asked in response to your absolute assertion, above, "PS Thorson was RECOVERED on the 22nd. He had been dead at least a day." It turns out you have no way of knowing that and then you chastise me that "it doesn't matter." It mattered enough for you to "correct" me on the point, on the basis of absolutely nothing!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ixnay99 ( talk • contribs) 19:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
So Abhayakara added a line about Roach's marriage, his excuse that it was just so McNally would inherit his stuff. I want to say that I think the section is tight and highly NPOV considering the incendiary nature of the material. A guy is dead, and many are arguing that it is directly due to his involvement with Roach. So - we don't want to get into that, or many other topics (there are over 4000 comments on threads about this topic on ONE other site, and there are many others). Every line in the entry has 10 lines ready to be added around it, both pro and con. Abha. clearly and always will try to sneak a little positive spin in wherever possible. That's what this edit smacks of to me. But more importantly, it doesn't matter to the material. Roach said that, but we have sourced accounts saying that most of what he has had to say about that relationship is completely specious anyway. Are we going to add that, for balance? We already know, and state, that he lied about being married for over a decade as it is. We are to put his excuses for why now? In the Oprah video he says he lived in a Tibetan monastery in India for 20 years. That is quite simply a lie as well. He clearly isn't a good source about his own motivations or biography. Anyway, once again, let's keep it succinct, condensed, and minimize this slippery slope of unwarranted detail. Tao2911 ( talk) 00:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, everybody.
Checking the page today, I see that the last paragraph of the controversy section has been shortened. It seems to me we are now omitting context, and the narrative makes no sense. We've got to mention the retreat itself before saying the couple was asked to leave the retreat, because it reads now:
"Roach and McNally divorced in September, 2010; McNally married one of Roach's senior students, Ian Thorson, one month later.[20] Due a pattern of suspected mutual abuse including an incident in which McNally stabbed Thorson, they were both told to leave the retreat in February, 2012.[24]"
I would like to add a sentence in the middle of the 2 existing sentences that clarifies what retreat and when:
"Roach and McNally divorced in September, 2010; McNally married one of Roach's senior students, Ian Thorson, one month later.[20] McNally was appointed director of a three-year meditation retreat that began December 2010 at Diamond Mountain. Due a pattern of suspected mutual abuse including an incident in which McNally stabbed Thorson, they were both told to leave the retreat in February, 2012.[24]"
Source is the Diamond Mountain website (all pages that describe the great retreat0 and also retreatforpeace.org, the retreat-specific website also maintained by Diamond Mountain. There are also pre-retreat interviews on the web with McNally in which she talks about when the retreat starts and what she hopes to accomplish there.
Reason for adding is that if we are mentioning the incident at all, we need enough context so the reader doesn't go "what?" Ixnay99 ( talk) 13:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, again, everybody.
This crash-course in wikipedia editing is riveting. The sentence I proposed this morning was added, but then removed again. For the same reasons as given in my 13:43 post, directly above, I again ask if we can add a connecting/contextualizing sentence, to wit:
"Roach and McNally divorced in September, 2010; McNally married one of Roach's senior students, Ian Thorson, one month later.[20] McNally was appointed director of a three-year meditation retreat that began December 2010 at Diamond Mountain. Due a pattern of suspected mutual abuse including an incident in which McNally stabbed Thorson, they were both told to leave the retreat in February, 2012.[24]" Ixnay99 ( talk) 19:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
if one reads the opening "biography", he/she will find that it contains many unanswered questions, as well as incomplete thoughts. for example, one sentence says Roach "returned" to the US -- but it doesn't say where he returned from. i believe that Roach's extensive training included study with Tibetan teachers at Sera Mey is what qualified him for the title of "Geshe" -- and yet there is no mention of this in the bio.
someone needs to update the biography so that it is complete, (while still being concise).
"Roach has since taken to wearing Armani suits, rather than a monks robes, and has been inviting his students out to nightclubs in New York. This is reported to be creating confusion amongst his followers, and that many of his students are leaving him."
I just read the Page Six article cited for this paragraph, and this summary looks to me to be highly biased and contentious in parts. First, "has since taken to wearing" is questionable pending further verification - we do have him in the story wearing an Armani suit at least once, but "taken to" is questionable as it implies two things: that he never did before (seems likely) and that he does as a regular matter of course (less likely).
Second, although there is a statement that some followers are confused, there was - unless I miss it - no claim at all that "many of his students are leaving him". That may well be true, I don't know, but Page Six didn't say it (unless I missed it somewhere).
My own perspective is that the Page Six story is highly questionable for a number of reasons and that unless and until we get confirmation from other sources, we should be very cautious about it. The story cites as a source a Yogi instructor but admits to faking her name - not exactly a journalistic hallmark to give rise to confidence.
I'm also concerned that whoever added this material has misrepresented it. The story is quite clear, for example, that Michael Roach denies that his prior relationship was romantic, but we had him "admitting" that it was - in directly and obvious contradiction to the source cited. That's really bad. (I'm about to study the history to see who did that.)-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 05:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
"Everything is going into chaos. It's all exploding," says Erin, who's close to many of his followers. "People are switching partners, and some are leaving him."
"We are not allowed to have sex, but in yoga there are practices that involve joining with a partner," he explains. "They are secret, and you are not allowed to disclose them. You might think of them as sex, but their purpose is to move inner energy. It takes very strict training. There would be penetration, but no release of semen." Sex or no sex, the two developed a unique bond, and their unorthodox message attracted thousands of followers around the world, including in New York and Arizona—where in 2004, they founded an unaccredited Buddhist University and retreat center called Diamond Mountain.
Might as well go into it thoroughly. He also says that sex isn't allowed, but intercourse is, as far as some rituals go YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm dismayed to visit this wikipage and find that, once again, there are individuals trying to distort basic facts so they resemble truth. This page previously had a section entitled "Controversy." Unfortunately, this section has been removed, watered down, and sublimated with the new title "Spiritual Partnership." Michael Roach is likely the single most controversial figure in American Buddhism and his wikipage should reflect that controversy (as well as his many laudable achievements). A Gelug-pa monk has taken vows against wearing his hair longer than two finger-widths, wearing (diamond) jewelry, and engaging in sexual activity whatsoever. To take a tantric consort for completion-stage tantric sex, a monk must give back his vows. To my knowledge Geshe Roach has not given back his monk's vows. Though he is a gifted and charismatic teacher, his activities do not accord with a Gelug-pa monk's behavior. His students and friends come to this forum and try to obfuscate, dilute, and, it seems, in fact remove the section outlining why many find Geshe Roach controversial. This does a disservice to Wikipedia, the very nature of which is to provide information to those wishing to find it. Fledgling readers coming to this page to find out why Michael Roach is so controversial will have to leave roughly as clueless as when they came because a few editors here are engaged in a relentless campaign to obscure the controversy surrounding Michael Roach. 152.133.7.130 ( talk) 16:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
==
User:Yworo asked for an example of what I think the section should look like, and since we don't seem to have had any new reviewers, I decided to take a stab at it. I pulled in some new references, in particular the "Get to know us" article, in which Geshe Michael and Lama Christie go into some detail about the incident with the Office of HHDL. I hope this comes across as a constructive attempt at NPOV, because that's what I was shooting for. If not, please tell me what I got wrong.
I think it is generally OK, except I'm not crazy about the paragraph starting "Geshe Michael's openness . ." I don't think Thurman's quote should be removed. Sylvain1972 ( talk) 20:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I was referring to Thurman's quote “there is a tremendous amount of opprobrium by the Tibetan monks; they think they have gone wacky." But on reflection I agree that it is lacking in specificity and is perhaps not so useful for that reason. Archtypical Thurman in that regard. Sylvain1972 ( talk) 16:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Someone needs to rewrite the paragraph(s) to explain what the controvery IS. WHAT are the two of them "practicing" together? Is it a matter of "holy monk found with secret girlfriend"? Lotta quotes about how it would be "superhuman" of him to "practice" with her, but again, what are they TALKING about?!
I've read the page 4 times now, and I can't even get the basics! 66.3.106.6 ( talk) 02:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to add some new material to the article that's not related to the spiritual partner section. It probably won't happen for a few days at least, but I'll do a work-in-progress page as a subpage of my user page so that interested editors can comment on it before it goes live. The article is very out-of-date right now--it doesn't really talk at all about the Enlightened Business Institute, which is Geshe Michael's big project right now, and it's also missing a lot of information about his books, translation work, ACI Phoenix, and so on. There is some text I'd like to add to the spiritual partner's section as well, but I'll bring that up as a separate matter because it seems to be of interest to a number of editors. I think the other stuff should be pretty non-controversial. Abhayakara ( talk) 01:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I tried to trim down the controversy section because it's quite long and rambling, and it's not clear what it's trying to say. Unfortunately, User:Sylvain1972 apparently did not agree with my edits. I would challenge User:Sylvain1972 to come up with a more concise way of making whatever point it is that he or she is trying to make here. It's frankly bizarre that a Buddhist monk who's been teaching since the 1970s, who has founded several major Buddhist projects that are in widespread use beyond his own sangha, and who has done many, many interesting things in his life, gets half of his Wikipedia article dedicated to a practice that some Buddhist practitioners consider controversial, but that in fact the Dalai Lama says is perfectly permissible. The mere fact that someone finds these practices questionable doesn't seem like a good reason to be talking about body fluids in the Wikipedia page.
So, User:Sylvain1972, could you try to articulate what it is that you want to say here on the discussion page, so that we can try to figure out a way to say it that isn't so long-winded? Alternatively, if you feel that this is an article that ought to be longer, so that the controversy section would be a more balanced part of it, it would be awfully nice if you could help to expand the other sections of the article. Abhayakara ( talk) 18:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Gah, or her wife or his husband, of course. Abhayakara ( talk) 04:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm with you. There are some significant issues here, that needn't be explicitly discussed here, but are nonetheless implied (and are discussed in the articles cited). Karmamudra is NOT ideally supposed to be a romantic partnership - it is a religious partnership. Not that it matters, but personally I question the possibility of that sort of exclusivity - and Roach himself said that it didn't turn out that way for them either. They did indeed have a romantic relationship, with all of the complications that implies, by his own admission ("It got kind of high school" he said. !) Also - their secrecy was never very, well, secret. Their students knew, so they went public before the whistle was blown more widely. Most Tibetan Buddhist leaders were highly skeptical of their highly irregular "karmamudra" practice, and were vocal in their opposition, or so reports say. So - I find the passage covers the issue, with citations for those who wish to dig up more of the dirt, or understand the issues. 48 hours ago, this page read like a Michael Roach pamphlet. It is considerably better now. Tao2911 ( talk) 19:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah - Michael Roach. He talks about how their relationship became colored with typical American romantic realtionship programing, and that this was not in keeping with the spirit of karmamudra. The high school bit, etc. Reread the interview, with any devotional goggles removed. Also discussed pointedly is the end of their relationship due not to some enlightened, clean, mutual agreement, but because she left him for their attendant. This is significant to the casual reader - ie me. To fail to mention that, when it is discussed clearly in the source for most of the events being detailed, is a gross oversight, and smacks of biased POV. I read this page, thought it was waaay too positive and hagiographic, encountered the controversy bit, read the actual sources, and had that assessment further confirmed. Tao2911 ( talk) 04:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I have zero desire to get into "general discussions" (against WP guidelines) of what you think romance is or isn't. Your bias is crystal clear. I don't have one here. I have no opinion about this guy whatsoever. I don't need to. We go by sources here. The section is on "controversy", as the header states. The article is in fact called "Monk-y Business: Controversial NYC guru Michael Roach", for heaven's sake. The quote is as follows: "Last summer Christie left Geshe Michael for another man. Ian Thorson, a young student who had once served as the couple's attendant...had come between them....the couple's spiritual partnership came to a dramatic end. Now both Geshe Michael and his followers are devastated and questioning what, and whom, they believe in. "It's chaos" says Erin." It goes on. And on.
You can feel whatever you choose to feel about this. But it is a major newspaper article. They were not sued. Roach participated, and his statements support all the allegations in the article. There were no retractions. I see no reason to question this source, or in particular this assertion, which is presented with absolute NPOV in the entry. Do not remove it again, or you face accusations of edit warring, and administrative sanction. Tao2911 ( talk) 21:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
The article might want to include the newspaper articles about Michael Roach suggesting that people should look beautiful and dress up, and his hitting the clubs as not seeming to make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.147.58 ( talk) 15:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Someone added a bunch of text about the recent tragedy at Diamond Mountain. I think if there is some way that this can be written so that it is relevant biographical information about Geshe Michael, then it would make sense to include it here, but otherwise it belongs in a biography page about Ian or about Christie. I suggest that the authors write a bio page for Ian or Christie if they feel this is something that needs to be documented in Wikipedia. Abhayakara ( talk) 23:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Look, you clearly have a bias here. I'd suggest you review guidelines about editing on pages where you have a clear POV ( wp:npov). For instance, your suggestion to create a new page is classic content forking. I suspect you are a follower of the subject in which case it is suggested you not edit on this page at all. Given your bias, I make this case here for others, as I suspect you will argue against the inclusion of this material no matter what - given that you would remove the totally NPOV material about other controversy around him as reported in the New York Times and new york Post. Roach is a religious teacher, a spiritual leader. You didn't have any problem with highly inflated puffery that constituted most of this article when it shone his spiritual activities and organizations in a positive light (much of which I have edited to be more neutral). You only wish to remove the negative material. The death of one of his most senior students, whom his "partner" left him for (as reported in the Post), and the subsequent controversy and upheaval being created in his organization, can not and should not be left out of any thorough profile. I am not affiliated in any way with this guy, or his purported spiritual tradition. I am informed enough however to know that if I am to read a profile of him, I would expect this material to be there - just as I would if the founder of some other spiritual "university" had his partner (and most senior TEACHER) leave him for a senior student, later marry, then stab, said student, and then find him dead while they were alone in a cave having been kicked out of said university, all while claiming to be practicing according to the Buddhist retreat guidelines of their teacher, that they believed themselves to be following. Well...it's such a no-brainer that your repeated removal of it completely outs you as biased. And btw, there is no rule that says material needs to prove some kind of personal guilt to be included - it is of high general, and institutional, significance - and THAT is the guideline. So please leave it alone, and allow other editors to weigh in if they have opinions. Tao2911 ( talk) 20:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
If i can weigh in, the link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christie_McNally redirects to the Roach bio page, so therefore in my opinion either we make a separate christie McNally page and link it to the roach page, or we remove that redirect.. Tao2911... why dont you write that page. I think its a good idea and i think youd be a good person to do it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.142.222.226 ( talk) 04:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Changed Diamond Mountain University to Diamond Mountain Center as this is the official wikipedia page for that institution. The name 'University' is also not used on the official website other than as a strapline under the logo. There is no official use of the term 'University' that I can find on the website. If anyone feels this should be changed back, then please also change the wikipedia page so that Diamond Mountain Center redirects to Diamond Mountain University and not visa versa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.85.78 ( talk) 00:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
It is a matter of reliable sources (including recent articles in the NYT and the Independent) that are making the connection. I agree we shouldn't get into details of McNally and Thorson, but the basic fact of Thorson's death following their expulsion from the retreat belongs in the article, given that that's a connection good sources are making. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 16:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
We have had some discussion (not enough) on WP:BLPN about the recent edits where User:Nomoskedasticity has tried to introduce text indicating that Michael Roach dumped Christie McNally and immediately went to New York to go clubbing, when the source that talks about clubbing says that McNally dumped Roach, and the source that talks about filing for divorce doesn't give any context as to why Roach filed. The claim that Roach instigated the divorce is not sustained by the sources, and the juxtaposition of this claim with the clubbing claim tells a story that is contrary to the source material as well.
If you really, truly think this text needs to be in the article, please get someone who is neutral to agree with you. When I've raised this on WP:BLPN, nobody has supported your position, and several have argued against it. Arguing with you about this over and over again is a huge waste of time. Don't you have anything better to do? Abhayakara ( talk) 05:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
It seems that User:Tao2911 is back and wants to add back the talk about Ian. The very tenuous claim that a distraught mother blames Geshe Michael for the death of her son seems to be the basis for claiming that this paragraph is notable. I think this is highly questionable, but I'm not prepared to unilaterally decide that the paragraph has to go. However, if the paragraph does need to be here, it needs to be complete and accurate, and not draw conclusions not sustained by source material. In particular, if you leave out Geshe Michael's long letter explaining what happened, and why Christie and Ian were asked to leave, the added text makes it sound like Geshe Michael is the villain. So I've added a sentence summarizing the letter. I think it makes the paragraph more balanced.
User:Tao2911, if you want to make more changes, it would be nice if you could participate in a conversation about what you are trying to communicate and why you consider it notable, rather than leaving us to guess what you may have intended. Abhayakara ( talk) 04:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the edit User:Nomoskedasticity made on the bases of WP:SPS, I don't think that applies here. WP:SPS is specific to things like personal blogs, public postings on forums, tweets, and group blogs. Diamond Mountain Center is a 501c(3) religious organization with a board of directors, and this open letter was published on their web site, which is not a personal blog or a group blog, but rather the online public face of the retreat center. I can see where you might be tempted to say that it's still self-published since Geshe Michael founded Diamond Mountain, but then you are essentially claiming that the DM board are meatpuppets, and I would think you ought to justify that claim with some kind of sourced evidence. Abhayakara ( talk) 06:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
In case of such controversial figures and material, like we have here, no, arguments saying that the Diamond Mountain website could somehow be considered a valid "secondary or tertiary source" are utterly absurd. Of course it's not. The independence of the board is exactly the question in a number of places. Nomo is exactly right to call it into question here. Diamond Mountain is Roach's baby - you can't extol it as his creation, and then use it as independent source! Abhayakara is an admitted follower of Roach; considering this, I think s/he is doing ok with some edits - by basically no longer fruitlessly fighting the entire flood of information that is becoming available from an astounding wealth of reliable tertiary sources (that happen to include most major newspapers in the English speaking world.) Clearly, this editor would like to see this page be a glowing portrayal of their guru. Happily, there are other people here too. My motives, you ask? To have a decent, NPOV overview of this guy. I think we have one at the moment. Probably for a brief moment. Tao2911 ( talk) 15:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
User:Tao2911, the fact that you have the various beliefs that you state above does not make them true. In order for them to be in the article, you have to have a source that says what you say above. You do not have a source. Therefore, it does not belong in the article. "The board is not independent?" Which source said that? "It's Geshe Michael's baby?" Which source said that? Furthermore, even if it's Geshe Michael's baby in the sense that he founded it, it's legally an independent entity with a board. It's not appropriate to presume something that's not stated in a source.
BTW, your motives really don't matter here. What matters is that you are making non-NPOV edits. Maybe you sincerely believe that your edits are accurate. That belief is not sufficient to establish that they are. To establish that they are, you need sources. The sources can't merely imply what you would like the article to say. They have to say it. The fact that these articles you are citing—as full of innuendo as they are—never actually come out and say what you are trying to say should tell you something. Abhayakara ( talk) 16:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
At the moment, I think the article is in pretty good shape. The only point of cognitive dissonance I have is that Abhayakara hasn't been booted from editing this subject due to an obvious conflict of interest. Vritti ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Are you proposing we delete it? He's your guru, after all. Tao2911 ( talk) 15:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm asking why you haven't proposed we delete it: why you think it's interesting to talk about a person who, according to you, has never done anything of significant aside from getting ordained and then practicing with a partner, and then having someone die nearby a retreat center he founded. Abhayakara ( talk) 18:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I had included this passage, which has been removed for notability issues. I'll make my argument following:
In 2010, Roach submitted a video proposal for a television show on the Oprah Winfrey Network to be chosen by online voting. In the proposal he states, "When I was young, my mom got breast cancer and just before she died she put me into a Tibetan monastery. I stayed there for 20 years and became the first American geshe, or Buddhist Master. Nowadays a lot of people come to me with their problems and dreams and I help them figure out what karma they need to get things they want." The proposal has not yet been selected for production.[23][24]
Ok. So the lead says, "Roach's teaching includes the view that yoga and meditation can lead to financial prosperity. He has at times been the center of controversy for his views, teachings, activities, and behavior."
This quote directly demonstrates nearly everything in this passage, in a succinct way, in Roach's own words - better than many other parts of the entry. It is a proposal, viewable online, for a television show on the Oprah Network. This is exactly the kind of information the general reader, to whom we are told to be writing for in guidelines, is going to be interested in. We also have it referenced in a critique of Roach that is used by the New York Times, and other sources, cited throughout the article - in the Elephant Journal, an influential and highly regarded online and print subscription magazine. I think it genuinely fleshes out the article, and is a great opportunity to see Roach himself talk about what he's about, his views, and shows his aspirations. Why wouldn't we have it in the article? Such material is often included in profiles of less, and more, well-known figures. Tao2911 ( talk) 15:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
First, basically nothing you say here carries any weight since your bias is heinous and damning. Second, your analogy is utterly fallacious. The summary at OWN is FIRST PERSON, it is not pretending to be an independent summary. Third, I have watched the video, and read ROACH'S summary; it is perfectly suitable and accurate. Fourth, the issue is a none starter until I find a source that passes muster. So, you can stop now. Really. Go back to all those pressing issues you claim we are distracting you from. Please. Tao2911 ( talk) 13:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
User:Tao2911 your edit history is public, you know. And it shows a pretty clear POV. The summary is unattributed. We know that Geshe Michael spoke in the video because we see him speaking. Both are primary sources, but one is not reliable, because we don't know who wrote it, and the other is reliable, because we see Geshe Michael speaking. Primary sources are generally not usable because using them requires interpretation, which would be WP:OR. So I'm glad you've concluded that you can't use these. But please dispense with the accusations and just do your job as an editor. A good start would be to remove all the text you've added to the article that's not backed up by the sources you've cited. Abhayakara ( talk) 16:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Tao2911, I'm sorry, but it is now clear to me that the Elephant Journal does not meet WP:RS. The question is not whether it's prominent or well thought of. The problem is that it is, in its own words, an "open forum". The journal owners explicitly disclaim responsibility for what its authors write. They say they are simply providing a platform for others to write their own stuff. I'm confident you will disagree with me -- and so I suggest that you raise the question at WP:RSN. In the meantime, per WP:BLP I will have to remove anything that relies solely on a source in this "journal". I'll add that some of what I saw made for a fascinating read -- but there's no way that source is going to pass muster here. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 05:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
User:Tao2911 recently made the following change:
to:
This change is inappropriate. If the stabbing incident is not notable, it should be removed in its entirety. If it is notable, it's notable enough to describe in context. I originally just reverted User:Tao2911's revert, but then noticed that the editor who added the text has no edit history. Since User:Tao2911 has a history of accusing me of sockpuppetry, I decided to revert the edit back to User:Tao2911's version and explain here why I think the edit was good. Abhayakara ( talk) 16:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm the user who made the edits that you reverted. I've never edited wikipedia before, but the timeline of events is right on the Diamond Mountain website. I'm also frustrated that media outlets might get the sequence of events wrong if they look at this page. The stabbing incident did not occur shortly before the expulsion, but a full year prior. It was that McNally *spoke* of the incident on February 4 of this year. Some retreatants did know about it, but no one told the board. 96.246.62.95 ( talk) 16:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Current page is factually inaccurate as to timeline. My edits were removed, however.
Retreat began December, 2010. McNally was both its director and a participant. She and Thorson had their own cabin. On February 4, 2012, McNally gave a "Great Retreat Teaching" in which she mentioned an incident in which she had stabbed Thorson. This event, according to an account posted in April 2012 on her behalf by an assistant ("A Shift in the Matrix"), had occurred a year before, in February 2011. The actual audio of this talk is not posted online, unlike the other talks given the same weekend.
The Diamond Mountain board met, and also sought legal counsel, before asking McNally and Thorson to leave the campus for one year, and stripping McNally of any leadership role.
The couple left the campus on February 20th. Thorson died April 22. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.62.95 ( talk) 16:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Abhayakara,
Previous disputes about the content of this article have no bearing on the fact that dates on the current page are wrong. The right dates, given in my edits, are available from multiple sources, including the Diamond Mountain retreat's own website. I am an independent editor, and have worked as a magazine fact-checker. It does not make sense to me that I need to do tons of research on the accusations and counter-accusations made by previous contributors to this page in order to be qualified to correct factually inaccurate data. There's something bizarre about that. A wrong date can stand because I am not sufficiently educated about some insider thing known as "sockpuppetry"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.62.95 ( talk) 16:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
1) Retreat started December 2010:
http://diamondmountain.org/an-open-letter-from-geshe-michael
1a) McNally as its spiritual director and also participant:
http://retreat4peace.org/about/lineage (end of page) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ixnay99 (
talk •
contribs)
17:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
2) Stabbing incident revealed Feb 4 2012 (ibid) plus, youtube videos of the other talks given that weekend, plus http://diamondmountain.org/node/33
3) date of actual stabbing: http://www.scribd.com/doc/90220087/A-Shift-in-the-Matrix, page 2 of actual text
4) Date of couple leaving retreat: http://diamondmountain.org/an-open-letter-from-geshe-michael, also the NY times article, but I believe they also got the date from the official letter, which they cite
5) Date of ian's death, april 22 2012, -- every news story that has been written about this event http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/us/mysterious-buddhist-retreat-in-the-desert-ends-in-a-grisly-death-639159/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ixnay99 ( talk • contribs) 17:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
To be clear here, I think your edits are correct, and thank you for documenting them thoroughly. I just want to avoid a situation where someone accuses me of being you, because we happen to agree on this point. I pointed to past investigations solely for the purpose of warning you of that possibility. AFAIK, the person mentioned in the previous investigation is a student of one of Geshe Michael's students, who lives in Israel. I am sure an IP trace would have confirmed that, but none was done, and the investigation was closed without resolving the issue. Thanks for setting up an account! Abhayakara ( talk) 18:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Also, BTW, be sure to sign your edits to the talk page. You can do this by ending what you write with four tildes. Abhayakara ( talk) 18:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
ok with the above sources, I'd like whatever approving bodies to reconsider my edits, which replace the paragraph currently beginning "In January 2012" with:
McNally was appointed director of a three-year meditation retreat that began December 2010 at Diamond Mountain. She and her husband, Thorson, participated in the retreat and had their own cabin. In a "Great Retreat Teaching" on February 4, 2012, Christie McNally revealed an incident in which she had stabbed Thorson in February, 2011. Following meetings by the Diamond Mountain Board and outside legal counsel, the Board voted to remove McNally from any leadership roles and to ask the couple to leave the campus for one year.
Ixnay99 ( talk) 18:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
1) I'm interested in precision. Thence the distinction between when the stabbing took place and when it was revealed to the board. Without this distinction, we perpetuate the confusion that has appeared on blogs, etc, where it is assumed that the stabbing must have shortly preceded the expulsion. No, Christie writes that the incident took place "three months into the retreat."
2) I added the legal counsel thing because currently the article is really vague about how they came to be expelled and by whom. It uses the passive voice and does not say who asked them to leave.
3) The problem with tertiary sources is that once one of them gets a fact wrong, the subsequent reports incorporate the same mistake. The primary sources were used as the basis for a number of facts in the Times article, so it seems weird to prioritize the latter.
4) Are you the owner of this page? Like when you say "no to these edits" are you the decider?
5) I think in your "not so subtly" comment you are implying I am a supporter or whitewasher of the biography subject, somehow invested in distancing him from events? I'm not, and also in rereading my contribution I can't figure out where you got that idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ixnay99 ( talk • contribs) 18:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
6) According to Christie in her emergency call, Ian was "unresponsive." [1] What's your source that he was actually in fact dead for a full day prior? Ixnay99 ( talk) 19:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Tao, I asked in response to your absolute assertion, above, "PS Thorson was RECOVERED on the 22nd. He had been dead at least a day." It turns out you have no way of knowing that and then you chastise me that "it doesn't matter." It mattered enough for you to "correct" me on the point, on the basis of absolutely nothing!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ixnay99 ( talk • contribs) 19:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
So Abhayakara added a line about Roach's marriage, his excuse that it was just so McNally would inherit his stuff. I want to say that I think the section is tight and highly NPOV considering the incendiary nature of the material. A guy is dead, and many are arguing that it is directly due to his involvement with Roach. So - we don't want to get into that, or many other topics (there are over 4000 comments on threads about this topic on ONE other site, and there are many others). Every line in the entry has 10 lines ready to be added around it, both pro and con. Abha. clearly and always will try to sneak a little positive spin in wherever possible. That's what this edit smacks of to me. But more importantly, it doesn't matter to the material. Roach said that, but we have sourced accounts saying that most of what he has had to say about that relationship is completely specious anyway. Are we going to add that, for balance? We already know, and state, that he lied about being married for over a decade as it is. We are to put his excuses for why now? In the Oprah video he says he lived in a Tibetan monastery in India for 20 years. That is quite simply a lie as well. He clearly isn't a good source about his own motivations or biography. Anyway, once again, let's keep it succinct, condensed, and minimize this slippery slope of unwarranted detail. Tao2911 ( talk) 00:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, everybody.
Checking the page today, I see that the last paragraph of the controversy section has been shortened. It seems to me we are now omitting context, and the narrative makes no sense. We've got to mention the retreat itself before saying the couple was asked to leave the retreat, because it reads now:
"Roach and McNally divorced in September, 2010; McNally married one of Roach's senior students, Ian Thorson, one month later.[20] Due a pattern of suspected mutual abuse including an incident in which McNally stabbed Thorson, they were both told to leave the retreat in February, 2012.[24]"
I would like to add a sentence in the middle of the 2 existing sentences that clarifies what retreat and when:
"Roach and McNally divorced in September, 2010; McNally married one of Roach's senior students, Ian Thorson, one month later.[20] McNally was appointed director of a three-year meditation retreat that began December 2010 at Diamond Mountain. Due a pattern of suspected mutual abuse including an incident in which McNally stabbed Thorson, they were both told to leave the retreat in February, 2012.[24]"
Source is the Diamond Mountain website (all pages that describe the great retreat0 and also retreatforpeace.org, the retreat-specific website also maintained by Diamond Mountain. There are also pre-retreat interviews on the web with McNally in which she talks about when the retreat starts and what she hopes to accomplish there.
Reason for adding is that if we are mentioning the incident at all, we need enough context so the reader doesn't go "what?" Ixnay99 ( talk) 13:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, again, everybody.
This crash-course in wikipedia editing is riveting. The sentence I proposed this morning was added, but then removed again. For the same reasons as given in my 13:43 post, directly above, I again ask if we can add a connecting/contextualizing sentence, to wit:
"Roach and McNally divorced in September, 2010; McNally married one of Roach's senior students, Ian Thorson, one month later.[20] McNally was appointed director of a three-year meditation retreat that began December 2010 at Diamond Mountain. Due a pattern of suspected mutual abuse including an incident in which McNally stabbed Thorson, they were both told to leave the retreat in February, 2012.[24]" Ixnay99 ( talk) 19:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)