Talk:Michael Roach/Archive 4

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

Neutrality Dispute

Please see the above responses under the heading "regarding ~~the~~any further expansion of the controversy section." There's plenty more where this came from, but the point is to demonstrate that this editor is not neutral, and request that someone who is neutral take a look. Abhayakara (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to go into some more detail on this, the most obvious evidence of POV in this article is that the section entitled "Marriage and Controversy" is about half the article. Edits to this section pointing out that the Dalai Lama has written that such relationships are sanctioned in some cases has been repeatedly deleted. The Dalai Lama's writing on the topic can be found on p.193 of his book, How To Practice.

The following text appears in the article: This behavior was reported to include being seen in New York dance clubs and dating women. The cited source for this is a Page Six gossip column from the New York pPost four years ago. The sentence in question is linked with the sentence about the Office of the Dalai Lama in such a way as to imply that they are connected, but they are not—the article about Geshe Michael appearing in New York was written after the relationship ended, as can be clearly seen by reading the article. The article does not say anything about Geshe Michael dating anyone, although I will admit that it tries very hard to imply it. When this article first came out, it was cited as a source, and I disputed it as not reliable on WP:BLPN. My dispute was sustained, and the text was removed. Now it's been added back, I think by the same person.

The next sentence reads "Additionally, his long hair does not conform to the traditional shaved or close cropped head of Gelug monks." This is from a supposed primary source that is not cited in the article. It may well be true, but there's no citation to sustain it.

The next sentence refers to "numbers of prominent Buddhist leaders," but only names two: Robert Thurman, and "the abbot of Sera Monastery." Which Abbot is not stated, and no source supports the inclusion of the abbot of Sera Monastery in this sentence. The sentence also leaves out an important detail from the complete Robert Thurman quote, where he admits that what Geshe Michael is doing may be legitimate, but suggests that it would be superhuman, and that he personally doesn't believe it.

These edits in particular seem to come from a clear POV: someone wants to say that Geshe Michael has gone completely off the reservation. But the sources don't sustain this claim. Abhayakara (talk) 03:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I've taken care of some of these issues. I don't think we should include a general statement about the DL's views on this type of relationship sourced to a book that doesn't mention Roach. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess your point is that to include this would be WP:OR, but the Dalai Lama's book is a secondary source which we have to take as more reliable than the New York Times, because he's one of the high lamas in the lineage. So if we can take the New York Times' opinion about Geshe Michael's buddhist practice, it seems topical to include something from the Dalai Lama about the practice Geshe Michael was doing. Furthermore, to not do so seems to push a POV, as I have said, because you are not telling Geshe Michael's side of the story. Abhayakara (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

If there's a reliable source that tells Roach's side of the story in this respect, then we can discuss how to use it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

~~The open letter from Geshe Michael published by the DM board is WP:RS in an article about Geshe Michael. Abhayakara (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)~~ Sorry, wrong topic. Speaking about the monk/long hair/spiritual partner controversy, Geshe Michael has written about this here. This is WP:RS for a BLP article. HHDL is definitely WP:RS.

Hi, all,

I read the GMR bio cited above. It does not mention long hair. It does say that GMR holds the view that spiritual partnerships are within the tradition of the lineage. The wikipedia article would have to confine itself to saying that, perhaps by quoting that bio, but not go further and intimate that living leaders of the lineage in fact concur. Although the GMR bio implies that they concur, or have responded with approval to his disclosure via post-2003 letter, I have actually read both his letter and the responses. (Here are the citations: [1], [2] Ixnay99 (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC) The responses are somewhat non-responsive on that point, and in fact most confine themselves to wishing him well and providing a blurb for his book, which was a request made in the disclosure letter. A nice book endorsement is not equal to an endorsement of spiritual partners within the tradition, and although we could do line-by-line textual analysis, I'm going to state my opinion which is that GMR's biography misrepresents the responses of his fellow Gelugpa leaders.

On one other point raised above, I concur that the "going to New York dance clubs" sentence is problematic. It appears to reference and provide detail about the "behavior" that earned the censure of the office of HHDL. The sentence begins "This behavior.." However, as wiki user Abahaya pointed out, the alleged behavior occurred much later than the 2006 censure. The implied causality by repeating the phrase "behavior" and in the location of the sentence directly after mentioning "unconventional behavior." Now, it is possible that GMR went to dance clubs at some point and through word of mouth HHDL's office got wind of it, but we have no reason to believe that is true and certainly no source. Finally, I also find the "behavior was reported to include" phrase misleading. The reportage was one "page six" article in the NY Post. It's a gossip page, and, as such, I don't think it holds itself to the standards of reporting that apply in the rest of the paper. Since both the Post and its Page 6 have a certain reputation, I believe this is a sentence that would be made more objective by including the source in the actual sentence, such as "In 2010 the New York Post's Page Six reported that..." Also, there is no source citation at all on the wiki article for that sentence now. [3] Ixnay99 (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

More uncited text: Thorson's family and some former followers publicly blamed Roach, amid accusations that he is a "cult leader". In none of the cited sources is Geshe Michael referred to as a "cult leader." None of the cited sources mention any former followers who blame Roach. Remski, for instance, is quoted taking Roach to task for his teachings and the close inner circle, but not for Ian's death. Ekan and Sid complain about things that happened during a secret initiation ritual, but again are not quoted blaming Roach for Ian's death. Abhayakara (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

In response to one of your earlier complaints about the cult passage, I reworded the sentence to conform to the source that made the point about Roach running the retreat as a cult. This didn't satisfy you either and so you deleted it. I now can't recall which source made the point about Roach running the retreat as a cult. Perhaps you could help sort this out here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The Daily Mail article says this: A man who was part of a mysterious yoga retreat - likened to a cult - has been found dead in the mountains in Bowie, Arizona after fleeing the sect with his wife and succumbing to exposure. The ABC News article leads with this: An Arizona man who was a member of a Buddhist yoga retreat that his family compared to a cult was found dead in a mountain cave in Bowie, Ariz., Tuesday, weeks after being asked to leave the sect with his wife. The New York Times article says Their spiritual leader was a charismatic Princeton-educated monk whom some have accused of running the retreat as a cult.

So there are some mentions of the word "cult." But none of the articles refer to Geshe Michael as a "cult leader." And none of them affirm the comparison to a cult—instead, the Times reports that an un-named source ("some") accused him of running the retreat as a cult. ABC news attributes the "cult" claim to his family, but doesn't affirm it. The Daily Mail, interestingly, says "likened to a cult," meaning that they don't affirm that it's a cult either, but they imply, again without attribution, that someone thinks it's a cult.

If we were to stray into the territory of WP:OR, there are some really good articles on what cults look like, and if you look at what's reported about Geshe Michael, Diamond Mountain and the retreat, they don't seem to me to fit. But we can't do that—it's against Wikipedia policy. So instead we have these tenuous statements in several articles that suggest that someone thinks it's a cult. But they don't say it's a cult, and they don't ever refer to Geshe Michael as a "cult leader."

If we were rating these articles as wikipedia articles, we would reject them because of all the weasel words the authors salted them with to avoid taking responsibility for anything that was said. But instead we are stuck with these articles and nothing else. In this context, I think it's absurd for the Wikipedia article to use the word "cult." If the source won't even come out and say that it's a cult, why should the fact that someone said it was a cult be notable? The Wikipedia article seems to imply that it's broadly accepted that it's a cult, and the sources certainly don't say this. Abhayakara (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you: NYT, "running the retreat as a cult". So that's what I did. I'll do it again. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The closest i can find to a source is slate.com -- the piece calls it a cult twice. But it's a first-person sort of news-stories-observed piece, and not a piece of original reporting with sources. [4] Ixnay99 (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

clarify controversy section

I thinks it important, as in keeping with precedents on other pages, to mention the 'event' of all of this information making such a splash in the media. So I mentioned how we even know what we know due to the int'l coverage. Also, I added some of this material from NYTimes - here's the quote so you don't have to dig. Still, the events at Diamond Mountain University, as the place that hosts the retreat is known, have pried open the doors of an intensely private community, exposing rifts among some of Mr. Roach’s most loyal followers and the unorthodoxy of his practices. In an interview, Matthew Remski, a yoga teacher from Toronto who unleashed a storm online after posting a scathing critique of Mr. Roach after Mr. Thorson’s death, described Mr. Roach as a “charismatic Buddhist teacher” whom he used to respect until his popularity “turned him into a celebrity” whose inner circle was “impossible to penetrate.” Others spoke of bizarre initiation ceremonies at Diamond Mountain. Sid Johnson, a former volunteer who also served on its board of directors, said his involved “kissing and genital touching.” Ekan Thomason, a Buddhist priest who graduated from a six-year program there, said hers included drawing blood from her finger and handling a Samurai sword, handed to her by Ms. McNally. Tao2911 (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

also added to two sub headings as the section has grown confusing and unwieldy.Tao2911 (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The fact that someone's death gets international coverage does not mean that an article about someone else should contain this coverage. As I've said, I agree that Ian is notable, and that Christie is notable, and that it would be appropriate to have an article about this in Wikipedia. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and the rush to publish something about this in Geshe Michael's wikipedia article is premature. Perhaps at some point someone will say something convincing to indicate that Geshe Michael is in some way responsible for this event, but the newspaper articles do not—they just repeat a distraught mother and sister's accusations, which are not WP:RS. BTW, have you read the Independent article? The writing is terrible, whether we consider it WP:RS or not. Abhayakara (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Simply as record for other editors, and with no hope or desire to change this admittedly biased editor's fixed view (he is Roach's web manager for goodness sake), I am not making the call about what is important. I am simply summarizing what this ridiculous plethora of sources deem important. These events are being directly tied to Roach, as similar events would be to any spiritual leader. You wouldn't have an article on David Koresh and not talk about the Waco slaughter. you wouldn't have an article on Jim Jones and not talk about Jonestown and the Kool Aid. You wouldn't talk about that OTHER guy in Arizona who killed a couple people in a sweat lodge and not mention it. And every source talks about this death and its fallout as they relate to these people being students of Roach and at his retreat. It's all related to Roach, in the stories - and in the reported fall out. Stupid to even have to say, but maybe this will be helpful to someone stumbling over here.Tao2911 (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Koresh kept his followers in a compound and refused lawful orders from the BATF (IIRC) who then fired on the compound. Jones gave his followers poison. Roach was concerned about domestic violence between two of his followers, consulted his lawyers and the Cochise County sheriff's department, and asked the two followers in question to leave the retreat, which they did. One of them subsequently died as a result of his own actions. The circumstances are practically identical. Abhayakara (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

that is your opinion. The sources cite the opinions of others who say this death was Roach's fault. I don't have an opinion. I don't need to. You show a source, as strong as the New York Times, that says "so and so says it's not Roach's fault" and we can maybe add that too.Tao2911 (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The sources you have blaming Roach for Ian's death are Ian's mother and sister, as quoted by the Independent and paraphrased by Nightline. Neither source affirms the claim; they simply report it. You've claimed that we can't use Geshe Michael's letter as a source for his side of the story, and you've repeatedly deleted edits I've made attempting to do so. So that's how we got here. It's hard to believe that you really believe this story is similar to the Jonestown massacre or the Branch Davidian compound fire. But if you do, then that proves my point about POV. Abhayakara (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Tao2911 will be taking a short break from the article (I'm letting you know only so that you aren't puzzled by lack of response). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm responding for the benefit of any neutral editors who come along. It's great that User:Tao2911 is explaining his thinking, but I think we both know we disagree, so the point here is to document why we disagree for the benefit of neutral editors, not to convince each other of anything. Abhayakara (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I just looked this up and the Times [5] is cagey, saying "some say..." They don't even have someone willing to go on record that it's "run like a cult." I will, however, say that the blogosphere in general is using the word cult liberally when posting about this situation. Ixnay99 (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

What may or may not be being said in the "blogosphere" is not notable. This is sometimes frustrating, but what you just said illustrates why it is so. If the Times editorial department really thought that Diamond Mountain was a cult, the article would have said so. Abhayakara (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I went to bookmark Christie's "A Shift in the Matrix" on Delicious. One recommended tag came up: "cults." Crowdsourced. Ixnay99 (talk) 04:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, everyone,

I made 2 edits to the article, justified in above sections dated today. 1) I added a sentence that says there was a 3-year retreat at DM with CM as leader; 2) I inserted date and actual paper name into the sentence about the dance clubs to remove ambiguity or implication that this behavior was what incurred HHDL's disapproval. Ixnay99 (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but can you say why you think the article needs to include the bit about dance clubs at all? We already know that Geshe Michael married a woman and lived with her for ten years. We know why he says he did it (although Wikipedia readers don't). We know what Lama Surya Das had to say about it (although Wikipedia readers don't). We know what Robert Thurman had to say about it (and Wikipedia readers know part of this). Being at clubs isn't forbidden to Buddhist monks, although in general it's discouraged if their preceptor thinks they might succumb to temptation and start holding a girl's hand. So the fact that Geshe Michael was seen in clubs isn't particularly interesting, unless he was seen doing something inappropriate to a monk. The article doesn't say anything to that effect. So why is what it says notable in an biographical article? Abhayakara (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure that it does. What I *do* know is that I'm a new user and that someone else really really wants this piece of information in the article. So I decided to edit it by giving context and removing the implication that the Dalai Lama disapproved of this particular incident. My feeling is that if I took that entire sentence out, it would be back in in 10 minutes, just the way it was. The edit I made, I believe, should not be objectionable on its own merits, as a clarification, and might therefore stand and also end the tug-of-war. Ixnay99 (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow! The sentence is back, the way it was before. Ok, so it took half an hour and not 10 minutes. Can the person who changed it chime in here about why we are including it at all, and, if it is pertinent, what was wrong with my edit? Ixnay99 (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I also took out the "cult leader" thing. There is no source that calls him a cult leader, except I do think Ian's mother uses the word cult nea the end of the Nightline piece. Ixnay99 (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

What's going on here is that User:Nomoskedasticity has been editing this article with POV since before User:Tao2911 came back and started doing it again. His edit was reverted after a WP:BLPN notice, but he just waited until the WP:BLPN people weren't looking anymore, and added it back again. It's possible that you are the nearest person to neutral here. User:Nomoskedasticity has a clear POV, as you can see from surfing his contrib history. I'm a student of Geshe Michael. Tao2911 has a pretty clear POV as well. So in fact it's pretty inappropriiate for User:Nomoskedasticity to be reverting your edits, even if you are a new editor. But when I've confronted him about this, he claims that the only reason I can't see he's neutral is that I'm not. So you be the judge. Just don't get into an edit war with him. If you revert edits to an article three times in the same 24 hour period, it can get you blocked. Read WP:3rr for full details—don't assume you're safe because you think what you're doing is right. But also don't assume that you aren't entitled to an opinion yet because you're new. Abhayakara (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I just took a break and then read the whole article afresh. I now concur with you; the "dance club" sentence sticks out like a sore thumb. I think it should be deleted. Either we get into the whole long hair, jewelry thing and the dance club is part of a pattern, or we omit that level of detail. Personally, I find the long hair/jewelry censure, and Roach's explanation of the same to be fascinating and revelatory of the biography subject. I wonder whether the sentence about the clubs keeps getting added back because it's a way to cite/link the Page Six piece, which is really suggestive and juicy. Anyhow, I looked into the conflict resolution avenues and saw that Nomos. is super-active in conflict resolution, which means to me he carries some authority here and will probably prevail. on the other hand, I don't know for certain it is he who put the sentence back in. I think there must be a "history of edits" thing, but I haven't found it. Ixnay99 (talk) 01:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the top of the web page, there should be a series of tabs, one of which is View History. If you click on the contribs link next to a user on the history page, you can see what other edits they have done. User:Nomoskedasticity appears to like to surf the WP:BLPN page. He is quite active there, but I wouldn't describe what he does as "conflict resolution." Generally speaking, editors don't have "authority." They may have more or less credibility, but whatever authority they may have is the result of other editors giving it to them. Editors can get admin privileges if a lot of other editors nominate them. Some editors with admin privileges behave well; others abuse them.

I think that if you weave the accusations against Geshe Michael with his own explanations of them, it might make an interesting article. But at some point you might stray into WP:OR, so beware of that. To get a clear understanding of what is being reported in the Page Six article, you would really have to do a bunch of original research. Generally speaking Buddhists who practice Vajrayana won't talk about it, and may even deny that they do it. I think Lama Yeshe's book on the topic, Introduction to Tantra, and His Holiness' comprehensive book, How to Practice are excellent primers that will give you a better understanding of what is going on here. Neither is particularly long, but both are fairly deep. Abhayakara (talk) 02:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys. Having fun discussing me? Here's the thing: on this talk page you're meant to discuss how to edit the article on Michael Roach. Do have a look at WP:NPA: "comment on content, not on the contributor". (Note that observing someone has a WP:COI is an explicit exception -- hello, Abhayakara!) Let's recap about me and then move on: I'm a regular at BLPN. That's how I learned about Roach. I'm not a Buddhist, never went to any Buddhist retreats (still less one by Roach), never heard of McNally or Thorson. No preconceived views at all. You might want to have a look at this regarding our fellow editor Tao2911 (quick before it's gone) -- I've had to do almost as much work to deal with your main opponent as to deal with you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Nomo. 1)What is BLPN? 2)Let's talk about the dance club sentence. My feeling is that, and I went into sentence phrasing-and-placement detail in the section above this one, the sentence seems to amplify or tease out the "behavior" referred to in the previous sentence, whereas we have no source that "dance club-going" informed the censure from HHDL office. I added a date to show it was reported 4 years after the previous behavior. But I'm also in agreement with Abhay. in wondering why we need this particular detail in the article at all. It's granular on a level to which the rest of the article is not, and to my mind, for consistency we would either also get into other specific objectionable behaviors (long hair, jewelry, and the entire Vajrayogini-come-to-life claims), or simply remove the sentence, as the previous paragraph encapsulates the core of the objectionable behaviors that led to censure. I went and checked some wiki pages about what to put in and leave out of articles, and noted that just because something can be sourced adequately does not mean it has to be in the article. I do not feel as though meaning or thoroughness would be sacrificed by deleting this sentence; I do feel like the article will be more self-consistent as to level of detail and also holistically more readable without it. What say you? Ixnay99 (talk) 12:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Ixnay99, please be careful to log in before making edits. It looks like you made an edit to the main article, but weren't logged in. I say "looks like" because you've said you're attuned to detail, and your edit is very detail-oriented. :) I usually forget to log in too, so I check the box that says "stay logged in." This is good for about a month. Abhayakara (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Next Steps: Neutrality Dispute

Okay, we've gotten no joy on the POV dispute for several weeks. The only real direction we've gotten on this from anyone neutral was last month when, after requesting help on WP:BLPN, a neutral editor determined that the text on Ian was coatracking. If I don't hear any objections in the next day or so, I'm going to edit this part of the article for brevity. Really the only thing we've heard on this topic from a knowledgeable, reliable and citable source is Surya Das' article in the Huffington Post. He concludes, "Don't spy out the flea in another's hair while overlooking the yak on one's own nose." I think this is good advice, which Wikipedia editors should follow. Abhayakara (talk) 22:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Once again, "neutral" appears to mean (for you) "agrees with Abhayakara". For the benefit of others who might not know the history here: I came to this article from BLPN and would count as neutral by anyone except Abhayakara. In any event, I look forward to seeing Abhayakara's proposed changes here, prior to implementing them. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anybody's interested in this debate, but should the person reading this be someone other than User:Nomoskedasticity, you might want to review User:Nomoskedasticity's contributions before concluding that he can claim WP:NPOV. Abhayakara (talk) 03:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute: read this if you are reading the talk page in response to the POV-check tag

The neutrality of edits to this article is generally in dispute, but I'd like to draw your attention to the following text specifically:

In 1996, Christie McNally, then a recent college graduate, became Roach's student. They soon began what they referred to as a "spiritual partnership" in which they took vows that included never being more than 15 feet apart, eating from the same plate, reading the same books together, etc. Though kept secret for a number of years, they went public with their relationship in 2003. This disclosure led to controversy in the Tibetan Buddhist community, as such relationships are generally[24] in contravention of monastic vows in the Gelug order.[2][25]

The Office of the Dalai Lama stated that Roach's "unconventional behavior does not accord with His Holiness’s teachings and practices" and rebuffed his plan to teach in Dharamsala in 2006. In 2010 the New York Post's Page Six reported that Roach was going to New York dance clubs. Some Buddhist leaders, including former monk, scholar, and friend of Roach, Robert Thurman, have urged him to renounce his monastic vows and stop wearing his robes; Roach has refused to comply.[23][25][26]

Notice all the vagueness here. "A recent college graduate..." They "soon began..." "Though kept secret for a number of years..." Look at the articles that are used as references. There's a news article in the Home and Garden section of the New York Times about the spiritual partnership. A gossip column from the New York Post. "Controversy in the Tibetan Buddhist community..." What exactly does this mean? It also seems to be very newsy, talking about an event in 2006, but not reporting any further analysis. Presumably by now, in 2012, we should have access to more than a news article from 2006 about this controversy, if it is notable. Next paragraph:

It later emerged that McNally and Roach had secretly been married in a Christian ceremony in Rhode Island in 1998; Roach explained to the New York Times that they had wished to honor their Christian heritage. Roach filed for divorce in September, 2010; McNally married one of Roach's senior students, Ian Thorson, one month later.[23] McNally was appointed director of a three-year meditation retreat that began December 2010 at Diamond Mountain. Due to 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.[27] Against the directions of Roach and the Diamond Mountain board, the pair secretly went to a nearby cave to continue their retreat, surreptitiously supported by other retreat participants. Thorson died in April, 2012 of dehydration and exposure. Thorson's family publicly blamed Roach, amid accusations that he was running the retreat as a cult. Police found no cause for a criminal investigation.[2][4][5][6][28][29]

So the first and most obvious thing about this paragraph is that it's largely about an event that happened between two people who are not Michael Roach, without Michael Roach's involvement, and the event resulted in the death of one of those two people. This was a big scandal in the news recently, and much was made of it, but nobody except Ian's mother is quoted as blaming Michael Roach for what happened. So why is this in a wikipedia BLP about Michael Roach?

Moving on from that, "it later emerged that..." Various pictures in cited articles show both Michael Roach and Christie McNally wearing wedding rings, so the implication of secrecy here is hard to understand. It's true that a source claims that this was secret, but given that they were open about their relationship and were openly wearing wedding rings in cited articles, the implication that they were hiding something seem intended to imply something that's not said.

Michael Roach is notable for having written quite a few books, founding and guiding an organization that has for the past 30 years, as acknowledged by Professor Thurman in 2010, faithfully preserved thousands of Buddhist texts that were at risk of destruction. He has a long career as a Buddhist student and teacher that spans more than those thirty years. His partnership with Christie, while it has been controversial, has been an integral part of his teaching process since they began talking about it in 2003. And what we see in his Wikipedia article is a bunch of gossip about something that happened while he was out of the country, in BLM land near a retreat center he founded, without his knowledge.

Part of the problem with this article is that there are very few sources to quote on Geshe Michael since 2003. Most of them are involved in reporting on the controversy, so in that sense it's not surprising that we see such a large controversy section. However, Geshe Michael and Christie have both spoken at length about these topics, and when I try to include their explanation of their actions in this article, my edits are deleted as "whitewashing." I don't really get the "whitewashing" claim—what exactly is it that needs whitewashing here? It seems that some editors of this article want to make the article read as if there is something bad going on here, but the article doesn't actually manage to say anything bad—it just contains a lot of innuendo that I think leads the reader to wonder what's not being said.

Marriage/Controversy edits

So I just made an edit to the marriage/controversy section. Part of the goal of the edit was just to make it flow better—the text as it was written kind of stumbled on the way into the bit about HHDL's office, and I think it flows better this way. I also removed the text on clubbing; I realize that this may seem like whitewashing, but before accusing me of this, consider how the text scanned in that paragraph. The paragraph basically read like a laundry list of disconnected complaints. What does the bit about clubbing have to do with the rest of the paragraph? The paragraph seems to be focused on saying that Geshe Michael's behavior with Christie was controversial, and gives two specific examples—the incident with HHDL's office and the quote from the NY Times about Robert Thurman. The bit about clubbing just plainly states that he was seen going to a club, but doesn't explain why this is controversial, nor does the article actually say that what he did was controversial. Also, this text has been removed by neutral editors twice before—it's not just my opinion that it doesn't belong here. Abhayakara (talk) 13:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Reverting removal of Non-biographical content considered harmful

User:Nomoskedasticity, this means you. Please do not simply revert edits that you don't agree with. This isn't constructive—we're just going to be going back and forth over and over again if you do that. Try to propose a compromise. What is it that you think is important about this text? Can you express that more clearly? The text you put back is non-biographical—it's a description of a series of events that took place on BLM land near Diamond Mountain, which Geshe Michael and one of the parties involved founded. If this is relevant to a biography about Geshe Michael, can you say why? Can you express this relevance?

To illustrate the problem I'm talking about, there are two bits of this text that I think are most telling. First, there's the bit where Geshe Michael is said to be "running the retreat like a cult." Since he's not retreat director, this text is clearly counterfactual. And, it's attributed to unnamed parties in the article. So it's an unsubstantiated allegation that has been reported, but not substantiated, in the press. Such allegations are made about public figures all the time. Why is this allegation notable? Can you explain?

Second, the text says that Ian's family blames Geshe Michael for what happened. Okay. So what? Why is this notable? Abhayakara (talk) 22:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

To expand on that, what I mean is, does some disinterested third party agree that what happened is Geshe Michael's fault? E.g., does the newspaper reporter who wrote the article agree? Does a court agree? If not, this is just an unsubstantiated accusation. The source reporting the accusation is reliable—we can trust that they are not lying about the fact that the accusation was made. But the accusation itself is not substantiated. Abhayakara (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources on Buddhist practice

It's interesting to see the New York Times cited as an authority on Buddhist practice. It is a reliable source, so I can't really contest the addition of this text, but it seems a bit weird. Isn't there a better source for this? Does Lama Yeshe say anything about it in his excellent Introduction to Tantra? What about Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, in his excellent book, Guide to Dakini Land? Or even His Holiness himself? It would be nice to be able to cite an authority here that isn't a newspaper article by a non-Buddhist, opining about a very obscure nicety of Buddhist protocol.

For my own part, I think that if the relationship itself is ever allowed, then a marriage would be equally allowable. And we have a very reliable source (HHDL) saying that the practice is allowed in some cases. We don't have any authority aside from Khen Rinpoche, who is no longer with us, saying that it's allowed for Geshe Michael, but neither do we have some authority saying it is not. So I think it's really weird to add this text if you don't have a better source than the NYT. Abhayakara (talk) 02:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Just so I understand you correctly, you are saying that because the secret practice of karmamudra is permissible in the Gelukpa lineage, there is no reason why getting married is not allowed? Karmamudra is a secret yogic practice intended to produce enlightenment, whereas marriage is a social, economic and/or romantic relationship. Gelukpa monks have never gotten married. This distinction isn't a "nicety of Buddhist protocol." Could you restate your objection to clarifying it in the article?Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is a further reliable ource of relevant material, which can be incorporated if anyone has time: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/10/buddhist-retreat-s-death-saga.html.Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, I've never heard Geshe Michael refer to himself as an "enlightened being." I wonder where the author of the article in the Daily Beast gets that. Be that as it may, no, what I am asking of you is that you come up with a scriptural source for your claim that a monk who enters into a relationship with a karma mudra is not permitted to marry her. I've never heard any such prohibition, but I don't claim to have read everything there is to read on the topic. The fact that the New York Times article says this is the case doesn't mean that it's backed up by scripture. It sounds more like a shoot-from-the-hip remark by someone who disapproves of the relationship anyway, quoted as if it were scripture by a layperson—the reporter from the NYT.

My own opinion on the topic, based on my limited understanding of this rather obscure corner of the monastic code, is that it's not something anyone ever anticipated, but it is consistent with the practice. When you hear stories of great Lamas of the past who have taken on karma mudras, the relationship has seemed similar, but the tradition of marriage in Tibetan culture is so different from the tradition in American culture that it's hard to draw parallels. But I'm a student of Geshe Michael, and so it's not surprising that I would have this opinion. That's why I asked you if you know of a better source. Abhayakara (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Removing non-biographical material (again)

I'm going to remove the non-biographical information about Ian Thorson and Christie McNally that keeps getting added back in. My expectation here is not that my edit will stick around—I expect it to be reverted again. But now the article is on more watchlists, so maybe there will be some meaningful discussion about this text. Abhayakara (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

If you consider that previous discussions were not "meaningful", then it's hard for me, at least, to see the value in attempting to discuss it with you again. Perhaps someone else will indeed have something to add. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

By "meaningful," I mean "including more than you with your POV, me with mine, and two other editors who also have really strong POV." What I would like to see is some editors who don't have a strong POV participating. You and I can't really approximate NPOV simply by opposing each other. It would be nice if you could have more of a sense of humor about this. If it's wearying for you to keep participating in the editing of this article, nobody's forcing you to. If you consider it important, then it would be better if we could acknowledge our differences rather than beating each other up with them. A Don't Give Up The Sheep relationship would be better than a Fast and Furry-ous one. Abhayakara (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Current status of neutrality dispute

At this point, there are a couple of problems remaining with the article, although a lot has been cleaned up by me and User:Nomoskedasticity. What remains is largely what we do not agree on. In my opinion, nearly the entire last paragraph of the "marriage and controversy" section should be removed. The reason for this is that it's about events that occurred to persons who are not Michael Roach, and were not in the control of Michael Roach, and were not the result of actions taken by Michael Roach. (Be careful here—you may think these events are Michael Roach's fault, but no reliable source says they are!) I think this text qualifies for immediate removal and for the 3RR exception. However, I have refrained from removing this text because it's clear to me that doing so will result in an edit war.

User:Nomoskedasticity asserts that because there is no consensus to remove this text, it should remain. But this is not correct: WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:BLPSTYLE pretty clearly apply here, and the burden of proof here is on User:Nomoskedasticity to demonstrate why this text should be included. Several of the sources cited here seem subject to the WP:BLPSOURCES policy as well, as it applies to tabloid journalism. WP:UNDUE also seems to apply—the sole justification for including this text is that Ian's mother blames Michael Roach for the events described here. Abhayakara (talk) 05:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

So last night I went through the disputed paragraph and removed each bit of it separately, citing wikipedia policies justifying each removal in the edit summary. Without discussion, User:Nomoskedasticity reverted all of these edits. This is not surprising to me, and I do not fault him or her for doing so, aside from his refusal to participate in any discussion. The purpose of my edits was to document the problems, and I didn't expect these edits to resolve the problem. I have subsequently added tags to the article to point out bits that I think ought to be removed, and to explain why. Hopefully these will be of some use to editors reviewing what's happening with this article. Abhayakara (talk) 13:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Since this is now listed at WP:3 and will likely get some new eyes (a good thing), it will help (particularly those who don't go through the wall of text above) to point out Abhayakara is a COI editor here (see e.g. this and his user page) and has been trying for more than four years to control this article in a non-NPOV way. The edits can of course be considered on their merits, but it is worth considering where they come from. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

There's a discussion about my "COI" on the COI noticeboard here: WP:COIN#Michael Roach. User:Nomoskedasticity repeatedly refers to my "COI" rather than responding substantively to criticism of his edits. Abhayakara (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The REAL Controversy

In order to edit this article correctly, any editor needs to understand the correct basis of the controversy. At its core it has little to do with the performance of a "Buddhist" sex practice which is known in other traditions as well. The controversy is clearly pointed out by Chhime R. Chhoekyapa Joint Secretary of the Office of the Dalai Lama. He writes ..

"Moreover, we have become aware that there is an unresolved controversy over your current observation of the Vinaya vows and your keeping company with women. We have received inquiries and letters of concern about your status and conduct from many people.

We have seen a photograph of you wearing long hair, with a female companion at your side, apparently giving ordination. This would seem to conflict with the rules of Vinaya, and as you know, the Gelug tradition makes a point of upholding these very strictly.

This unconventional behavior does not accord with His Holiness’s teachings and practice. Under the circumstances, keeping the greater interest of the purity of Buddhist tradition in mind, we advise you not to come to Dharamsala on this occasion."

The point is that a Gelugpa monk as a part of their ordination takes a vow to live and conduct themselves according to the rules of the Vinaya. Michael Roach's behavior appears to the office of the Dalai Lama to be at odds with these rules. This was true even before it was revealed that he had married. Monks do not get married unless they remove their robes, much like Robert Thurman correctly did.

Robert Thurman writes;

“I told him to renounce his monastic vows because under our tradition monks do not keep consorts,” Thurman said, recalling a meeting he had with Roach and McNally. But Roach insisted he was technically celibate, and told Thurman he’d never had genital contact with a mortal being. According to Thurman, McNally’s response was, “He said it, not me.”

The assertion that the controversy is about a Buddhist sex practice (karmamudra) is a canard and beside the point. The controversy is about the Vinaya vows which Michael Roach took to become a Gelugpa monk and his apparent failure to uphold these vows. This simple fact has been repeatedly buried in the talk pages of this article and removed from the body of the article by a conflict of interest editor who has been attempting for over six years to protect the image of his teacher, Michael Roach. Vritti (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup, there is definitely a controversy over that, and you seem to have a pretty strong opinion about which side is right. However, it's the coatracking at the end of the article that led me to add this to the third opinion noticeboard. Abhayakara (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Abhayakara (talk), A couple more points for the record. It is revealing as usual to see your comment here. Once again you don't really discuss the issue raised, but leap to point out what you believe my opinion to be. If you were a NPOV editor we would be discussing facts of the matter related to the article so that any reader would be free to come to their own opinion on the subject. So, you've added something to the "third opinion noticeboard". That's interesting since I've never heard of such a noticeboard and you don't include a link to what you are referring to. Vritti (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I have engaged in discussions with you about this, and you haven't responded. I asked you specifically for a scriptural source for your assertion that monks involved in a karma mudra relationship aren't allowed to marry their practice partner. You offered no response. I think it's a really interesting question, but I think the reason you don't have a scriptural source is that there isn't one: this is, first of all, a secret topic, and second, an obscure topic. It's very rare for monks to practice with karma mudras. Is what Geshe Michael is doing proper in that context? I don't know. I would like to hear Je Tsongkapa speak to the question, or even an opinion from His Holiness (not his secretary). Dr. Thurman is great, and I admire him, but he chose to disrobe so that he could get married. So his opinion on what Geshe Michael should do is neither surprising nor compelling: he thinks Geshe Michael should do what he did. That doesn't mean that's what Geshe Michael should do, and it's certainly not a directive from the lineage. I'd love to have a debate with you about this, and I don't necessarily think I'd win. But this is not the place for such a debate. Abhayakara (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it was User:Sylvain1972 who asked this question before, and of whom I requested a scriptural source. I'm sorry for having said otherwise. But the question still stands: if you have a source, let's have it! Abhayakara (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Abhayakara, since you give no indication of knowing what the Vinaya is or what vows a Gelugpa monk makes as a prerequisite for ordination it is not surprising to me that you don't know what I am talking about. For the sake of brevity, how about this quote from the Dalai Lama made at the Life as a Western Buddhist Nun conference;

”According to our tradition, we are monastics and are celibate, and we practice the Tantrayana simultaneously. But the way of practice is through visualization. For example, we visualize the consort, but we never touch.” — His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama.

Would you be so kind as to look into the Vinaya before making any more uninformed arguments on this particular matter? Please ... If you find a reference to a Gelugpa monk openly (not in secret) engaging in consort practice while maintaining their robes (besides Michael Roach) I would be interested in reviewing this also. Vritti (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

He contradicts what you quote him as having said directly and unequivocally, in writing, on p. 193 of How To Practice. Your point about secret versus public is a good one, but it's not all that easy to keep secrets when people don't respect them. In Tibet, the lamas who did this practice could keep their secrets because their followers were keeping Vinaya vows and treating them with respect and deference. Geshe Michael and Christie were routinely followed around the East Village by students who had no such respect for their privacy. So then they were in a position to either lie, in a way that could be easily disproven, or admit to the relationship. I was there when they were practicing together in New York prior to the three year retreat, when they were still keeping the practice secret. I had no idea that they were doing this practice, because they didn't speak about it, and I didn't follow them around the Village invading their privacy.

But my question still stands, and you haven't answered it. Any karma mudra practice necessarily contradicts monastic vows, unless there is a nye me (བརྙས་མེད།) for the practice. HHDL says there is a nye me for advanced monastic practitioners. If we rely solely on the Vinaya to answer this question, the Vinaya directly contradicts what HHDL has said on the topic. If we rely on HHDL, then we have to find some source that does not contradict HHDL, but that does speak to the specific question you are asking: is it forbidden for a monk to marry his or her tantric partner. It's your position that it is forbidden, and this is certainly a plausible and defensible position. However, there is no scriptural authority that supports this position. So from the perspective of making statements about it in a wikipedia article, it would be WP:OR.

If you want to carry this back to what HHDL says about acknowledging the relationship in public, and if you take HHDL's word as scripture, then there is a scriptural authority for this position. However, HHDL doesn't say what to do in the case where the practitioner is outed, which is what happened here. Geshe Michael chose to just go with it and turn it into a part of his teaching. He could equally validly have disrobed, but in order to do so he would have had to give back his monk's vows, which he considers important. HHDL doesn't say "if you are outed, you have to disrobe." So until he does, Geshe Michael's choice here is just as valid as the choice Dr. Thurman urged him to make. Abhayakara (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Poor logic Abhayakara (talk). Michael Roach took ordination as a Gelugpa monk. He took his vows to follow the Vinaya rules. This happened and there is no controversy that I am aware of about this. Next, as you Abhayakara write, "Geshe Michael and Christie were routinely followed around the East Village by students who had no such respect for their privacy." Why was Michael Roach wandering around in public with his consort when this is in violation of the Vinaya in the first place? It is specifically the behavior of Michael Roach which is at the basis of the controversy. It is that simple. You diminish the opinion of Robert Thurman. “I told him to renounce his monastic vows because under our tradition monks do not keep consorts,” Thurman said, recalling a meeting he had with Roach and McNally. Apparently in your POV, a distinguished professor of Gelugpa Buddhism is just tossing a bit of dirt at MR and the Dalai Lama, head of the Gelugpas is too inconsistent (for your taste) to be taken seriously by Wikipedia. I know that Michael Roach is the only authority that you recognize, but I need to point out that this is an extreme minority view. Your conflict of interest and extreme POV is why I have criticized your editing here. Vritti (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

If you think my logic is poor, please refute it instead of calling it names. If you think I am wrong, there's no need to bring up POV—just say why. Supposedly we are having a debate over a question of practice; in any such debate, it is natural for one participant to advance one POV, and another participant to attempt to show that it is not valid. So asserting POV when we're having a debate is absurd.

Your question as to why Roach and McNally were wandering around the village together is an interesting one, but suggests that you don't know what it's like to live in New York, or to have a large number of students. It also ignores the point that it is not a violation of Vinaya for a monk to meet with a female student in public, as long as their behavior toward one another is proper. But if you want a serious answer, ask Geshe Michael, not me. I would speculate that it's because they had to in order to find opportunities to meet and talk about their practice. It may be that Christie didn't have her own apartment; it's certainly true that Geshe Michael did not. From the perspective of a wikipedia article, none of this is relevant. He says this is what happened; if it is someone's job to decide whether it was appropriate, that someone is not an editor of this wikipedia article.

As for Dr. Thurman, as a wikipedia editor, I am not obligated to respect him in any way, other than as a potential source. As a fellow practitioner, I would be well advised to listen to what he says, and evaluate it, which I have done. I understand his position, and I understand Geshe Michael's position. I see the logic behind both positions. Dr. Thurman's position doesn't trump Geshe Michael's position due to his fame or whatever. It's just the opinion of a senior practitioner and teacher. For my part, I see no need to make a ruling here. Dr. Thurman's position is interesting, and I do not propose removing it from the article. But you asked me for my reasoning, and I gave it to you. Abhayakara (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The quote by Robert Thurman I have presented twice is not in the article, but should be in my opinion. I'll put it in and begin to edit when I have some reasonable assurance you are not going to delete things as you usually do. I understand your position in human terms, but I do not understand your position as an editor here. The controversy surrounding Michael Roach is based on his behavior. Do you concede this much? He has taken vows. You don't get an exemption from this by living in New York or anywhere else. If the behavior doesn't live up to the vows you cause controversy. The Vinaya was written and vows made to uphold it to avoid controversy in the Sangha of monks and nuns. One is not supposed to wonder or gossip about whether or not any monk on nun is behaving improperly. I have pointed out the Vinaya to you so that you would realize that it is the Vinaya which constrains monks and nuns from commenting on the matter. When it is seen that a monk or nun has failed in their vows and refuses to remove their robes, then the Sangha turns its back on them. This is why there is not a number of Gelugpa monks commenting here. This is how they handle the matter. I have pointed out the comment of Robert Thurman because he is no longer a monk and is not constrained by the Vinaya. “I told him to renounce his monastic vows because under our tradition monks do not keep consorts,” Thurman said. It is that cut and dried. In my opinion you cling to an extreme minority POV. Vritti (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

From the perspective of a Wikipedia article, I think Thurman's quote of what Christie said is a real stretch, because it requires interpretation. She doesn't say "I disagree." She simply says she didn't say it. What does she mean? Is she being modest, or contradicting him? Do you know? I sure don't. But sure, knock yourself out. Be bold. At the same time, don't be offended if I debate you.

I think we're tubing on the Vinaya discussion. I agree with a lot of what you say, but some of the conclusions you draw require you to know what is going on in the mind of another person. Whether you have this ability or not, you are not yourself WP:RS, so from the perspective of a Wikipedia article it doesn't matter what you think about it. Discussions of what you have heard monks say privately likewise have no place here. Abhayakara (talk) 00:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

BTW, if the quote you want to include is the one you quote directly above, I don't have a problem with you including it, because it's essentially the same as what the article says now. However, it's worth noting that it contradicts what His Holiness says. It also seems a little odd: "I told Geshe Michael to ..." Who is Robert Thurman to tell Geshe Michael anything? He's not one of Geshe Michael's lamas, which would be a bare minimum requirement for such an action. So I think you might want to consider the impression that a non-Buddhist reader might have when they come here and read this. Abhayakara (talk) 03:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion

bdb484 (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion.

I think I've got the general flavor of the dispute here, but it would be really helpful if each side could distill their main points into just a few short sentences.

Viewpoint by Nomoskedasticity

In recent years when reliable sources have given coverage to Michael Roach, overwhelmingly that coverage has focused on the events at Diamond Mountain Center that Abhayakara wants to omit here, and also on Roach's relationship/marriage to one of his students (also something Abhayakara wants to minimize and portray in a very particular way, disregarding what the sources we have say about it). It is very much a matter of NPOV to have the article here cover those matters. Abhayakara wants to take the view that these issues are not really about Roach -- but it's the sources (including the NY Times) that are connecting them to Roach, and we should follow the sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm also seeing some mentions about potential COI issues. Is that still an active concern? — Bdb484 (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Viewpoint by Abhayakara

If you look at my edit history, what I've generally tried to do is to minimize reporting on what happened after the marriage was over, because I feel that it's being given undue emphasis, and to minimize gossipy content that I think violates WP:STYLE. Consider for example the article on Nicole Kidman. Why doesn't it mention Penelope Cruz or Katie Holmes? According to User:Nomoskedasticity, a brief mention of Cruise' subsequent marriage would be topical and ought to be included in the article. The bit from the Monk-y business article came up in (IIRC) 2008 when the article was first published. I raised the question as to whether it ought to be in the article on WP:BLPN and several editors said no. It was added back in recently, and I was subsequently accused of POV for re-removing it, despite some agreement that it was still not appropriate on WP:BLPN.

As for Ian's death, the theme in reporting that User:Nomoskedasticity refers to would have to be WP:OR or else would have to appear explicitly in recent articles, so the claim of a long-term trend is unnecessary: either the recent articles support the inclusion of this material, or they don't. I think inclusion of this material is WP:UNDUE because the opinion that it has something to do with Geshe Michael is attributed to one person: Ian's mother. I think including the other material from this article is in conflict with WP:STYLE because of the quality of the article being cited. Furthermore, the whole bit is in conflict with what Wikipedia is not: a newspaper.

I don't have a problem with the marriage section as it exists now. Nobody is denying that Geshe Michael was married to Christie. You can see my debate with User:Vritti on the topic of what this section ought to say above. I think it's an interesting debate. I think that this is being given undue emphasis, but agree that there should be something about it in the article. It used to be that when I tried to add information to correct for POV, whatever I added was removed; that hasn't happened recently, and as a result I think that section is reasonably balanced—it gets across the criticisms of those who disagree with what Geshe Michael has done, but also gets across the reasons why Geshe Michael has done it. It could use a little more explanation from Geshe Michael, but there's been some dispute over whether I'm allowed to reference Geshe Michael's writing on the topic.

Whatever the outcome, thanks for being willing to review this article. BTW, you can see some more discussion of this on WP:COIN. Abhayakara (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Viewpoint by Vritti

Michael Roach was ordained as a monk of the Gelugpa tradition of Buddhism. As a prerequisite for this ordination he took vows to live and behave according to the Vinaya. The Vinaya sets out the rules of behavior and conduct for all Buddhist monks and nuns. Michael Roach secretly married a student and later publicly introduced her as his "tantric consort". He was criticized by the Office of the Dalai Lama and leading Buddhist scholars. Michael Roach has refused to remove his monks robes. The controversy surrounding his status as a monk and failure to observe his Vinaya vows continue to this day. The problem here is that one COI editor and student of Michael Roach continues to remove references to the main controversy on almost any pretext and argue ad infinitum on this talk page. Vritti (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion by bdb484

I see a few issues here, based on the article's current state:

COI: Although it seems that the issue is being handled in greater depth at the COI noticeboard, I'd say that being a student of Michael Roach raises at least minor conflict/POV issues for Abhayakara. I don't believe it to be required by WP guidelines, but it might be better for him to bring edits up on the talk page rather than directly editing the page himself.

Edit warring: It looks like both sides are engaged in at least low-level edit warring. Settling these disputes through the talk page would probably be more productive than endless reversions.

Coatracking: I don't think the McNally/Thorson material -- at least in its current state -- constitutes a coatracking, which is an article that purports to be about one thing but is about another. However, I do think the material presents some other issues, including...

Relevance: The background on the couple's marriage is already getting to the point where I'm fuzzy on whether the amount of detail provided is necessary. That leads to concerns about...

Undue weight: Although we have a WP:RS to verify that the mother sought to blame Roach for her son's death, the fact that she was the only one making that accusation, along with the fact that there wasn't even enough evidence to support opening an investigation into Roach, raises questions for me about the appropriateness of including this material here. It seems roughly analogous to including information about the Clinton Body Count on the Bill Clinton page. Given that there's no evidence or suggestion that Roach actually had anything to do with it, including one grief-stricken parent's unsubstantiated allegation seems inappropriate. I would support removing that entire paragraph.

Relevance, Pt. 2: Content reflecting the incidents described above by Vritti seem to be well within the scope of encyclopedic content. Assuming that they are all cited with reliable sources, I would likely support the inclusion of such material.

— Bdb484 (talk) 00:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

What now?

User:bdb484, thanks for the careful review! User:Nomoskedasticity, comments? Are you willing to concede the point, or are we still at loggerheads? Abhayakara (talk) 02:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

See, this is how it goes with COI editors: you see what you want to see. Yes, it's true that Bdb484 recommended removal. However, what's also true is that at COIN two editors took different views: Olyeller21 expressed support for inclusion, and Uzma Gamal recommended including a single sentence on it. A reasonable compromise position, then, is to include a single sentence on it -- which is what I have now done. I doubt it will satisfy you -- again, that in the nature of having a conflict of interest. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

User:OlYeller21 expressed support for inclusion based on your assertion that this was the only reason why Geshe Michael was notable, which I don't think was what you intended to say, but that's what he or she was responding to. Before you gave him that impression, he or she seemed to think the text didn't merit inclusion. User:Uzma Gamal said that one or two sentences would belong in a much more exhaustive article, but not in the article at its current level of detail. So, whatever, I guess your answer is that yes, we are still at loggerheads on this. Abhayakara (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I supported inclusion if it was shown that Roach's image is synonymous with the death (a majority of articles about him discuss the death). I haven't done my own research and I haven't seen any research that shows anything, either way. I was waiting until some more discussion took place before taking the time to do that.

I don't believe that a single sentence would justify undue weight (unless it's some sort of super-run-on sentence). The death seems to be brought up with at least some frequency when discussing Roach. To go past a single sentence, I think there would need to be research done and presented to show that coverage of Roach mentions the death a majority of the time and I'm doubting that's the case. OlYeller21^Talktome 18:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources currently in use that discuss the death in connection with Roach: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

There are of course others: [12], and several found via Nexis that don't come up in regular GNews searchs -- including one in the IHT and one in Business Insider. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

To speak to your question about prevalence, User:OlYeller21, articles about Michael Roach go back to the early nineties. He's in the acknowledgements section of one book by the Dalai Lama (mid-90's). There was a big flurry of articles about him in 2006-2008 because of the "monk with a partner" controversy. News of Ian's death has made a lot of news in the past month because it's a juicy gossip story, but the fact is that Geshe Michael is mentioned in these articles because of his position at Diamond Mountain, not because he had something to do with the death. What the absolute number of articles is that mention one thing or another, I couldn't say, but I really don't think that a substantial percentage of the literature on Geshe Michael is about Ian. Of course, more recent articles are better represented in search engines... Abhayakara (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's another article, if you want to count articles: [13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhayakara (talk • contribs) 19:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

As a straw poll, can we agree on one sentence? If not, we can go from there. I'd like to get some more input so that I'm not a single tie-breaker if you two disagree. OlYeller21^Talktome 19:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

A single sentence is what I did earlier today -- so yes, I can agree to it. FWIW, I have never pushed for a highly detailed exposition here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Read the two sentences User:Nomoskedasticity added. What do they imply to you in the context in which they are presented? Ask yourself, as a Wikipedia reader who knows nothing about Michael Roach: why does the article mention that Christie and Ian married? Why does it mention that Ian died after being ejected from the retreat? Is it clear to you how this happened? Can you impute some kind of retaliatory intention on the basis of the text as it stands? If so, then the sentence is not merely POV, but leads the reader to a factually inaccurate conclusion.

Now, go back and look at the paragraph as it was. Is this long dissertation on the events relevant? I don't think it is—it's really a story about Christie and Ian, in which Geshe Michael is a bit player. So it belongs in an article about Diamond Mountain, or an article about Christie, or an article about Ian. Not in this article. Again, ask yourself what a Wikipedia reader is going to think when they see this at the end of an article about Geshe Michael. Nobody's saying that what happened was Geshe Michael's doing, but here it is in the article. Why is that? What is the article trying to imply?

So what you should be weighing in the balance is (1) is this relevant; (2) is it being given undue emphasis and (3) what does it imply that's not stated. I don't think User:Nomoskedasticity has any intention to mislead the reader here, but he can't help but mislead the reader if this text is included. So no, it doesn't belong here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhayakara (talk • contribs) 20:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a whole lotta heavy reading. The normal thing to do at Wikipedia is to follow the sources, without layering all sorts of editor interpretation on it. Omitting all mention of this incident is not consistent with NPOV. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure it's more relaxing for you to just not bother to follow the editing guidelines, but in fact writing a wikipedia article in such a way that it implies what is not stated does go against the guidelines. If you think the article should say that Ian's death is Geshe Michael's doing, you should argue that point. Instead, you are arguing that despite the fact that Ian's death was not Geshe Michael's doing, text should be in the article that implies that it was. Abhayakara (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

To not mention Ian Thorson's death in this article would be preposterous, and complete and reprehensible whitewashing. Of course it has bearing on Roach. It's his organization! As has been mentioned before, numerous reputable international media sources have connected it to him. The New York Times has a whole article examining the criticism of Roach related to the incident. We shouldn't even have to have this discussion. It's ridiculous.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Tying it together

I think User:Sylvain1972's recent edit to the section about Ian's death does do a good job of tying it together and uses good neutral language to express the point, so on the whole I think this improves the article. I still think the whole thing is being given undue emphasis, but let's not beat that dead horse. I do however question the new heading. "Criticism" and "controversy" sections are generally advised against in the wikipedia guidelines. I can understand the desire to change the heading, but I think the new heading is not neutral, and ought to be rephrased. Why not just "Death at Diamond Mountain?" It probably also ought not to be a sub-head under "biography," since it's not biographical. Just make it a top-level head. Abhayakara (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not bothered either way, and you're probably right about "criticism" sections. But I'm confused by the idea that the death took place off diamond mountain property but within the retreat boundaries. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Tibetan Buddhist retreats occur within a tsam—the Tibetan word for boundary—which is defined at the time of the retreat. Generally speaking, you want to keep the tsam small enough that people aren't likely to wander into it, but large enough that you can go on walks. Diamond Mountain is a 1000-acre property with a big mountain just outside the property line that belongs to the BLM. I don't actually know if this is where the cave is, but that would be my guess. I am pretty sure that mountain was included in the tsam, because it's an attractive hiking feature, but far enough off the beaten path that it's unlikely anybody not from DM would bother to seek it out—there are much more attractive hiking opportunities nearby at Cochise Stronghold and Chiricahua National Monument. As far as I know, despite the proximity of Fort Bowie National Monument (which is right across the property line from DM on one side), there aren't any developed trails on the mountain. It's quite rugged. There's also quite a bit of land that's to the south of the property but drained by the main wash that runs down the retreat valley; this land is a less rugged hike because you can just go into the wash and walk up it to the top of the ridge. There are also some nice trees up there, which is a rarity in the Sonoran desert. These again are outside the property line on BLM land, ~~that~~ and I think the retreaters would want to be able to hike to there. So I can't give you a definite answer as to exactly where the tsam is, but that's what they mean by "retreat boundary" versus "property line," and that's why they are different. Abhayakara (talk) 20:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

BTW, the violation of Diamond Mountain rules is acknowledged by McNally in her own letter about the incident, which I think people have referred to here in the past. Her letter can't be used as a source in the article because it's also SPS and not by the subject of the BLP, but my point is that it's not a disputed question, and the way you've phrased the text now gives the appearance that it is disputed—you're saying that Geshe Michael is the only person saying this, and you use the word "assertion" instead of "statement," suggesting that it is part of an argument. The letter was published by Diamond Mountain, and I think that unless someone disputes the statement (and no-one has), it's reasonable to take them at their word. Abhayakara (talk) 12:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, while the letter from Geshe Michael is the only source that says that they violated the terms under which they were permitted to be on campus, every other article that's cited here talks about what they did that violated the terms, and it would be somewhat absurd to claim that the terms that they violated were unreasonable, or that the Diamond Mountain board's decision to ask them to leave was unreasonable. Abhayakara (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)