Talk:Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo/Archive 1

Data

Hi, I am beginner here, bear with me as I gather necessary data for this article. Carbo337 17:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Carbo337, what are your intentions for this article with the data you seek? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.141.8 (talk) 04:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What will be relevant for an authentic article will be, where possible, to illustrate Jetsunma's experience and motivation for her accomplishments. This will distinguish from the mission and role illustrated in each organization. ZP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.141.8 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Mandarava

WhHi! I was pleased to see you (from IP address 68.84.141.8) have been working on the Mandarava article. First, do you have a reference which could back up your statement that: "Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo is a Mandarava emanation"? It would be great to be able to insert it as a footnote in both these articles.

The second point is more picky (and not really all that important) and is not meant to be critical, but I noticed you changed 'realised' to 'realized' and 'endeavoured' to 'endeavored'. Now, you may well already know all this - but, just in case, I thought I should point out that both spellings are acceptable - the first example of each of them are standard in almost all of the English-speaking world except the U.S. (in other words, more people use these spelling forms than the American ones) whereas the second forms are the ones most commonly used in the U.S. (and are the forms preferred on the American-based spelling checker in the Wikipedia). I just thought I should mention that those of us who use the older forms often prefer them and sometimes feel annoyed when we regularly have our quite correct forms of words changed to American standards of spelling.

See American and British English spelling differences for more examples if you are interested.

It may sound petty - but I thought I should just mention that there are millions of us out here who do feel some unease about the creeping Americanisms in the language (not to mention in other areas of culture). This is becoming very common now in many ways as computers are usually set to American standards as default in many ways (eg. dates are usually given with month, date, and then the year, whereas the most other English-speaking people use date, month, year in that order. thus, to us, 9/11 should be written 11/9. I think probably the best way is to leave the text with the spellings used by the authors (assuming they are 'correct' and not misspelled). Just a thought. Please don't take it the wrong way. All best wishes, John Hill (talk) 10:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi thanks for the clarifications. Working on further Mandarava references.

I thought my spell checked was doing me a service. I am indifferent about spellings. I won't comment on creepy Americanisms spellings, but I will say English's SVO grammatical structure in not true to the Tibetan's SOV non-dual intentions. I'll have to investigate past creepy English(ism) further. I pray as American's innovate the language, they will restore a greater non-dual intention. Unlikely, but it is a nice ideal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.141.8 (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

ANYONE --- the Mandarava refs have been added, the spelling point taken. This Mandarava section is no longer required. Please delete, I am not to. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as spelling is concerned, the general Wikipedia policy is that we use the spelling conventions for a given country when the subject of the article is specific to that country. So, since the subject of this article is an American person, this would imply that we should use American spelling. I really have no objection to keeping the British spelling instead, but the customary Wikipedia policy is otherwise (this is the reason, for example, that articles on The Beatles and William Shakespeare use British spellings).

By the way, due to the large population of the United States, speakers of American English are actually a sizeable majority of the world's English speakers outside of India (see this chart). So whether "more people use these spelling forms than the American ones" is true depends on how one counts the number of English speakers in India (as I'm sure you're aware, very few people in India speak English as a first language, but it is widely spoken as a second language).—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 21:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Further note

I have just been checking further on this story and wonder if anyone can answer, or speak to, the rather serious allegations raised on the Talk Page of the article on Kunzang Palyul Choling? Thanks, John Hill (talk) 11:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi John, the sources for the history of Kunzang Palyul Choling and Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo are well-documented in a book by Random House, The Buddha From Brooklyn, as well as former members. Longchenpa (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

An excellent source that references criticism expected to arise around Jetsunma is an article titled "What is the Relationship Between Emptiness and Beautiful Nails" by Editor in Chief Andrew Cohen from What is Enlightenment? magazine, http://www.wie.org/j16/jetsunma.asp accessible on their website. Coorcomm26 (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your help with this. I have just read the article by Andrew Cohen and found it of great interest. I will try to get a copy of the book "The Buddha from Brooklyn" as I would like to know more about Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo (and be able to discuss her as an emanation of Manadarava with some real knowledge). So, thanks again! All bes wishes, John Hill (talk) 03:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. The Buddha From Brooklyn was originally supposed to promote Jetsunma and KPC, with her and her students' full cooperation. But the author was a Washington Post Reporter whose mentor was Bob Woodward (he wrote a blurb for the cover). So the reporter also spoke to critics and former members. The depth of reporting and documentation that resulted was fair-minded, but not comfortable for Jetsunma or KPC. Longchenpa (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi John, there is a reference to Jetsunma's emanation recognition now. (All, Any help to reference the reference would be appreciated.) Also, I do not believe Jetsunma endorses the book you seek. It is interesting however, I find myself asking about the author's intentions.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 01:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

And of course, listening to Jetsunma's teachings that she has given is another way to learn more about her. Coorcomm26 (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I like the new material on Jetsunma's accomplishments. This puts me on a quest for her root teaching that inspired these efforts. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. Who added this early days fantasy information? Longchenpa (talk) 05:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Fantasy? It's from the WIE article referenced above. Coorcomm26 (talk) 05:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to read the article. Is it available online? The details presented were a gloss of actual events. ETA: I've read it. This is a puff piece and the author says, "I don't know all the facts of Jetsunma's story." I prefer well-researched facts. Longchenpa (talk) 06:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Longchempa I hope you are being carefully towards Wikipedia:No_original_research with someone else's research or fantasy, Wiki folks have a preference for original research. If someone wants to read a referenced book, they can buy it. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't prefer to having my original work cut out with out a valid reference or reason.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Zulu, WP's Wikipedia:No_original_research states that "Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing, publicizing or promoting original research in any way." Citing sources is what is done here at WP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Longchenpa (talk • contribs) 10:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, so please don't "promote or publicize" someone else book so much, with so many citations. It might be best to focus on the source teachings.

It's good when Wiki work is created from other wiki citations in a collaborative non-bias way. Which is what I was working on, when you cut out my passage, without a singe reason why or meaningfully contribution. (sorry if I missed it) I was seararching for a source for what I wrote. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Buddhism Series

I've reinstated this article to the Buddhism series, because it fits in the scope and is relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZuluPapa5 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

War Cry

I moved War Cry to its own page so as not to clutter the article and it was speed deleted by wiki folks. I suspect the best way to publish this work is to host it and with a link. I feel having it in the main article with out permission may be a copywright violation. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it took up too much space. I'll see if I can put it in a table. Longchenpa (talk) 10:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This may not be the reason why it was deleted but please note this policy Wikipedia:Attack_page Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Good Grief

Longchempa you must supply "Edit Summary"'s for your actions. Else they might be misinterpreted. I hope the reason you are omitting these is not that you are lazy or have avarice not to share by nature.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"I hope the reason you are omitting these is not that you are lazy or have avarice not to share by nature"? I beg your pardon? Please no ad hominem attacks in the discussion page. The purpose of the page is to discuss the article, not the relative merits of the people editing the article. Longchenpa (talk) 06:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That's fair, when folks explain their purpose then there's no need for accusations. The Dali Lama quote was cherry picked, and after the arrest. However, it extremely relevant to put the Buddhist perspectives on violence in balance, in particular the vajrayana approach with guru yoga So are the wrathfully deities passage I presented. Wikipedia deserves a whole article on Buddhist perspective on violence.

The material I placed can be further developed, I ask for your help here. It is referenced and relevant for a balanced section. I intend to restore it again, and if required ask for a 3rd party review.

It is also relevant to say that the monastics did not press charges, which is what I remember. Why you have omitted this, is beyond me? Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the monastics absolutely did press charges. The court hearing was in the fall of 1996: The state of Maryland vs. Zeoli, Alyce. (Please note that the Maryland police will not make an arrest unless the complainant agrees to press charges.) Longchenpa (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok .. sorry I was wrong. What was the outcome of the case? This is relevant.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

A no contact order. Longchenpa (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed "Lopsided" Tag from Arrest Section

Lopsided does not apply. A fact verified through the Maryland State's Attorney, a magazine article, and a book from a publisher as reputable as Random House written by a former Washington Post reporter (with a blurb from Bob Woodward on the dust jacket) -- containing interviews from Jetsunma, her current students, and former members to verify events -- is by definition confirmed through multiple sources on all sides of the issue. A well-established unflattering fact does not equal "lopsided." Longchenpa (talk) 06:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Any student of fairness would say the unflatteringly accused deserves a voice to balance the section, do you agree Longchenpa? Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not an accusation, it is a documented fact. There were over 30 witnesses, the monastics had a copy of the police report which listed the arrest, the state's attorney confirmed the arrest, there is a notification of the court case The State of Maryland vs. Zeoli, Alyce sent to all parties involved, and angry letters from students who witnessed the assault that mention the assault. Longchenpa (talk) 19:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Having only court facts to a specific charge, really doesn't give the whole picture, does it? I mean dharma, karma and Tibetan Buddhism preexists courts and lawsZulu Papa 5 (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Only court facts? This is WP. Historical documentation of this nature is valued. Longchenpa (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed various minor problems + comments

Folks, please be aware that external linking from the text of the article is not permitted. If something is simply an external link, it should go under external links. If it is a reference, it should either be a bare link (w/o text) following the statement it supports, or it should be enclosed in ref tags.

Next, heading capitalization rules: Only the first word of a heading and proper nouns should be capitalized.

Also, I have a comment about the inclusion of poetry. Unless the subject has been reviewed as a poet, her poetry is not notable and should not be quoted. If there are however suitable reviews to cite, information about her poetry would be more informative than quotes. In general, only people who are primarily known as poets have their poetry quoted in their articles. Curious Blue (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it should be put in context then. It was written in response to a student who refused to be Jetsunma's consort, citing that he was already married and it would be upsetting to his children. ETA: Come to think of it, this happened twice, once in 1994 or 95, and again in 1996. Longchenpa (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Can this be documented from reliable sources? If not, it may be in conflict with the policy on biographies of living people. Note that neither party involved, neither Jetsunma or the student, would be considered a reliable source. It would have to be reported by a third party and not self-published. Curious Blue (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, definitely. The Buddha From Brooklyn has details, then Will Blythe touches on it in Mirabella magazine, and Pico Iyer makes reference to it as well in Tricycle. Longchenpa (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting context. It would be best to link to a outside hosted source of the Poem. Again, having a balanced referenced statement would be stronger. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Curious Blue, sorry for the late response, see other talking points below, you may have misapplied reliable sources. Either Jetsunma or the student are the most reliable primary source, particularly if the info is by a reputable publisher. "Self-published" is when the source is the only party involved in the generation and publication.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yab-yum = yidam as consort

Sorry Curious Blue .. in the context of Yab-yum, Mandarava is yidam and consort to Padmasambhava. I hope I am not missing something about tantra here. This ref is foundational to Tibetan tantra. I will be adding a sentence to restore these references. Thanks for clarifying "one of" Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Not true. I'm fairly well versed. Yidam is the meditational form of deity. It might occasionally be used in reference to a male practitioner arisen in the form of the deity. Dakini would be more correct. The female emanations of Guru Rinpoche are Dakini. While Dakini are certainly a form of Yidam, the words are not and should not be used interchangably. In any case, the word Yidam does not equal consort. Curious Blue (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. This use of yidam appears to be a conflation of the khandro in "lama, yidam, khandro" from kye-rim practice, the fact that Mandarava was Padmasambhava's consort, with the fact that Mandarava was a dakini (kha' 'gdro). Mandarava was not a meditational deity for Padmasambhava. Longchenpa (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I am to be educated .. if Mandarava was not a yidam for Padmasambhava, then who was?Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

In general understanding, the eight forms of Padmasambhava are his yidam. He gave many additional yidam practices, such as Hayagriva, Guhyasamaya, etc. A Yidam is not a person. A person may take on the form of a Yidam. The Guru is considered to be both Yidam and Dakini to the practitioner, and they work on arising in both forms. A consort is neither and in fact is not necessary, the practitioner arises in yab-yum form in visualization. Consorts then "fit into" each other's visualisation, but unless each practitioner is complete in themselves manifesting both Yidam and Dakini, using physical yab-yum is useless. But please don't confuse the planes. Just because the yidam is in yab-yum form doesn't mean that the consort is referred to as the Yidam. A female consort is a Dakini. Padmasambhava had many, thus the seven-line prayer, but the main TWO were Yeshe Tsogyal and Mandrava. Saying that the term Yidam means consort is simply incorrect, it does not. Curious Blue (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

So the logic is yidam and/or (i.e. XOR) consort and not yidam = consort, correct? They were yidam to each other, but no necessary at the same time. And thus XOR creates a non-dual union. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I am at a loss to explain this to you. You seem to have a very deep misunderstanding of what the yidam actually is. The relationship with the yidam is independent of the relationship with the consort. The yidam is an enlightened being with whom one identifies during meditation. Yes, some yidam are in yab-yum form, some are not. When the yidam is yab-yum, it is not a reference to a physical consort but to the male and female energies of the individual. The confusion could arise because sometimes yidam-dakini is used in the same way as yab-yum. When this is the case, yidam refers to the male deity/practitioner and dakini to the female deity/practitioner. The term yidam would really never be used to refer to a female practitioner even as a consort. When you are talking about the physical level, you use physical terms, people are consorts of each other. The only person who could be considered to be equivalent to ones yidam would be ones Guru. One might visualize ones male consort as in the form of the yidam, one might visualize ones female consort as in the form of the dakini, but to say because of that the consort is the yidam would be a misnomer. It's a matter that two different planes of being are being described here. Yes, when all is well, there is no difference, but that doesn't mean that you can call water ice and ice water. Curious Blue (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is a personal misunderstanding on Zulu's part. Ahkon Lhamo teaches with strings of "is" statements: "Guru Rinpoche is the Buddha, is the Lama, is Yidam..." etc. I've heard nothing of her describing Mandarava in this fashion, but I wouldn't be surprised. That doesn't make it accurate by any means, but in that case the confusion is understandable. If this is where this definition of yidam came from, then Zulu just needs to find a veriable source to support this definition. I don't think there is one, but it's worth a look on her part. Longchenpa (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Zulu, a question. Does Ahkon Lhamo teach that Mandarava is Padmasambhava's yidam? Longchenpa (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I've heard no such teaching from Jetsunma, nor have I asked. I appreciate the differences in forms. This is what, in part, creates duality, yes? I've been making inductions from the ordinary representation following the logic: Yidam is a meditational form, consort is a physical form. With to Yab-yum being a meditational yidam of guru and consort unity. If it's possible for guru to be yidam, than it's possible for consort to be yidam too. Am I to be accused of an original thought, or and enlightened realization or just being ordinary? No, I must of obtained this perspective from something else I read. Maybe I am missing something, but what's so offensive about Mandarava being Padmasambhava's yidam? Would their not be a non-dual unity in physical form and meditational form, if so.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's what is called WP:original research on Wikipedia. Basically, what I'm saying it, this is not the way the words are used in the literature. Wikipedia has to be based on sources. Unless a source can be cited which defines the usage in this way, you are simply putting personal opinion or views into what is supposed to be an objective article.

What is offensive about saying that Mandarava is Padmasambhava's Yidam is twofold. 1) by doing so, you are saying the Mandarava is the guru or initiator of Padmasambhava when the history clearly has it the other way. It completely corrupts the clarity of who is the transmitter and who is the receiver and thus devalues lineage which is an essential element of Tibetan Buddhism. 2) you are implying the Mandrava is male. Curious Blue (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

What you say makes sense to me, except that I have to better appreciate a non-dual union, to me that implies equality. Thanks for the clarification. I also have to appreciated how a guru can be yidam, except if female? Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, a guru is both yidam and dakini to their students. As a guru, Jetsunma would indeed be the yidam to her students who had received the requisite level of transmission. But not to the average Wikipedia reader. As for equality, male is not equal to female. This is not to say one is superior to the other, they simply have have different qualities. It's be kinda hard to practice tantra if male and female weren't different. Curious Blue (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, like the union of wisdom and compassion. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 04:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes yidam is a meditational form and yes it does not necessary equal consort. While in yab-yum if they were not in yidam with eachother, then I fear there was no tantric practice. yab-yum is a mutual yidam form.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

See above. Curious Blue (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

In response to "The Guru is the Buddha, the Guru is the Lama, the Guru is the Yidam, etc.", yes, this is typical of Tibetan Buddhism. The problem is that this is an "in-universe" point of view. The Guru is only these things to his students. He is not a Yidam to the average encyclopedia reader; he is not even the same Yidam to each of his students. So this is an artifact of belief and not an absolute equivalence. It shouldn't be used in the article as if it were an absolute truth. It is a matter of faith. Curious Blue (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Steven Segal

I thought the Steve Segal material was developing well, however with damaging intentions. It would be better in another article, If not Segal than XOR Lama Orgyen Kusum Lingpa XOR HH Penor R. XOR Segal.

I'll have to restore HHPR's statement as a primary source.

In 1997 H.H. Penor Rinpoche along with Orgyen Kusum Lingpa[1] were criticized for recognizing actor Steven Seagal as tulku terton Chungdrag Dorje.[2][3] While Hollywood accused Seagal of "[buying] his title like a feudal baron" [4] Penor Rinpoche explained in a public statement that he did not receive or seek a donation from Seagal. Following the four-year international furor His Holiness Penor Rinpoche retired from his previous position as head of the Nyingma lineage, selecting His Holiness Mindroling Trichen Rinpoche as his successor.[5]

Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I doubt there was a market made for title, meaning it was never offered for sale or asked for in exchange for money. Hence, non-dual intentions on both sides. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've taken it out again. It is off-topic, it is not about the subject and does not contribute to the subject.

Also, please do not revert to previous versions of the article, you wipe out other changes to the article. In this case you undid my considered change to a heading, and another editor's correction of a date. Please move forward by adding material to or removing material from the current article. Also, do not work on a local copy on your own computer, as this looks like a revert if other people make changes while you are editing your local copy. Reverting other editors changes tends to upset them. As for the Steven Seagal stuff, you are using it to imply things to support your positive view of the subject. It is not directly related to or about the subject of this article and unless you can connect it with cited material (not original research or opinion as you have expressed above) it does not belong in this article, but rather in the articles about Penor Rinpoche and/or Seagal. Curious Blue (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That's true, the way it is written there's an implicit rather than explicit connection. I think Will Blythe's article made the explicit connection between Seagal and Jetsunma's recognitions. Let me look into it. Longchenpa (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if a citable source makes an explicit connection, that's something that could be included in the article. I'd have no objection to that. Curious Blue (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, found it. It wasn't Will Blythe, it was Pico Iyer who made the connection in Tricycle. Longchenpa (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Poetry

I've removed the poem. A class handout is not a verifiable source. If the poem is included in a book, magazine or newspaper then we could discuss returning it with a better source. However, since she is not known as a poet and there are I assume no reviews or discussion of her poetry in a reliable source, I think it had better be left out. Curious Blue (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Curious Blue. It's also in the Buddha From Brooklyn on page 294-297. I'll update the source. And be patient, I'll add more context soon. Longchenpa (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The poetry tag looks much better. I'll see if there's a way to create a table that doesn't have visible cells and use the poetry tag inside that. Longchenpa (talk) 03:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Using some sort of div tag to create two columns would be better, I think, but I don't know how to do that. Curious Blue (talk) 03:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Whew. That was a learning curve. As of tonight, I now know how to do tables. If you're curious, you use --

< table >

< tr >

< td > stuffstuffstuffcolumn1 < /td>

< td > stuffstuffstuffcolumn2 < /td>

< td > stuffstuffstuffcolumn3 < /td>

< /tr >

< /table >

The td tag has all the good stuff like < td valign = "top" width = "200" >. Took me forever to figure out that I had to put < poem > tags around the stuffstuffstuff, i.e., < td > < poem > stuffstuffstuffcolumn1 < /poem> < /td> for each column. Longchenpa (talk) 07:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Dakini citation

Is this really required, I mean isn't Jetsunma a dakini by tulku and mandarava as defined. Likewise, she's a Bodhisattva by definition. Having these terms refenced in the article brings in greater context. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess the Bodhisattva definition is a difference between schools.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to the original phrasing as that's how it's described within her circles. The current phrasing needs a citation to demonstrate that that is how she is viewed within the tradition. She is a highly controversial personage. Longchenpa (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I am realizing there is quite a controversy, mostly between Tibetan schools and lineages. Perhaps over issues that caused the new schools to form. I appreciate scholars, and am happy to have found the Vajrayana path. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 04:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There are conflicting views between lineages, yes, but in this case I'm referring to the controversy specific to Ahkon Lhamo that hit US national media between 1996 and 2001. Penor Rinpoche's criticism of her not supporting her monks has also been well-reported through reliable sources. Longchenpa (talk) 05:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

What kind of support do you mean, she teaches, yes? Would you, they or HHPR expect her to print her own money for support? Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm here to discuss the article, not to argue with you. What Penor Rinpoche said to Ahkon Lamo in his 1996 letter was that his first priority was always taking care of his monks and nuns, making sure that they were fed and housed and receiving teachings. What he does is travel around the world and use the donations he receives to do just that. That's the norm in Tibetan Buddhism. Longchenpa (talk) 08:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh. I should make sure of something first -- I'm assuming you're a current student of Ahkon Lhamo's. Does she still have the $100,000 a year salary, or has that since been reduced? Additionally, do the monks and nuns at KPC still work full-time jobs, or is she now supporting a monastery with her salary? Longchenpa (talk) 09:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thankfully, I have no sight into Jetsunma's finances. And, I am not aware of any school where the teacher financially supports the students. Nor could I see how monastics could be sponsored by Jetsunma. It would be great if there were such sponsorship, but it would likely arrive from new folks, and by the monastic's efforts. Now, I have run into gratefully and ungrateful students. I do realize that Jetsunma's heath and welfare is most important to the linage. So to me it seems there are monastics who want financial support, likewise it seams they have to look else where, like having their own income source. It may be unfair to compare the economic context between Penor Rinpoche and Jetsunma, because she's in the unique position of being a house holder. Seems like the economics associated with Jetsunma's sangha makes the path that more challenging, hence many have fallen off, or taken a break to sooth their passions.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

So you don't know her current salary. That's too bad. Usually in Tibetan Buddhism most of the donors give their offerings to the Lama (lay or ordained, there are planty of lay Lamas in Nyingma) and then the Lama uses it to support the monks and nuns. At KPC, the monks and nuns work full-time and pay Ahkon Lhamo a $100,000 a year salary. Longchenpa (talk) 10:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the current form of the citation, I would agree with the content, but we can't use Ahkon Lhamo's teachings as the source. I believe I can easily find quotes from outside media to support what you have there. Not even her harshest critic would argue with that statement. Longchenpa (talk) 05:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Catagory Removal

Relavant catagories where removed from this article. There's greater referenced value to the article in having them then not having them. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, these are matters of belief, not objective categorization. If you look at the categories in question, they are under the supercategory Category:Buddhist deities, bodhisattvas, and demons. You will also note that none of the articles in the categories Category:Bodhisattvas, or Category:Yidams are living people. They are iconographical deities. Even the Dalai Lama is not included. Mixing things up like that is not useful, because every lama is a manifestation of some deity, and we would not be able to find the sets of canonical Boddhisattvas, Yidams, Buddhas etc. if we muddied the categories in this way! Curious Blue (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point ... however to me, categorizing lama's by their deity makes an excellent clarifying cross-reference. The canonical sets would be a greater categorization Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Too fine grained for the Wikipedia category system. Plus most Lamas transmit multiple deities. School is about as good as we get... Curious Blue (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Technically, Ahkon Lhamo can't transmit any dieties because she can't give wangs. She never received any formal training in the lineage. As she put it, she was just "stuck up on the throne without a manual." Longchenpa (talk) 02:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

What are these Wangs, never heard of them before? My understanding is the only requirement necessary is a qualified teachers permission. Come to think of it, Jetsunma doesn't seem to lead the "formal" transmissions anyway. That makes her's all the more special. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 04:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

In order to be qualified to practice a yidam practice, one must receive empowerment or initiation, called wang (lineage transmission of blessing and energy), as well as lung (the oral transmission -- a recitation of the procedural text or manual) and tri (instructions on how to do the practice). A lot more detail can be found here. Curious Blue (talk) 05:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Wang (dbang) is the Tibetan word for empowerment. You may just know the English word. Longchenpa (talk) 05:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Limited view Curious Blue Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure it's possible. There is some argument on Wikipedia about when categories are appropriate vs. lists. Also, even for putting a teacher into a category, one has to have a reliable source. This strikes me as the type of category that is likely to be successfully nominated for deletion, thus I wouldn't put any energy into it myself. Curious Blue (talk) 01:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There may be a may mis-understanding, I didn't mean give the teacher their own category.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 04:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Quote from Penor Rinpoche

I removed the quote from Penor Rinpoche because in the article referenced it's not said by him, but by Ahkon Lhamo. Also, it's out of context. The other possibility is to leave the quote in and contrast it to what he has said that has been verified in the press through multiple sources, including Tenzin Chopak who translated a letter Penor Rinpoche sent to her in 1996. Longchenpa (talk) 06:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we cannot take the subject of the article as a reliable source for another's words. If the quote were from the writings of Penor Rinpoche or reported by an independent third party, that would be different. Curious Blue (talk) 06:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You can if you practice guru yoga. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to have gotten the nature of an encyclopedia. All facts must be verifiable by the average reader by recourse to reliable printed (or web hosted) material. Curious Blue (talk) 04:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and in a Biography, the subject is the only true root source to verify, since all originated with them. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Not true. Using autobiographical sources is discouraged because they are rarely objective. See WP:AUTO. Curious Blue (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:AUTO does not apply, none of us claim to be the articles subject.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Using autobiographical materials is WP:AUTO. She is not a reliable source for a quote about herself from Penor Rinpoche. Longchenpa (talk) 16:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Again you misapply WP:AUTO which is intended for editing by the article's source, which none of us are. The quote comes from a verified and attributed source. You comments smacks of "Original Research". Tell me how she is not a reliable source for what her teacher says to her? Or tell me why the quote is not from a reliable source. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

HHPR Quote

I am finding the HHPR quote all the more interesting, yes it should be attributed to the guru and student.

Jetsunma reported that her guru His Holiness Penor Rinpoche once said: "Because I have recognized you and I have the right and the responsibility to do so, there will never be any conflict with any Tibetan teacher or practitioner who knows who I am. But," he said, "actually, your own kind, the Westerners, will probably crucify you."

Wow, what an great American story Jetsunma has accomplished. What a track record of broken promises made by her trusting students that she has endured.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Tibetans are much harder on her than the Americans. They're very sarcastic about the Mandarava recognition and gossipy about how young Ahkon Lhamo's lovers are. As for the quote, at best it's a very loose paraphrase, or misremembered, at the very worst it's a fabrication. Penor Rinpoche's English isn't good enough to come up with a highly marked word like "crucify." Longchenpa (talk) 09:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess you were there for the direct teacher student transmission for the quote? It can be credited as appropriate. I'll believe that the Tibetans had a much harder time in establishing the tradition. America's, credit availability, and modern technology is allowing Jetsunma to accomplish in one lifetime, what took a few lifetimes for some Tibetans to accomplish. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

She showed up at Namdroling monastery with a film crew doing a documentary of herself. I'm sure you can imagine why the Tibetans were less than impressed.

I checked it out. That quote from Penor Rinpoche is at best a misquote. He could not have said it in English, and could not have said it in Tibetan. I've spoken with him, and his English is at a "tourist phrasebook" level. He has some vocabulary but it's mapped onto Tibetan grammar. He's unlikely to know the word "crucify" and the grammar of that quote is too accurate for him to have said it himself in English. As for his saying it in Tibetan, Tibetan doesn't have the word "crucify." There is a modern, little-used awkward translation of a Christian concept that means something along the lines of "kill-on-wood-cross" but nothing that implies criticism. Longchenpa (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for investigating this alleged misquote. As written, Jetsunma's quote is verifiable. At very best, it a lost in translation issue with accidental incorrect rephrasing and out of context. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 06:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

We can verify that she said it. We just can't verify that Penor Rinpoche said it. So we can't use it as a quote from Penor Rinpoche. We can only say that "According to Ahkon Lhamo, Penor Rinpoche said that..." Longchenpa (talk) 08:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree ... this quote is very relevant now I would like to add it to the Recognition as Tulku section. As well, on You Tube .. there is live video of HHPR in India with directly translated statements about her recognition. I will be looking for a few translated quotes to add from this.207.188.250.60 (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

We can't quote him as saying it, only that she said he said it. As for looking for translations, hmm. Please be aware of the restriction on original research. For example, the original copy of the poem War Cry had to be removed because I had it from a KPC handout. That was considered original research. It went back in once I found it quoted in its entirety in The Buddha From Brooklyn. Longchenpa (talk) 07:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources

See Wikipedia:No_original_research seems to me there's a misunderstanding about Original Research among the editors here. Particularity with what makes a "reliable source". I would interpret what occurred with the poem is you had a "primary source" that was challenged and then had to find a "secondary source". For someone to challenge a continuously recorded video statement on the basis of who produced it, well that would be truly unbelievable. I suppose a translator could challenged the translation, that would extend the verification barrier.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Curious Blue already went through the "reliable source" debate with you last December. I refer you to the discussion above.

If you have a source in Tibetan, you can send it to me and I can check it. Just let me know. But it's got to be in the media and publically available, say, a Tibetan newspaper interview. It can't be a class transcript.

I noticed you put it back in. I've taken the quote out. It's just too unreliable. Do we really want a paragraph concerning what Penor Rinpoche has said about her? That would be an entire new section. Longchenpa (talk) 05:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

please cite your specific wikipedia policy —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZuluPapa5 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:AUTO. You've had it cited to you by Curious Blue above, discussing this same subject. Longchenpa (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:AUTO does not apply. None of us claim to be the article's subject. I am not finding your arguments that the quote is unreliable to be convincing. The quote is verified and properly attributed. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a quote from her, not Penor Rinpoche. She is not a reliable source for information about herself. WP:AUTO applies. Longchenpa (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

We will have to call in an arbitrator, WP:AUTO does not apply, the quote is not self-published.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point of WP:AUTO. The question is the reliability of the source. Penor Rinpoche did not say it, she did. We can't say that he said it, or imply that he said it, when we don't know that he said it. It's incredibly unlikely that he did given that he does not have the English ability to use such highly marked language as "crucify," nor does he have a mastery of English colloquialisms exhibited in this quote. Longchenpa (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The point of WP:AUTO is is applies to self-editors which has not occurred here. This is a biography not an autobiography. So until it does .. you will have to cite other policy. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

HHPR Video Quote

"When I first traveled to the United States and I met Jetsunma, and on that occasion I noticed that she had developed in her mind stream a very great development of the Bodhicitta, the awakened mind and that she had taken the vow to work for the welfare of all parent sentient beings according to the meaning of the awakened mind."

Here's what I have to start .. will work to verify and attribute. see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzL-4K9k-9g Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 01:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Template

I'm thinking that this article is now fairly well developed and that the editors involved have all learned something about what is and is not appropriate in an encyclopedia article. I think we can take the "under development" template off the article now. Does anyone object? Curious Blue (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we should leave it on until tomorrow. I still have the Steven Seagal bit to add and a couple new sections. Longchenpa (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am in no hurry, but I believe that the template is simply intended to be used while an editor is in the middle of an extensive editing session to prevent edit conflicts and not for longer term use. Curious Blue (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not editing existing sections much at this point, but I am adding some entirely new sections. I think the banner is still appropriate for the time being. Longchenpa (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No objection, I appreciate the extra talk to clarify a few things. Would request that folks keep-up summerizing their changes.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is now fairly well developed. Unless anyone objects, the under development template can be taken off the article. Longchenpa (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Monastery

I believe this section should be moved to Kunzang Palyul Choling. While Jetsunma's salary is indeed appropriate here, these details have more to do with the organization. Curious Blue (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

All righty. It will need some rewriting to fit the KPC entry. Longchenpa (talk) 01:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Undue Weight

This article is quickly approaching the Undue Weight criteria Wikipedia:NPOV#Undue_weight, with regards to "Sherrill, Martha. The Buddha From Brooklyn, Random House 2001" source and a Neutral Point of View. I fear Wikipedia:Tendentious editing is underway.

Really, the whole book can be summarized into one appropriate entry, as Exposé (journalism) at Jetsunma's expense. It would be good to reorganize the book review into one single section. Folks can buy the book if they want too.

"Scandal is gossip made tedious by morality" - Oscar Wilde

I also found this interesting. Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic I have to take a break the next couple of days myself. Cheers!

Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

As I interpret undue weight, it would not be possible to give that book undue weight, since it is the primary mainstream-published biography of the subject. Curious Blue (talk) 04:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Random House is a very reputable publisher, and you've referenced Martha Sherrill yourself: check the author of the Ms. Magazine article. Clearly you must consider her a worthwhile author. As for labeling Sherrill's book mere exposé journalism: Those facts are taken directly from quoted conversations with Ahkon Lhamo and her students. No one disputed the facts presented in the book, only the lack of vajrayana view. That's an unrealistic expectation of a non-Buddhist journalist, and a journalistic even-handed view is what is expected in WP. Yet I would consider her perspective very Mahayana:

"I realized that I would never know the truth about Jetsunma, whether she was a good leader or a very bad one. And I realized I was sad. Someday, maybe not tomorrow or next month, or even next year, but someday, I would have to stop going out to Poolesville. Someday it would be over, and that already made me sad. And as the water swirled and the shore of Maryland grew closer, I thought about devotion and what it means. There is nobility in sacrifice -- any sacrifice." pg 368

This is not an expose. Not by any means. If you haven't read it, you should. ETA: if any of the facts are inaccurate, feel free to correct them with appropriate supporting documentation. Longchenpa (talk) 07:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight because Martha Sherrill's book offers a single minor view, as she authored it. Unlike Wiki which integrates many edited views. I apprecaite the lesson the book offers. It illustrates the challenges in establishing American vajrayana. I hope I am not disputing the book, the living subject would have to have cause for liable to do so. The book summary belongs into one single section entry, with appropriate qualifications. It's a single well qualified source, not the complete story for the articles bulk. To make this article from this book, could lead to changing the article tile to be appropriate to the book. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not the way it works. A Wikipedia article will reflect the sources in proportion to how widely available they are. This article will mostly consist of information from the one mainstream biography with the addition of material or views from less comprehensive or less widely distributed materials. The Wikipedia point of view is that reputable publishers like Random House will have already vetted the material to exclude potential libel. This is one of the reasons that self-published materials by anyone other than the subject cannot be used. And any material written by the subject can only be used insofar as it is not contentious or self-serving. The article may not be primarily based on such autobiographical material, see WP:SELFPUB. Curious Blue (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that my current fellow editors are missing my point. The way it works is that there are multiple sources for a wiki article. Martha's book deserves its own section. I'll write it again. if I have to. ...... I am sensing a particular prejudice here to exclude quotes from the article's source. Look at other biographic articles and you will find quotes from the subject. You are going to have to cite specific policy to convince me. Prejudice is extreme cause for concern, I suggest folks reevaluate their position on including quotes from the article's subject. I haven't investigated, however there are wiki procedure to exclude folks from contributing to articles. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

WP is not in the business of suppressing well-documented, well-established facts. I may have misread you, but you seem to be suggesting that anyone who doesn't represent your perspective -- documented, carefully cited or not -- should be excluded from editing this entry. That is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Longchenpa (talk) 10:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Since you brought it up, I looked into the policies regarding blocking users.

While I have not violated them, you may want to expand your edits outside of promoting Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo. I do note that around the time you suggested blocking me, you edited a few pages on erectile disfunction. Prior to that however, you added the Kunzang Palyul Choling prayer vigil to the Suffering page (where it was deleted), added Ahkon Lhamo to the Mandarava page (where it was moved from the opening paragraph) and added Mandarava to the List of Buddhists, then added Ahkon Lhamo to the Dakini page (where it was questioned), added a YouTube video of Ahkon Lhamo to the Bodhicitta page (where it was removed), added Ahkon Lhamo to the Buddhism in the United States page (where it remains). Right after you added Terton Migyur Dorje stupa to the page here, you added Migyur Dorje to the Tertons page. While we all have a certain range of interests and knowlege, it isn't the aim of WP to promote any particular persons or products. Longchenpa (talk) 06:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I like these policies Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons Wikipedia:Avoiding harm Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in this article is a disputed fact. It is all confirmed through reputable mainstream sources (Mirabella, Random House, Tricycle). It's all widely known. The information covers a 20-year period from 1980 through 2000, where we have most of our documentation, with no one fact dominating. Longchenpa (talk) 10:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Salary

Hi guys, I am entirely new here, this is my first post of any sort, so i wanted to start with somthing smallish...

I was reading the bit on Jetsunma's salary (stated as 100,000 dollars as of 92). Now using the Do No Harm criteria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoiding_harm I do not feel that this is 1) Pertinent to a discussion upon her in a Biographical Setting 2) Known through Numerous Well Documented Sources and 3) I suspect it could be constued very negetively... I cite the first four or so paragraphs of the above link...

Information about a notable living individual can be divided broadly into two categories: public and nonpublic information. Generally speaking, nonpublic information consists of private details about an individual that have not been published in the mainstream media and are not widely known. In most cases, Wikipedia articles should not include such information; Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and we are not in the business of "outing" people or publishing revelations about their private lives, whether such information is verifiable or not. As Wikipedia has a wider international readership than most individual newspapers, and Wikipedia articles tend to be permanent, it is important to use sensitivity and good judgment in determining whether a piece of information should be recorded for posterity.

In some cases, there is some question as to whether a particular piece of information is public or nonpublic, e.g. where it has been published in reliable sources, but it is doubtful whether it belongs in an article. In such cases, the potential harm to the subject should be taken into account; an inclusion test can be applied in these instances

1) Is the information already widely known? If it has appeared in numerous mainstream reliable sources over an extended period of time, then it is probably suitable to be included in the article. If the information has only appeared in a few tabloid sources, local newspapers, or websites of dubious quality, or has only been the subject of fleeting and temporary coverage, then it is not appropriate to include it.

Now assuming her Salary was in the buddha from brooklyn book (of which I am unaware) the book is now terribly out of date, is cited as from only one source, and I would think that her salary would fall under nonpublic information... I just don't see how this section is pertinent really. I won't remove it myself until i hear some feedback, but I thought it would bear some working out.

Ndwmusicman (talk) 08:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, her salary is widely known. It appeared in Mirabella magazine whose circulation is 600,000 people, The Buddha From Brooklyn by Random House which has gone through two printings in both hardcover and paperback, and it was in Tricycle magazine (the main Buddhist review) circulation 60,000, and it also appeared in the Washington Post Magazine, circulation 750,000 people.

In magazines and newspapers alone this information has been made available 1,410,000 people. Random House is a very large publisher so two printings is no small run.

However, if you know her current salary and can cite widely known sources for it, you may add that. It would not be acceptable to delete the 20-year history of her salary from 1980 through 2000.Longchenpa (talk) 06:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Fraud allegations

I'm not sure you want to open the door to a broader interpretation of "reliable source," not given the current fraud investigation and Lama Tenpa's public statement that Ahkon Lhamo and KPC have been engaged in " REDACTED " The REDACTED is new, but this is not the first time Ahkon Lhamo has been accused of using a 501(c)3 organization for her own personal profit, and two of those sources are in the media. You should be aware that I have been very gentle, considering. Longchenpa (talk) 04:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you need a page number to indicated where she is accused of using a 501(c)3 organization to enrich herself, as well as her means of avoiding paying taxes? I've "unredacted" what is well established from her own former CPA in Mirabella magazine. I've left in the "redactions" concerning [-- -- --] and [-- -- --] however (blank spaces mine). We'll see what surfaces over time. This is all new, from March 13th of this year. Longchenpa (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sure I want to establish KPC and Palyul Productions as verified sources of information about the articles subject. Jetsunma does not "self-publish" information from these organizations. Does 207.188.250.60 (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)anyone have verified information to establish that these organizations provide unreliable information about the article's subject?Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It has to be a verified mainstream sources. You cannot use a handout from KPC or a self-published Palyul Productions text. Palyul Productions is KPC's publishing arm, and publishes KPC prayerbooks, etc. Longchenpa (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This article's subject is Jetsunma, not KPC and not Palyul Publications, hence these are primary sources not self-published. They constantly produce the most frequent information on Jetsunma. As far as I know, they are experienced writers and editors with a consistent review process to fact check everything with this article's subject directly. What could have greater reliability than this process? In the strict sense self-publishing is a single individual at work. They only question is in how they consider outside sources in their publications. Do you have reliable information as to why KPC and Palyul Production are not reliable for this biographical article? Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Do not misrepresent the ownership of KPC and Palyul Publications. Even the land that KPC sits upon in Maryland was given to Alyce in 1994, I believe, back when Tashi (Tom Barry) was on the executive committee. Palyul Productions began as a means of producing prayerbooks for the KPC students and is owned and run by students of Alyce. She has always had say over who works there, and what they do and do not publish. Anything from either organization is a self-publishing arm of Jetsunma's organization. You even list them here as related organizations on her page. If they're not related to her, why did you put them there? Longchenpa (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Palyul Productions

Where did I represent ownership? Non-profits are tax exempt because they are effectively owned by the government in exchange for their tax exempt status.

Anyway, the issue is [reliable sources] KPC and Palyul Productions are reliable sources of Jetsunma verifiable activity. They have a constant reliable publication process. Being "mainstream" is not the only qualifier to be a reliable source. Yes, the the organizations are overseen by Jetsunma, not owned. They are reliable because they apply a constant publication process. Self-publishing is not objective because only the subject is employed. With KPC and Palyul Productions, when an objective process with multiple individuals is performed, this in not self-publishing.

For example, would reporters take statements about our US President from anything but the Executive Office of the White House to be reliable such that they would report them? The President has executive control over the government, and his office is the official source in releasing info about his activities.

You're refusal to accept KPC and Palyul Productions as reliable sources is a serious concern to providing benefit to the wikipedia community. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 23:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Palyul Productions and KPC are highly questionable sources. They are her organizations, both of them. To use them is self-serving, contentious, and in the case of that quote from her about what Penor Rinpoche said about herself -- other than the fact that the "quote" is clearly self-serving -- it's also making a claim about a third party. Longchenpa (talk) 04:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes they are questionable, but they are not self-published. There are exceptions made for self-serving material when editing a biography. So to proceed in balance, we must present all the verified views. As far as third party claims, I assume you mean HHPR. Jetsunma is HHPR's direct student, they are in the same linage, they are not independent parties, she has express permission to teach what he says to her. Her purpose is to teach what HHPR says to her. If she harms HHPR she is in effect harming herself. She has no self-serving advantage to mis-represent him. The third-party exclusion is intended to uphold WP:HARM, she shares the advantage and harm with HHPP so an exception can be made, as long as the quote is verified and attributed, which it is. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The degree of control Alyce has over those publications makes them clearly self-published. Look. I know Palyul Publications. I don't know if Linda Kurkowski is still there, but Alyce has complete say over what they publish and when. They publish what she tells them to publish. Also, they produce things too fast. Not only do they not fact check, they don't even edit well -- their quality control sucks. Kusum Lingpa must have stopped his teachings five times to fix errors in the Opening and Closing prayer book.

As for the closeness between Penor Rinpoche and Alyce -- "...but Kunzang Palyul Chöling are organisationally independent of the Palyul monasteries and centers of his sangha." (http://www.nyingma.com/artman/publish/kunzang_palyul_choling_.shtml) Alyce is quoted in the Buddha From Brooklyn as taking her center back from Penor Rinpoche in the late 90s. I'm glad he still teaches there though. At least he hasn't abandoned them. Longchenpa (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You are clearly confusing KPC with Jetsunma, this article's subject is Jetsunma and she is closer to HHPR than KPC is. KPC is the organization she founded and currently leads. You must not treat KPC and Jetsunma as the same within Wikipedia. Jetsunma is an individual "self" and KPC is an organized collective with "questionably publications". Why can't you accept this distinction? 207.188.250.60 (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not. It's quite clear in the Buddha From Brooklyn that she has complete authority over KPC and all of its related organizations. That's why it's highly appropriate to have them listed in her bio here. She owns the property they are on. She's responsible for their creation. She has "vajra commanded" students to work for particular businesses under her umbrella (for example, Tara Studios) appointed the boards for each of these organizations (Palyul Productions included) -- and fired the boards.

As for KPC, it's the same. She appoints the executive committee. She's fired the entire executive committee. She has dissolved the executive committee, renamed it and replaced it with a steering committee. She has fired individuals from the executive committee.

In fact, in the Mirabella magazine article the main justification for her $100,000 a year salary is that she makes the decisions of a CEO.

As for the relationship between her and HHPR, we can only speculate, and go by what they say about each other. Penor Rinpoche has said some very critical things about her. For example, he stopped the Rinchen Terzod in 1988, had the doors shut and yelled at her for 20 minutes, telling her not to call herself a Buddha (Buddha From Brooklyn). On another occasion he wrote her a letter telling her to take care of her ordained and tone down her personal appearance (Mirabella). He does seem to follow the rule of praise in public, criticize in private. Longchenpa (talk) 06:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Taking comments from a blog is the most unreliable self published source that Wikipedia recognizes. see: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There are two other mainstream sources (Blythe, Sherrill) that address the issue of Alyce using a 501(c)3 organization for her own profit. They also report former students' accusations that KPC is a cult. I've treated Alyce with kid gloves by not including this, probably bending over backwards to be nice. Blythe and Sherrill's investigations both support what Lama Tenpa put in his blog last month. I don't need to mention his blog or the current fraud investigation. Longchenpa (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Publishing tax issues on Wikipedia is libelous unless a U.S. Tax court verifies it. I'll have no part in this. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's in The Buddha From Brooklyn, published by Random House, and in the Mirabella article. I have complete confidence in organizations like Random House's research into what would and would not constitute libel. As does Wikipedia. These are the sources we use. Longchenpa (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed Wikipedia policies on libelous information, it's not even to be on the talk page. I will be redacting tax information from the talk page. see: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sources Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Tax issues are private and strictly between the government and taxpayer. Anything, not directly from these sources is very suspect. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

When a fraud felon cries fraud (a.k.a Tenpa), any reasonably person will agree that the burden to substantiate the issue increases. Wikipedia is not the place for legal damaging allegations (a.k.a gossip). Longchempa's effort to bring in allegations and make a talk subject are a direct grievance to WP:HARM. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Fraud felon. Lama Tenpa was highly regarded at KPC until he started investigating their finances. I had a conversation with a KPC member just last year, and I was informed how wonderful he is. How quickly things change. But it's relevant in that these allegations have been made before in the national media. Longchenpa (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What you say above is a suspected example of unreliable self-published original research. I am warning you ... legal allegations that are unsubstantiated with due process will be considered harmfull. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 23:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You're not understanding me. I'm saying that in the spirit of generosity (and hope that Alyce had changed her ways) I did not add the information from Random House and Mirabella that mentioned these very same allegations that Lama Tenpa has made. Eight years later the same problems are coming to light again. Since it seems that the problems are ongoing (and somewhat worse), it's clearly important to the article. Naturally, I will only reference the well-established media sources on this topic. I expect you to not use shoddy self-published material from KPC and Palyul Productions. Longchenpa (talk) 03:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

KPC and Palyul Productions are questionable sources for this article, which means editors will have to apply good judgment as too what to include. Their material can not be excluded point blank, like a self-published blog, because these orgs do have and editorial process. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's self-published. Palyul Productions is her publishing wing.

As far as their editing is concerned, they have a terrible reputation. I have a copy of their Opening and Closing prayerbook and it's just riddled with mistakes. I just now opened it at random and I found ten errors on the two facing pages. Longchenpa (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

What kind of cult did these students claim they were a part of, Theravada, Mahayana, or Vajrayana?? Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there have been several Buddhist cults. For example, there was White Lotus cult in China at the turn of the century, and we had Aum Shinrikyo in Japan. Longchenpa (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but we should not have this cult discussion isn't relevant to this talk page.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It is relevant to the accusations leveled against her by Lama Tenpa in the current fraud investigation. It makes the past allegations of students (as published in The Buddha From Brooklyn, Mirabella and elsewhere) that Alyce is the leader of a Buddhist cult more relevant. I had left that out to be considerate of your feelings in the matter, but now that yet another source has surfaced accusing her of being a cult leader, I think it should probably go in. Longchenpa (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll insist that any mention of cult be linked to an internal wikipedia reference. This is a highly charged and misunderstood term that must be placed in proper researched context for the reader to appreciate in balance. see WP:NEU Here, I'll add my own original researched definition, cults are 1st generation, such that as long as Jetsunma retains her lineage recognition to a previous incarnation and commitment to her teacher, she's not leading a Buddhist cult. When there is a succession leader and practices, it's not a cult. So personally, I discount cult claims as a gross misunderstanding. The only thing 1st gen about Jetsunma is the American context. Her strong personality is associative of a pioneering cult leader ... I would say pre-Buddhist activities are a greater reflection of cult than post-Buddhist. Tenmpa's blog is a totally unreliable self-published source to support any information in this article. However, it does make interesting reading.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 00:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they mean it not in the scholarly sense of cult, but in the highly charged popular definition, which includes Aum Shrinyenko, the White Lotus Cult, the "Moonies," Scientology, and Jonestown.

The scholarly term from Galanter's (formerly of the World Health Organization) ethnographic study of Rev. Moon's "cult" is "charismatic group," and that's the term used by psychologists to describe the phenomena meant by the popular definition of cult. As far as there being a succession of teachers, that's irrelevant to the phenomenon. Many leaders of charismatic groups (popularly termed cults) come from a succession of teachers. If I add this, it would be in the sense that the students meant it. Longchenpa (talk) 03:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC

So, I take it the intention is derogatory? Again this treads on WP:HARMZulu Papa 5 (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No, that's the reason I left it out. But here it is again with Lama Tenpa. There's a consistent pattern of students leaving with the same set of allegations: 1) diverted donations to Alyce, 2) Alyce's tax evasion, 3) confrontations and hate mail from other KPC students when they try to leave, 4) a smear campaign after they leave, and 5) the former students calling KPC a cult. Longchenpa (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You have severely biased you editorial view. Your original research requires support. It's a very narrow view on a few disgruntled students who have fallen off the path. It says nothing about those who stay and why they do, or even why these students participated in the first place. Nor does it illustrate the offenses these departed students committed and why they may have been asked to leave, or why the students became retributive. Yes, there's not an elected democracy at work at KPC, folks vote with their commitments and presence. 207.188.250.60 (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've repeated this many times, but it's worth repeating again. My sources are: Mirabella Magazine, the Outside Magazine piece that talks about Penor Rinpoche, articles in The Washington Post (you'll notice I've included the positive as well as the negative ones), the article by Pico Iyer in Tricycle: The Buddhist review, and the 300-or-so-page biography of Ahkon Lhamo, The Buddha From Brooklyn published by Random House, written by a former Washington Post reporter whose mentor is Bob Woodward. (Woodward wrote a blurb for the cover.) This reporter wrote many positive articles about KPC during the 90s and then was engaged by Ahkon Lhamo to write a book about her. She describes how in the process of researching her book a lot of very negative information came to light. While she was researching the book and interviewing the students, for example, Ahkon Lhamo beat two of her ordained students in front of 30+ witnesses.

I realize that you don't like this information, but that has nothing to do with my tone. I previously left out things that are in the book, in Mirabella, and in Tricycle. Like I said before, there's no need for Lama Tenpa's blog. Longchenpa (talk) 06:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Teaches compassion and bodichitta

Dear Lonchempa, please elaborate why you removed "She teaches compassion and boddichitta" as unencylopideia tone?Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, ZuluPapa5. There were complaints that the tone was unencyclopedic. I re-read it and agreed. The intro paragraph should simply introduce who she is. Something like teachings is too specific for the opening. Also, we had too many text links throughout. Wiki standards are that you don't clutter up the appearance of the page with blue linked text. Compassion, for example, does not need to be linked. Longchenpa (talk) 04:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I missed those complaints please cite them, where they specific to this statement?Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll add that my intention is to tell what she does. I am not applying flowery overly expressive language that would truly be subject to unencyclopedic tone. It's a simple Subject Verb Object sentence with no adjectives or adverbs. It can be verified and is most relevant to the subject's known occupation.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a question of tone. Also, "boddichitta" is misspelled. Longchenpa (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I will correct to Bodhicitta ... "boddichitta" is a common misspelling.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Please cite wikipedia policy to explain your tone question. The statement addresses her occupation's context to aid the wikipedia reader. How does "teaches compassion and bodichitta" not describe her occupation with highly relevant, verified and attributed information? see: WP:MOSBIO Opening Paragraph, Item 4 - What the person did;Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's not my tone question. It was raised above. I just happen to agree. "Teaches compassion and bodichitta" is not an occupation. It is a subject matter. Longchenpa (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Now you seem absurd, teaches compassion and bodichitta would keep any lama occupied. Would you write an article about Einstein and not illustrate the subjects he taught in the first paragraph? "compassion and bodichitta" simply describes Jetsuma's teaching focus and her occupation. What is unique about her contribution here could be elaborated. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

An occupation is a profession. Let's take an example: English teacher. That's an occupation. What does the English teacher do? Teach English. So let's pretend we're doing the bio of an English teacher. You would open with "Agatha Strumpwort is an English teacher." To add "who teaches English" would be redundant. Longchenpa (talk) 04:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Simplified first sentence

Dear Longchempa why do you keep reverting my simplified first sentence?

"Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo (born Alyce Zeoli) is an enthroned Nyingma tulku and Tibetan Buddhism's controversial American Lama."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by ZuluPapa5 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I just found your comment Longchempa. "(The rewriting is scrambled, doesn't flow, and adds no new information. Also untrue: she is not the only controversial American lama. The opening sentence needs to be simple and clear.)" It simply flows clearly in the Active Voice with the present tense, there's no claim to being the only controversial American lama. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

In terms of English, you have too many modifiers, a misplaced article, and an incomplete clause. That is a poorly written sentence in the worst possible place: the opening. Longchenpa (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean in English style terms, right? You will have to cite me style policy to be convincing. I follow "Omit needless words!" from Elements_of_style. Your version with "has been" is a present tense violation from WP:MOSBIO and is not acceptable with reference to wikipedia guidelines. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I refer you to Strunk and White for information on writing and grammar. It's the bible of English writing. Longchenpa (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and that is what I referenced, thank you. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

So it is. I see you've pruned the multitude of modifiers, fixed the misplaced article, and no longer have an incomplete clause. The current version could be less awkward but it's now grammatically correct. Longchenpa (talk) 04:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Links to Add Context

Dear Longchempa, you have misapplied Wikipedia:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context

The intention is to make Wikipedia links in the article that would benefit the common reader by providing context. You have removed many links that would aid the common reader's context. Somehow all that remains are links to physical facts and excessive (meaning more that one) links to the same pages. Wikipedia Links to context relevant information that will aid the reader are not excessive if they are included the first time a concept is applied.

I will be restoring context beneficial links so as not to excessively link the same article. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Link to terms that are unfamiliar. Do not clutter the first sentence of the article with jargon in order to link her to as many search terms as possible. Remember, I checked your contributions and everything you did up until you mentioned blocking me was for the purpose of promoting Alyce. While we all have areas of knowledge and interest, it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to promote any particular products or persons. Longchenpa (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The wikipedia editor's purpose is to make an article to benefit the wikipedia community. Links add context and not clutter. You will have to illustrate specific language to convince anyone, including me, of promoting. Adding contextual links is not promotion. It's how wikipeda works for the community. I suggest you consider wikipedia policy WP:GOODFAITH. Anyone not to be considerate of wikipedia policy's is suspect to blocking.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the link. Linking to compassion is silly. Linking to a term that to a non-Tibetan Buddhist might as well be "Qwxtrfleeg" makes sense. Longchenpa (talk) 08:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

War Cry Copyright

I'll reiterate my concerns above ... can anyone verify that War Cry in this article is not subject to copyright violation?Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

War Cry is not subject to copyright as it was in her publicly available biography. Longchenpa (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is also its own individual poem. When taken in entirety from your source this may be violation of fair use. I'll defer my own judgment here, but will raise the issue for any other editor with a concern about financial harm to the article's subject caused from by copyright violation. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was in the spirit of generosity that I quoted it in its entirety. I can just cite the relevant passages, but the poem would look considerably worse as a result. Longchenpa (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Pedma Tumpo revelation and Palyul Productions as source material

Dear Longchempa, you removed referenced statement below by claiming:

"You can't use original research. That quote is unverifiable. Don't use it"

I don't find your claim convincing. The statement comes from KPC and Palyul Productions, which are two reliable source publishers for this article. Seems like you will have to demonstrate, without original research, how these verified sources are not reliable. Both these sources are currently references for this article. What have you to specifically exclude this statement from them?

"From a verified Kunzang Palyul Chöling primary source, Tertön Pedma Tumpo, the Indian Mahasiddha Trilwupa incarnation, revealed this from Padmasambhava's speech treasury in the Lhacham Ahkon Lhamo's Longevity Supplication called "A Garland of Utpala Flowers"."

Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You cannot use original research. I have a copy of her arrest record from the original source. I will not use it because that would be original research. Longchenpa (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

We can excerpt from verified and attributed sources that are publicly available, which is what I did. You seem to misapply WP:OR .... Now if anyone were to apply their own concepts and ideas to this finding, than that might be consider Original Research if it were to create unvarified and unattributed information and ideas. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Who published the arrest record and how it is available to do not harm are relevant, not who possesses it. It the arrest record published for general public use or is it a private and copywrited ? Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The quote you have there is from the KPC opening and closing prayerbook published by Palyul Productions, which is Alyce's publishing wing. That's self-published and it can't be used to verify or confirm her recognition. Longchenpa (talk) 05:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not self-published, however it is questionable. It my own judgment the quote above is not substantiated, and should not be included at this time. I could not find any reference to the source "Tertön Pedma Tumpo, the Indian Mahasiddha Trilwupa". Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

In Tibetan there's a practice of hyperbolic praise. Even opening an ordinary letter... If I were writing a letter to you, it would begin, "Gentle glorious ZuluPapa of the excellent states of America, whose prosperity and good fortune equals that of Buddhafields, whose freedom will eventually lead to freedom from samsara..." (It's hard to avoid run-on sentences in Tibetan) "...Emanating kindness like the noble Tara who appears lotus-like in all the six realms and even the non-physical realm of wikipedia where beings delight in Manjusri's flickering razor-sharp wisdom knowledge, to you I offer felicitations and pray for your long life, and rejoice in your continued good health." (then you move on to the body of the letter) "I just got your letter and wanted to let you know how Alicia Strumbiltz is doing...."

Seriously. If you're good at it, you'll be able to work in a reference to the Guhyagarbha tantra, several Siddhas, and your friend's mediational diety. There's an element of poetic license at work. Longchenpa (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You're comment's don't seem relevant to what's acceptable in wikipedia, except in quotes. We can discuss this at length, however wikipedia doesn't make a distinction between "self-published and questionable" [unsigned]

My comment above wasn't relevant to the discussion at all. It was just a digression about Tibetan styles of writing. Tibetan poetics are entertaining. Just having a little fun here is all. Longchenpa (talk) 07:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves. Policy shortcut: WP:SELFPUB

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

1. the material used is relevant to their notability;

2. it is not contentious;

3. it is not unduly self-serving;

4. it does not involve claims about third parties;

5. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

6. there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;

7. the article is not based primarily on such sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.188.250.60 (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. My concern is that her material from Palyul Publications is very self-serving.

In some cases, they also makes unverifiable claims about what other people have said about her.

This material is contentious where it's in direct contradiction with more carefully researched mainstream sources.

In addition, setting aside their terrible quality control, there is no effort made to fact-check. Everything she says is treated uncritically. Palyul Production's founding mission is to preserve every drop of wisdom that falls from her lips, so there's no attempt at scholarly rigor or journalistic accuracy. There isn't even the usual attempt at balance that you'd see in something like an autobiography. Longchenpa (talk) 07:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and now we must apply our judgment as too when the “unduly” threshold is crossed. In my judgment, unduly, within wikipedia, is when comments are made that would invoke WP:HARM, to another individual, as if they were writing a wikipedia article on that person. I’ve not seen this in any of the contentious information from KPC or Palyul Productions. Unverifiable can be taken to an absurd Greedy reductionism extreme which you are approaching. The source must be attributed to end the reduction. KPC and PP are credible sources for this article's subject. To me following the policies is fun. It’s not fun to work on harm. We're not to turn this talk into a discussion board beyond the article's content. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat what I said above: It's quite clear in the Buddha From Brooklyn that Alyce has complete authority over KPC and all of its related organizations, including Palyul Productions. That's why it's highly appropriate to have them listed in her bio here. She owns the property they are on. She's responsible for their creation. She has "vajra commanded" students to work for particular businesses under her umbrella (for example, Tara Studios) appointed the boards for each of these organizations (Palyul Productions included) -- and fired the boards.

As for KPC, it's the same. She appoints the executive committee. She's fired the entire executive committee. She has dissolved the executive committee, renamed it and replaced it with a steering committee. She has fired individuals from the executive committee. In fact, in the Mirabella magazine article, the main justification KPC gave for her $100,000 a year salary is that she makes the decisions of a CEO.

Concerning the nature (contentious, self-serving, or otherwise) of something included from Palyul Productions -- so far, it's just been the Pema Tunpo quote being used to bolster her recognition. Other than that, we're speaking in terms of hypotheticals. A hypothetical is by nature reductive. What do you want to include?

Palyul Productions includes much self-serving material: Since I'm familiar with the content of Palyul Productions' materials, I'm aware that, say, the Santu series has many praises of Alyce as an enlightened Buddha via Alyce chanelling Santu and Jeremiah. In Alyce's unchanneled teachings she also frequently quotes praises of herself from Nyingma Gyaltrul Rinpoche and Penor Rinpoche (as well as other Lamas) that they have supposedly told her in private conversations. These are unverifiable and certainly can't be used.

Issues of context: Then there are problems in those materials, contradictions, where the context is important. She told her students in early teachings that they were a group of Bodhisattvas very close to enlightenment that have been born together many times. That would be the Santu series, 1985. In later teachings she told the students that she had lied to them, said they'd made progress they wouldn't have made otherwise if they hadn't believed that they were almost enlightened (later Santu series, 1987, Buddha From Brooklyn, 2000). By her own admission a lot of this material is highly questionable. Longchenpa (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Palyul Productions is frustratingly sloppy. Some of the teachings are dated, some of them aren't, some of the CDs/MP3s are dated, some of them aren't.... Longchenpa (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I hear you that's why these are questionable sources, they can certainly improve. I don't see anything here that is "unduly self-serving" because it has no harm and it reasonably in line with the purpsoe of these organizations, whose purpose is in line with the purpose of this biographical article. Now enough, soon I'll claim WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on you. And maybe WP:BATTLEZulu Papa 5 (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

We can't say what's self-serving or not, because we're not discussing anything specific beyond that quote from Pema Tunpo.

You said above that you want to establish Palyul Productions as a valid source. I'm frustrated with Palyul Productions for not putting the date their materials. It decontextualizes them making them useless for biography. We can't really use audio tapes (mp3s, CDs) because those are difficult for wikipedians to check. You have to d/l the audio and listen to a half hour teaching to find one quote.

This discussion is very mild compared to other Wiki talk pages. The debate going on over the Tibet pages between the Tibet activists and the Chinese is intense. If you're concerned about Tibet you should probably help, because Chinese editors of those pages insist that since not everyone fought the invasion of Tibet, the Tibetans welcomed their "liberation" with open arms. One editor is even removing the summary of the views of the Dalai Lama from those pages because they say he doesn't represent the Tibetan people.

Anyway, discussion of Palyul Productions material is mostly hypothetical. It would depend. What do you want to use? Longchenpa (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

What Palyul Productions could be used for

I've gone through what's publicly available from Palyul Productions. Seems like what this could be used for is a paragraph on what Ahkon Lhamo teaches. Palyul Productions' publications are poorly edited, undated and decontextualized so can't be used for biography -- and we can't use the audio tapes because of the difficulty in checking the content -- but teaching pdf files could be used for a description of her classes. We just can't use what directly contradicts third party well-researched materials from publishers like Random House. Longchenpa (talk) 07:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be better to craft and include a paragraph on her teachings than to continue this hypothetical discussion. Your judgment seems arbitrary to me because, you haven't sited policy nor do we have an example. It generalizes and neglects primary source and secondary source issues. see: WP:PSTS I totally disagree they are "decontextualized" because under Greedy reductionism, you may argue that any edited material is "decontextualized". They may edit to place in better context, grant them good faith. see: WP:FAITH To say, "we can't use the audio" ... is simply prejudice without a specific instance. You may be missing the point that a balanced wikipedia article has "contradicting" views. see: WP:NEUZulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this discussion is purely hypothetical and based on a point that you yourself raised. But you're missing the purpose of the Talk page, which is to talk about these things. I suggest you look at other Wiki talk pages and see how the discussion progresses elsewhere.

I repeat, Palyul Productions does not date its pdf files on its site (as of 12 April 2008 -- if the dates "mysteriously" appear then we will know you are personally connected with them, speaking of WP:NEU). This decontextualizes those teachings.

Palyul Productions' materials are not carefully edited, nor do they fact-check. I have a Palyul Productions' Opening and Closing prayerbook (which you cited previously) with 10 errors on randomly selected page.

Palyul Productions is the publishing arm of Kunzang Palyul Choling and directed by Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo, who is in direct control of both organizations, hiring and firing their boards. They cannot be used as a source to contradict publicly available materials.

Palyul Productions audio tapes cannot be cited because of the difficulty for wiki readers to check those sources. Longchenpa (talk) 04:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You're becoming outrageous, I must take a break. They have many publicly available sources, and I see no reason they would not work with an editor to supply material. You're fact checking argument is full of holes. Please don't set me up for entrapment, if I seek to improve a source. Improving the referenced information is not a biased viewpoint, in and of itself. The standard remains: WP:NOR#Sources and WP:V#Sources207.188.250.60 (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's unanswerable at this point since you only proposed using them, and took out the one cite where you did. But I can't imagine a more biased source. PP just can't be used to contradict what is available from well-established, reputable third party sources. What do you mean by "I see no reason they would not work with an editor to supply material"? entrapment is tricking someone into doing a crime they wouldn't have done otherwise. We're not talking about crime here, nor am I pushing you to do something. Quite the opposite. However, if dates do suddenly appear on those Palyul Productions materials that didn't have them before, it would suggest that you are in a position to influence them. I'm quite certain that if I called them and suggested they put dates on their materials, my suggestion would receive a "thank you for your concern" and go straight to the trash can. Longchenpa (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please imagine PP an KPC to be reliable primary sources. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

Reading this page it sounds like there are two groups having a big fight - one of which hates Jetsunma and the other of which loves her. Neithers writings come off as encyclopedic in tone nor approach. I would suggest this page be rewritten from scratch using a much more neutral voice which did not attempt to cast all information as either posetive or negetive statements on her as a teacher and person. --Ndwmusicman (talk) 08:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC) You seem quite new to Wikipedia. I recommend you review other Talk pages. You'll see that most subjects, especially controversial ones, have multiple editors with differing views. Longchenpa (talk) 13:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Yes, thanks for your interest Ndwmusicman, you will have to illustrate WP:PEACOCK to be convincing. Also, I hope you are not confusing the Talk page with the actual article. Looking at the talk page you might see a polarity, however the article itself is developing well in appropriate tone and balance.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 05:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 23:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)