Talk:Bo Lozoff

Edits 2008
I believe at least the recent article about Mr. Lozoff (http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A263212 The two faces of Bo Lozoff) should be included in the external links section. Please stop removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.221.66.238 (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean "stop removing it," I removed it once, last night, because the narrative was completely untrue. It said the foundation closed in 2007, which it did not, and it said the reasons were allegations of Bo's sexual misconduct, which is equally untrue. What closed in 2007 was Kindness House, one program and location of Human Kindness Foundation, and its closing and the relocation of HKF were not "amid allegations of sexual misbheavior." Such allegations came out last week in a highly controversial article that will probably be the basis of several libel lawsuits. Wikipedia should not be a forum where immediate controversies are aired under biographies of public figures.Jonkitter (talk) 12:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The allegations were made by a source that meets WP:V and WP:RS. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, everything is properly cited and referenced, and therefore can not be held as libel. If the source is found to be incorrect and later issues a retraction or is found guilt of libel, then we can have a discussion as to its validity. However, until then, your non-sourced edits are being reverted. Please not that despite using multiple user accounts, all your edits are being considered collectively. Removing the material again will result in a report at WP:3RR, and a potential block on both of your accounts. -epicAdam(talk) 14:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what standards WP:V and so forth signify Adam, but the editing you took out was literally true word for word, and you cannot truthfully claim sourced proof of things that are not true --- the foundation did not close in 2007 and no source says it did. The one program, Kindness House, did close in 2007 but not "amid allegations of sexual misconduct." Those allegations came about this week. There is a major controversy taking place right now about the content of the article, but there is no controversy to the simple facts you have removed from Wikipedia -- the foundation did not close down; the program did not close down "amid" anything. Can I direct you to the HKF board of directors for verification? If you insist a link to the article be in Wikipedia, we HKF supporters must respect that, but at the moment you are allowing incorrectg statements to be made that are not "sourced" in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonkitter (talk • contribs) 16:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The standards of WP:V are that Wikipedia operates on "verifiability, not truth". The article does make clear that the allegations of abuse are according to the newspaper, so readers can decide for themselves how much weight should be lent to the information. However, I have clarified that a single program of the foundation was closed, and not the entire foundation itself. As for the information about the books and humanitarian awards that you inserted, that information needs to be cited, especially the direct quotes attributed to The Village Voice. The HKF board would not be an appropriate source because Wikipedia operates using third-party sources. Especially in controversial cases like this, the HKF undoubtedly has an interest in portraying their organization and its founder in the best possible light. Therefore, it is necessary to find other published sources (newspapers, magazines, etc.) that contain the information. A direct link to the VV article would be the best. For future communications on talk pages like these, don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically add your user name. -epicAdam(talk) 19:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

EpicAdam, are you Adam Saldana? Because if you are, there is a conflict of interest here which would require your recusal from editing this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N0MINAY (talk • contribs) 19:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Date of birth
I've inserted what I believe to be Bo's correct date of birth at the top of his article. If anyone has any better information, please feel free to correct it.

Just one more thing, since I'm aware that there's a lot of controversy surrounding Bo - I'm a fan too, but Bo never claimed to be perfect and in fact went out of his way to disabuse people of the idea that he was beyond criticism.

When an interviewer once suggested to him that his stewardship of the community was "terrible", he said something to this effect; "Yes it is, and I'm sorry, but no else was doing what I tried to do (set up and run a halfway house for prisoners on their release) so it was either me or nobody."

Meltingpot (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Templates

 * - WP:Templates

The new warnings at the top of this biography ("The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies"), etc., are confusing because of the eight references and four external links, only one, humankindness.org, is a primary reference. Can you please explain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthcon (talk • contribs) 16:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * - BLPN


 * Hi Truthcon - I added them in response to comments at the BLP noticeboard. There is some doubt among editors as to whether or not this person is really independently notable to require a biography here. If you have a read there and lets attempt to address the issues raised by article improvement. - Youreallycan (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Independent notability
Hello Youreallycan,

Thanks for such a quick response. I am so confused here. If you Google Bo Lozoff's name you will find over 7400 websites today that refer to him and his legendary work in prisons around the world. The Dalai Lama has written forewords to two of his many books, there are many youtube interviews with him under a site called "ihanuman" and other sites. His own organization, Human Kindness Foundation, is actually fairly small without a big internet presence. I am just someone whose life was helped by his work and I know nothing of writing Wikipedia biographies. I have no idea who created this original one, but I know from personal correspondence it was not Lozoff or his organization. So your editors' concerns that he is not really a notable person is very confusing to me. His first book, "We're All Doing Time," has about a half-million copies in print in English alone, and is also in several other languages. How is he not notable? I don't know how to fix this; I just don't like seeing people tear this man down after all the good he has done.Truthcon (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No one is tearing him down. We have guidelines of independent reliable notability that is required at wikipedia for a biography. WP:NOTABILITY and independent sourcing as specified here - WP:RS - what you can do to help if yo u are well informed about the person is to present some reliable independent articles that support things you comment on, like - half a million book sales, and anything else you know of. Is he a notable author - WP:AUTHOR or has he written a notable book - Notability (books) - Youreallycan (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again for your quick reply. As I said, I am really low-tech and feel over my head "fixing" this thing. I do know all his books are on Amazon.com, he has been featured in many magazines including Yoga Journal, New Age, Ascent, The Sun, and many others because I have read many of those articles or interviews over the years. There are probably even reviews on Amazon. But as I said earlier, of the eight references, seven of them are not "primary resources" connected with Bo Lozoff, so what is the basis of concern on the part of your Wiki editors anyway? And of the four external links, none of them are connected with Lozoff. The thing about Mister Rogers calling Lozoff one of his personal heroes was in Pittsburgh Magazine around 2000 or 2001. Someone who is more adept at the internet could track down countless other sources or references since Lozoff has been doing worldwide work for almost forty years. I am just not that guy, but from the current references and sources, I fail to understand why the editors feel the article only has "primary references." Can you explain?Truthcon (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you click on and read the comments in regard to notability in this discussion? BLPN if not please do. Thanks -Youreallycan (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. I am amazed your editors wonder whether Bo Lozoff is notable or not, and the idea that the 2008 local controversy is the most notable thing about Bo Lozoff. He is renowned worldwide for his work with prisoners in over 60 countries. Try this link -- http://www.utne.com/Mind-Body/Utne-Reader-Visionary-Bo-Lozoff.aspx or this one -- http://www.utne.com/Mind-Body/Work-of-Oneness-Bo-Sita-Lozoff.aspx, both in Utne Reader, which is certainly not connected with Lozoff in any way.

Try http://www.keyboard-culture-experts.com/experts/bo_lozoff.htmm another link not connected to Lozoff or his organization. or http://thinkexist.com/quotes/bo_lozoff/, or http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/97568.Bo_Lozoff and many other "famous quotes" sites. In fact, Lozoff was quoted three times on Oprah Winfrey's daily inspirational quotes.

As I said in an earlier post, just Google his name and see the thousands of websites mentioning, quoting, or interviewing him. By the way, the "Letter to God" reference in the WP article is from a site in the UK not connected with Lozoff at all. Why do you consider that a primary resource?

Also as I said, I am not an internet guy, not trying to create a whole new article, I am just trying to make sense of all this stuff about Bo.Truthcon (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

one more brief question, sorry -- but I just tried all four of the external links, and they all work and are clearly independent websites interviewing a notable person. Am I missing something?Truthcon (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Please note, this and this indicate Lozoff is associated with Keyboard Culture, and that it's essentially a networking site. This doesn't pass as a particularly reliable source (other than to show that he's associated), and the claims there do not help to show notability as far as in-depth coverage by multiple independent third parties . Please also note Goodreads and Thinkexist are user-generated content, much like Wikipedia. They aren't reliable in the way required in a living person's biography. JFHJr (㊟) 06:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality
Our articles must be written from a neutral point of view. We can't and won't simply publish an article praising an individual and ignoring reliably sourced and verifiable controversies. Upon reviewing this article's history, it's obvious that special purpose accounts have been abusing Wikipedia for their own ends. Editors wishing to change this article must back up their changes with reliable sources. Biasing this article one way or other wills stop - even if it means disabling accounts from further editing. Rklawton (talk) 02:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The recent addition of "Criticism" is redundant with the description of controversy already mentioned in the article. There is no new information there and it seems to be added solely to NOT be a "neutral" piece. Enough is enough. This man has been involved in praiseworthy work his whole lifetime and was involved in a minor local scandal years ago. It is mentioned in the Wiki piece and ie enough. Also, referring to above "talk" edits, Bo Lozoff has nothing to do with Keyboard Culture and other websites praising him. These are not biased sources and they are not affiliated with the subject of the article. Good Lord, why don't you browse the internet yourself for a few minutes to see the diversity of websites quoting and praising and describing Lozoff's work. He is not affiliated with any of them.Truthcon (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The section currently under "Nonprofit work" is minimizing and does not provide a realistic picture of how serious the allegations and admissions are. The more accurate description, which has been around for over a year should be included, and I will restore it. Will refer ahead in the paragraph under "Nonprofit work" to add cohesiveness to the article. Floorsheim (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

As I said on the administrator talk page, it is untrue that Bo Lozoff has "not denied many of these allegations" when those "allegations" are about emotional and sexual abuse. Lozoff firmly denies ever being abusive to anyone in any way. The writers have personal animosity toward Bo Lozoff and are using Wikipedia to maximize the single controversy he has been involved in during forty years of devoted public service. The edit I did recently did not remove all references to the controversy, it just removed the wording that says Lozoff does not deny many allegations of being abusive. He has acknowledged incidents of his controversial behavior, but the current wording sounds like he acknowledges having been "abusive."Truthcon (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I've removed the section dedicated to allegations. They need not be mentioned twice within the article. Please see WP:BLPN for its thread on this topic. JFHJr (㊟) 22:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've attempted to remove some prose from the list of writings, an insignificant award, and a false cite : "Deep & Simple" as the inspiration for the 2010 award-winning documentary "Mister Rogers & Me." . My edits have been reverted. I'll refrain from edit warring, but the restorations require an explanation. Especially the citation to Mister Rogers, which does not support the claim at all. JFHJr (㊟) 22:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The BIMA award is hardly insignificant to the artists and audiences and readers on the Big Island of Hawai'i, where Lozoff is a popular figure.

I will change the citation to http://misterrogersandme.com/about/ so you can see this reference is absolutely valid. In fact, the subtitle of the film is "A Deep & Simple production," all taken from Mister Rogers quoting Lozoff's book to Benjamin Wagner and many others. Read this page and see that of all the notables interviewed for the film, Lozoff was the first, because he literally "wrote the book on Deep & Simple." Please stop making these valid references seem fraudulent. They are not.Truthcon (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The award requires a third-party mention, beyond the recipient and the group giving the award, to show its significance. Otherwise, it's without any enduring biographical significance and should not remain. And instead of restoring crap citations in reverts, fix the problem by providing the citation when you restore it, not after. What you've cited to now is actually what I read before deciding the source doesn't support the claim. Mention of Lozoff appears among several named individuals: The brothers’ travels led them to Durham, North Carolina, where Mister Rogers' friend, mystic, activist and author of “Deep & Simple,” Bo Lozoff, shared three core tenants of a deeper life. This language does not support the contention that Bo Lozoff's book inspired anything. You're performing original research at best, and at worst repeatedly misrepresenting the source. JFHJr (㊟) 23:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Truthcon, for engaging in discussion. I do have faith that, through reasoned discussion, and by aligning our interests with that of making Wikipedia a quality online encyclopedia (cf. WP:SOAP), the content disputes occurring here can be resolved. I believe part of JFHJr's concern is not that the references to the awards are fraudulent but that it's not verifiably clear from them that the awards are notable enough to justify inclusion in Wikipedia. Can you provide some third-party verification that the awards received are significantly notable? Also, while it's clear that Lozoff is a significant author, Wikipedia may not be the place to give an exhaustive bibliography for all of his works. I will ask that you stop edit warring concerning this subject matter or any other and that JFHJr remain civil. --Floorsheim (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with not mentioning the allegations twice. However, given the seriousness of the allegations and the admissions, I do believe they warrant their own section, and the language should not be minimizing. According to the allegations, Lozoff did not occasionally intimidate or become sexually involved with a volunteer. He consistently and regularly "berated [inmates] for their personal failings and threatened to send them back to prison," and the sexual involvement was with multiple residents and was in some cases non-consensual. Lozoff has admitted to much of this and definitely enough that would be considered by most people to be highly inappropriate and abusive. That said, looking at the article again, I see that it does explicitly state that Lozoff believes his actions do not qualify as abusive.

I propose removing the "abusive" interpretation from the former "Allegations of abuse" section and saying more specifically what the allegations are, leaving it up to the reader to decide if they were abusive or not. How about changing, "In 2008, several ex-parolees and volunteers said in interviews with a reporter that Bo had been sexually and emotionally abusive at Kindness House," to "In 2008, several ex-parolees and volunteers said in interviews with a reporter that Bo had initiated numerous instances of consensual and non-consensual sexual relations with female residents and volunteers and that he often publicly traumatized Kindness House residents," and leaving the rest of the section as it stands?

Also, my interest here is simply to see that reliably sourced information is given due representation in the article. I will ask that Truthcon assume good faith on my part as well as that of other editors in the future.--Floorsheim (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I hope it is okay that I add my two cents. I was told I could give my advice on the talk page, even though I cannot edit. If that is also not okay, please do let me know and this will be my last thought. I have to agree with Floorsheim about the allegations of abuse having their own section. It think it gets muddied in the nonprofit section and really has nothing to do with all of the good nonprofit work Bo Lozoff did. I also think there should be some change to what is written right now because the article doesn't just talk about him having sexual relations with one female resident. A good portion of the article is about several women coming forward after having felt sexually abused by Lozoff. However, I think Lozoff denied abusing any one, though he did admit to lying, cheating and committing all of the sexual actions. Perhaps both are worth noting or neither? The main thing I disagree with right now is how it is written to seem like the article is only about one sexual interaction with one woman, when the article is clearly about several women. Molliegiles (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It is more than ok for you to add your two cents, Molliegiles. It is encouraged and appreciated. You might also consider adding a bit of personality to your user page. Just a little goes a long way. Having your name show up in red can be interpreted by other users to mean that you're not invested in the community and its interests. --Floorsheim (talk) 02:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, floorsheim, for asking jfhjr to "remain civil." He/she is nitpicking about acclaim Lozoff has received as a result of his wonderful work and books. The main quote mentioned by Mister Rogers to Benjamin Wagner that did inspire the entire idea for this documentary is "Benjamin, I do think that deep and simple is far better than shallow and complex, don't you?" And that is taken entirely from Lozoff's book, which Rogers than handed Benjamin Wagner as a gift. To attempt through technical interpretations of Wiki guidelines to minimize Lozoff's contribution to this documentary is childish. Watch the film and see how Lozoff is featured and what is said about the genesis of the documentary. It all arose from the quote from "Deep & Simple." About the "allegations" and "significance" of the charges etc., Bo Lozoff has never admitted to non-consensual sexual contact with anyone, and has denied he ever threatened to send anyone back to prison or berated residents for their failings. An enormous number of people regard this 4-year-old article about TEN-year-old events as extremely slanderous and libelous. Lozoff acknowledged in the interview that he had some degree of minor sexual contact with several women. Any other way of presenting "Lozoff does not deny many of these allegations" is an unsupportable lie. Kindness House did not close down because of this scandal; the events took place in the late '90s and early 2000's, and Kindness House closed down in 2006 for other reasons, and this article did not appear until late 2008. It was a deliberate and successful character assassination and the newspaper did not allow Lozoff or the board of directors of Human Kindness Foundation to provide testimony by many other ex-prisoner residents of Kindness House on the falsity of the charges of Lozoff's abusiveness. So if some mention of this one article needs to be made, it should not include any hint of Lozoff "not denying many of the allegations" nor the controversy leading to the closing of Kindness House. I would like to put back in the short sentence about Lozoff performing around the country as a singer/songwriter, and the citation from his "sonicbids" page is of his calendar which shows performances and dates all over the US.Truthcon (talk) 03:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I think perhaps Truthcon is having trouble being unbiased in Bo Lozoff's biography. I could be reading in to his above statement, so forgive me if I am, but he seems to be taking things about Lozoff very personally. The article, "The Two Faces Of Bo Lozoff" was a front page cover story from a very popular and reputable paper. I am not sure the relevance of when it was printed or how old the allegations are. The Wiki bio has information about Lozoff from years before that. A biography is suppose to be about all of Lozoff's life. Whether Truthcon likes it or not, the article is a big one and a very reliable source. One of the only few on that page. It may be Truthcon's opinion that an enormous number of people disagree with it (reading the letters to the editor points otherwise) has no relevance either. What I see is a front page article in which the reporter won an award for. The people interviewed and sourced in the article did not call their abuses minor and though Lozoff does denies abusing anyone, he doesn't deny any of the incidents with the women. Maybe we can find a happy medium stating he denied being abusive but didn't deny any of the incidents or ??? Molliegiles (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Allegations
While I do think it would be helpful for Truthcon to read carefully over WP:NPOV, it's important for all editors to recognize that civility is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia and to assume good faith on the part of everyone involved, i.e., in this case, to avoid explicitly accusing other editors of being biased. This is important to prevent the discussion from escalating and getting personal. It's much better for editors to point out which statements, edits, etc. they find to be biased and offer suggestions. I do like the "incidents" language that Molliegiles suggests. I agree that the Independent Weekly article is a highly noteworthy source for our subject, and I will remind that the standard of inclusion for Wikipedia is verifiability not truth. We don't have any third party sources to support any statements about how seriously or not seriously any number of people take the article, so we can't include any original research concerning that.

I'd like to point out the following quote from the Independent Weekly article:

''Despite his teachings against harmful sexual behavior, several female volunteers and one female parolee also allege that Lozoff, who claimed to be celibate, had sexual encounters with them during one-on-one counseling sessions, in which he initiated kissing, touching, and oral and manual sex as a method of spiritual healing. While some of the sexual encounters were initially consensual, the women volunteers say others were not, and that his power over them and the Kindness House community prevented them from speaking out or rebuffing his advances.''

These allegations, many of which Lozoff does not deny, prompted the self-styled mystic to close Kindness House...

This being what the article says, it is original research for anyone here to say which allegations he does or does not deny or to say that this was not the reason Kindness House actually closed unless anyone can find a reliable source making such claims.

I then propose the following language:

''In 2008, several ex-parolees and volunteers said in interviews with a reporter that Bo had been sexually and emotionally abusive at Kindness House. Lozoff does not deny many of the alleged incidents and, although he maintains that his actions were not abusive, has stated that his radical beliefs and lifestyle made him a "terrible choice by God" as leader of the community.[6] Kindness House closed in 2006 as a result of the allegations; Human Kindness Foundation continues to operate the Prison-Ashram Project.''

--Floorsheim (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have a few comments. First, I can't access the source right now because it's "offline". Second, assuming there's nothing else material in the source other than the quote you've provided, I would be fine with the language you suggest (change Bo to Lozoff). Third, I don't see anything uncivil in JFHJr's phrase "crap citations". Truthcon is a WP:SPA and has been editing only this article since he first started editing in March 2011. He has been blocked for edit-warring in the past. He has been singularly unhelpful in his more recent edits. I see no particular reason to accord him good faith, but even if I did, I wouldn't consider the term "crap citations" anything except being blunt in response to Truthcon's behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I like what Floorsheim writes, it seems to encapsulate both views. Good work - thank you! I do think a separate section for this is best, it doesn't seem to fit under nonprofit work. Molliegiles (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It's been over 24 hours since the article was last edited, so I will go ahead and put in the section proposed above, which seems to have the full support of Molliegiles, Truthcon and myself along with the tentative support of Bbb23 and opposition from none. Bbb23, as you should be able to verify now, the source itself is quite lengthy. This is my best effort to distill the most relevant points that it makes with regard to this issue without giving undue weight. --Floorsheim (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Writings
I'll again ask Truthcon to stop edit warring Re: this section and to instead strive for a consensus version with JFHJr and others. My comment to JFHJr about civility was in reference to his use of derogatory language, i.e., "crap citations." Especially in this case, he should be aware that Truthcon is new to the notion of what a proper and improper Wikipedia reference is and should show more patience. There is nothing uncivil about nitpicking. It is necessary and encouraged in order to make Wikipedia the best online encyclopedia it can be.

Question: does the documentary itself say that it was inspired by Lozoff? From what you said, it sounds like it does. If so, you could cite the documentary for that statement. --Floorsheim (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I can go along with floorsheim's new wording above that Lozoff denies being abusive but acknowledges many of the incidents (definitely not all, because several were direct lies). What does not help is whomever this new contributor is, (bbt23) doing ridiculous nit;picking like removing all references to Lozoff being a musician and removing the title "His Holiness" from the Dalai Lama. That is like removing "President" from "President Barack Obama." And what is the point to spend so much time and effort on this minor public figure that Wikipedia even says at the top of this biography, may not even be notable enough for a biography in the first place? Bo Lozoff is known and loved throughout the world for his work and books and music, and he was involved in a scandal some years ago that may need to be mentioned in this biography, but the nitpicking here goes much further. Lozoff's other book titles have been edited out again and again, such a simple statement as "he is a singer-songwriter who performs around the country" has been edited out again and again, even though I used his Sonicbids calendar as a citation which shows performances around the country. His influence on the Mister Rogers documentary is irrefutable: He wrote the book "Deep and Simple," Mister Rogers quoted Lozoff directly to producer Benjamin Wagner by saying "Benjamin, I think deep and simple is so much better than shallow and complex, don't you?," and thenj Rogers told him, "Spread the word, Benjamin." According to the official "about" page on Wagner's website, which has nothing to do with Lozoff's websites at all, after Rogers' death Wagner took that single phrase as the inspiration to do a documentary to indeed "spread the word" about deep and simple. The subtitle to "Mister Rogers and Me" is "A Deep and Simple production," and Lozoff was the first person interviewed in the film, which has won several significant awards around the nation. You have to hate Bo Lozoff quite a bit to contend that his book and work had little to do with this major documentary film. If I do not have the computer sophistication to dot all the i's and cross all the t's of Wiki's guidelines, it just lacks all common sense to continue insisting that there is "not enough proof" to include a single sentence about that documentary being inspired by Lozoff's "Deep and Simple." It is absurd. If this is really going to remain civil, tell bbb23 to stop vandalizing trivial things like "His Holiness" and "musician" and so forth.Truthcon (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

JFHJr is doing the edit warring now; I have posted two talk comments, I don't know how or why they appear in different places, but he/she should stop reverting these edits until further discussion. It is childish to remove "musician" about Lozoff, and "His Holiness" before the Dalai Lama. Stop this nonsense. The controversy about Lozoff has nothing to do with such edits.Truthcon (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not an issue of controversy. It is an issue of encyclopedic standards as set forth in the handful of policies you've been repeatedly referred to. Your statements regarding Mr. Rogers requires a reliable source that directly supports the claim you're making. So far, you've given ample inference, but no "inspiration" or anything close. And despite repeated caution, you've insisted on citing to a source that does not support that contention. To address your other concerns, Wikipedia does not use styles such as "His Holiness" in deference or in reference to anyone. Only in direct quotes. See MOS:HONORIFICS. Otherwise, third party coverage is required to indicate significance of the music and writings. Amazon is a store and doesn't count. I advise you to quit calling it "nitpicking." At this point in your editing history, it just means you don't have time. JFHJr (㊟) 01:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell from searching Google, the only thing Rockin' Monkey Recordings has produced are Lozoff's CDs. Does anyone have any information on this company?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

JFHJr,you are doing exactly what I begged you not to do -- hiding behind the strictest technical standards of Wikipedia that nearly any biography does not meet of you were to dissect every single word and sentence as you and bbb23 seem to be doing on this article about a minor public figure. You both have a vendetta and you are accusing me of "disrupting." How does that work?Truthcon (talk) 01:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * As a fan of Lozoff and a long time Wikipedia editor, this conflict is making me sad. Truthcon, I know you adore Lozoff, but Wikipedia does have very specific guidelines that seem to be enforced sporadically, but do need to be adhered to. This article doesn't need to include everything about Lozoff - there are other sites for that. You could even start a blog about him or contribute to his sites. But let's keep the peace on Wikipedia. Keep it simple; it's not worth the stress and emotion you're investing into it. Green Glass (talk) 04:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Wanted to provide this third-party reference for Lozoff's writings, which describes We’re All Doing Time as "well-known". I think more can be done with this reference in terms of establishing Lozoff's notability but for now will insert it next to the "We're All Doing Time" title. --Floorsheim (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, it seems to me that Amazon is a sufficient reference for the fact that We're All Doing Time has a foreword by the Dalai Lama. Thoughts? --Floorsheim (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I read the article - very detailed and very disturbing. In any event, I made a few copy edits to the article material (thanks for your work, Floorsheim). The only thing substantive I did was to remove the Ashram phrase as I found no reference to it in the main article. The source you found for the book is not a reliable source as it's just a personal blog. I didn't remove it but I don't think it can remain. Until we have a reliable source for it, the supplementary cite to Amazon to show that the Dalai Lama wrote the foreword shouldn't be added.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks and I'm happy to be of assistance. :) Thoughts on either of these as citations for the book?, --Floorsheim (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The first one (Theosophy) is no good as they simply accept reviews from readers of their website ("Readers are welcome to submit reviews or comments on books or video material, or titles they feel are worth reviewing, to theosnw@theosophy-nw.org."). The second one (RALPH) is harder to evaluate because it's not clear how they do the book reviews. The Lozoff book review was written by Ignacio Schwartz, but who is he? No indication I could find who he is or how the review was posted to the site. I'd be reluctant to use it. You know, the Indy Week article mentioned the book twice. Two of the parolees at the Kindness House mentioned the book. I haven't worked it through my brain, but instinctively, I like that better than the other sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok--and the first Independent Weekly article has some useful stuff in it, too, including other material that could probably be used to expand the article. I do think it would be nice, though, to have at least one source other than Independent Weekly. How about this article (excerpt) from Integral Yoga Magazine? --Floorsheim (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's a pretty solid one although it only talks briefly about the book. --Floorsheim (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For the book and for the foreword, I would use the Indy source and the other two sources you've found (Yoga and Boston Phoenix). Together, I think they justify inclusion of the material. Your persistence is admirable.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) Went ahead and put those in for now. But plan to make some major revisions to that section, including a description of We're All Doing Time's notability. --Floorsheim (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have read exhaustively about the difficulties with this entry. Well, all I want to do is list the dates of his birth and death. The current death date on here is not even correct. Or, if wikipedia minds me editing (I don't have access to edit), then edit it yourselves, because this entry is inappropriately written. Parth Lozoff (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2015
2601:A:3700:5:4436:846C:D47E:3545 (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Please update. Bo Lozoff passed away in a motorcycle accident.

See: http://www.bigislandvideonews.com/2012/11/30/musician-lava-lover-bo-lozoff-killed-in-puna-crash/

✔️ The article already says "Lozoff died in a motorcycle accident in Puna, Hawaii, on November 29, 2012". Joseph2302 (talk) 02:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

How about either removing the issues notifications at the beginning of this entry, or just delete Bo Lozoff from Wikipedia. Put up or shut up. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.209.160.48 (talk) 03:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bo Lozoff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707173518/http://ascentmagazine.com/articles.aspx?articleID=83&page=read&subpage=past&issueID=11 to http://ascentmagazine.com/articles.aspx?articleID=83&page=read&subpage=past&issueID=11

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bo Lozoff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110104233055/http://www.humankindness.org/bolozoff.html to http://www.humankindness.org/bolozoff.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)