Talk:Dae Gak

untitled
I was a member of the Indianapolis Zen Center governing board when allegations of impropriety were made by another member of the Center. I knew the individual that came forward and the agony this person went through in deciding to come forward. Because of this episode, I left the Center. Torin93 --Torin93 (talk) 12:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not to cast doubt on your allegations - but heresay is not an acceptable source for an encyclopedia and does not meet wikipedia standards, especially for biographies of living persons. Without reputable published sources, the information does not belong on the wikipedia page. --Jikaku (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. I was the person who went to the other board members with the allegations, which resulted in his departure and the Indianapolis Zen Center separating themselves from him as their guiding teacher.Torin 21:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That may be - but this doesn't meet wiki policy for inclusion. At best, it approaches original scholarship - which also isn't allowed. Unless you have published source material, this can't be included. --Jikaku (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps in a related issue, there is a question raised about professional disciplinary action against figure in first paragraph, with citation. But the citation reads only: "^ discipline". I think we have to remove this until better documentation is presented.Tao2911 (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If you check the actual References for the citation, rather than the notes - you'll see that the discipline taken against his license is public and verifiable. Since the article does not go into detail about the disciplinary action, and only states what is made immediately available by the State Board in Kentucky - I see nothing controversial here. Jikaku (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

When a Zen Teacher is inappropriate it should be reported so that other potential students know what they are getting into. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.81.12 (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Disciplinary Action
I'm standing behind my "it belongs here" stance. This page is about Dae Gak, and if him being a psychologist is notable enough to be on his entry, then the fact he had to be disciplined by the state of Kentucky and have permanent action taken against his license to practice psychology is also notable enough. This is public record, and easily verifiable, and the reference link takes you directly to the source (the listing by the state of Kentucky. So the mention seems valid enough and referenced enough to me. Jikaku (talk)


 * Just a minor note, where do you get the "permanent action taken against his license to practice" part?--UhOhFeeling (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * From a basic understanding of how state boards of psychology operate, how licensed psychologists are regulated from state to state, and from the public statement made by the state of Kentucky on the website reference. Though I fail to see the relevance of your question to the point at hand. Jikaku (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC).


 * I don't care about your "basic understanding." I want to see a citation. Are you asking me for the relevance? You were the one who brought it up in your statement of why his disciplinary action was relevant. I just want to make sure that everything asserted is properly cited.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments made on a discussion page don't require citation, and your lack of understanding doesn't actually invalidate my point. That said, the disciplinary action *is* properly cited, so I s'pose we're done here. Thanks. Jikaku (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that you don't need to back up your claims with sources? That is a ridiculous assertion that denies that which is necessary for a rational discussion. We are not done here. Me and User:Tao2911 both believe this does not belong on his page.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Read what I wrote again - I don't see how you got "don't need to back up claims with sources" from that. There were two statements made, maybe it will help if I break them down for you: 1) Comments on talk pages don't require citations or reference. this is true. 2) The entry on the article page *is* properly referenced. This is also true.

I have asserted that the entry is relevant to the article, and properly sourced. The second part of that assertion is irrefutable, while the first may be a matter of opinion. Please don't put words into other editors mouths for them - if they would like to weigh in on this discussion, they certainly may. Otherwise, right now it's just you claiming that this well-sourced item does not belong in the article, with no actual reasons given. Right now, I think my argument is stronger than yours, *and* again, the item is properly referenced - you can stomp your feet all you want, but this won't get anywhere unless a larger consensus is reached. Jikaku (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Without better references, the statement "though there has been disciplinary action against his license" does not belong on this BLP, for the following reasons:


 * 1) The cited reference is an external link to a search engine, and as such it does not directly verify the claim. Even the result of the search engine would be questionable as per WP:ELNO item 9.
 * 2) Using the cited search engine, all that can be determined is that some disciplinary action was taken. It is not known what action was taken, or why it was taken.  Without this information, it cannot be determined if the claim is notable or relevant, and therefore this statement currently fails the test at WP:WELLKNOWN.  It could be, for example, that he forgot to take a continuing-education class on time [KRS 319.082(1)(s)  ], which might have resulted in a reprimand.  That would be neither notable nor relevant. Lacking this information, per BLP rules, the claim must be removed.
 * In order for this claim to be restored, here's what we should see: A properly-formatted citation to an actual government document that lists, specifically, what action was taken and why. Preferably, the citation would quote the relevant parts of the document.  The citation must include sufficient information to be verifiable; I strongly recommend using either a style guide like Chicago Manual of Style or the citation templates to ensure you capture all the necessary data.  Further, that document must meet the reliable sources standards, and it must clearly establish that the disciplinary action is notable and relevant as required by WP:WELLKNOWN. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Relevant Information
This is a general request for comment on whether the disciplinary action against Dae Gak's license to practice psychology by the State of Kentucky is relevant to the biographical article about Dae Gak. The action by the state is well-sourced, and his standing as a practicing psychologist is raised elsewhere in the article. Jikaku (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * See my comments in the previous section of this talk page. Jikaku's characterization of the action as "well-sourced" is disputed: it is not a source, it's a search engine; also, the search engine only says that a disciplinary action was taken, but not what action, when, or for what reason, making it impossible to determine if the action is notable or relevant.  Per WP:WELLKNOWN, if it can be established that the information is "notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article"—but at this point in time, the claim hasn't been established as any of those things.  I suggest further groundwork and research. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I should add that I'm being charitable in presuming that Dae Gak qualifies as "well known." If he isn't, then WP:NPF applies instead, and that's a much higher bar that this assertion is extremely unlikely to clear. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * documentation has been ordered from the state of kentucky. When it arrives it will be reviewed, and if relevant, made publicly available and added to the article. Jikaku (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with macwhiz. The statement is not sourced at all at this moment, according to reliable sources rules. The link to search engine is not a source. How can we decide, if Dae Gak is well known? This is the first time I hear about him, and where he stands in Kwam Um School of Zen where hundreds of teachers were produced, it will be hard to decide. Spt51 (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * @ Spt51: "in Kwam Um School of Zen where hundreds of teachers were produced." your bias is showing darling. Transmitted teachers in that lineage number no more than two dozen. But nice passive aggressive dig, anyway. It's true: Dae Gak is not (yet?) as (in)famous as your teacher.Tao2911 (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Look at this site http://www.kwanumzen.org/ and see all the links to groups around the world. Is this this your teacher by the way? Maybe you are able to decide if he is notable? You said that you have been practicing Zen for twenty years, right? You must have a discerning eye to decide this. Your attacks, false accusations of many editors here in Wiki would not inspire anyone take "your path of Zen". I do not have Zen teacher, and practice nothing, sorry.Spt51 (talk) 15:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Never studied with him, and don't much care. But I know he received transmission from Seung Sahn and started his own thing. He's not been in Kwan Um for years. And hundreds of "Dharma Teachers" in Kwan Um (who simply pay their dues, take 5 more vows, and get promoted eventually) are not "Zen masters," who are relatively quite few. Homework, girlfriend, homework.Tao2911 (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Source discrepancy
I don't know whether Dae Gak was forced out of Kwan Um or not due to misbehavior, as this profile read. But I do know that page 106 in "Zen Master Who?" that was cited as the source for this line says absolutely nothing about it, only that he received transmission and started his own school. Removed until we have an acceptable source (which by the way is not a state website recording some litigation. We can't include such info unless it is interpreted for us by a secondary or tertiary source. otherwise, that's original RS.)Tao2911 (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

disciplinary action
I've received the documentation frm the State of Kentucky, and it reads in part as follows:

"Respondent (Dae Gak) violated KRS319.082(1)(q) by exercising undue influence in such a manner as to exploit two of his clients for his personal advantage by sexual touching of those clients. Respondent violated KRS319.082(1)(n) by having had sexual contact with two of his clients. Respondent violated KRS319.082(1)(q) by improperly divulging confidential information about one of his patients to a third party without justification."

Considering that the article references his practice as a licensed psychologist, and especially given what's come to light with regard to other famous Zen Masters and their sexual misconduct, I'm thinking this information is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article.

I'll scan the file into a pdf and upload it, so that it can be used as the reference for its inclusion. Jikaku (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree: it is totally newsworthy. But unfortunately, we have to wait until a valid news/secondary source also finds it so. There is no way to include this information. To do so would violate a strict "no original research" rule. We don't know the result of this finding - he is apparently still practicing. Perhaps such a finding was appealed and overturned. Who knows? That's not what we do. We report what appropriate secondary and tertiary sources say. Interesting, but unusable here. I highly recommend you not attempt to include as source. You'll lose the battle.Tao2911 (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This isn't original research—re-read WP:OR. It's a published government document, which is inherently a reliable source for this particular information. There is no realistic risk that this source is inaccurate about the fact at the state licensing board found the man had committed these violations. (Of course, it is not necessarily proof that he did commit those acts, a subtle semantic difference.) However, in using the information, extraordinary care will be needed to avoid synthesis and POV pushing, especially as this is a BLP. Tao is right, however, that more context is needed, such as the ultimate outcome of the action. The guidelines basically prohibit reporting on issues like this that haven't exhausted all appeals, etc. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The doc, for material this sensitive, cannot be used since it has no context. The OR breach is in positing it as resulting in some sort of action or result (in this case his being punished, kicked out of Kwan Um, whathaveyou - as the page read earlier today, with both pro (in lead) and con (in bio) distortions.) There is simply no evidence of any repercussions. The doc would be fine to support another source. But on its own, no way.Tao2911 (talk) 01:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This seems worthy of inclusion. Couldn't you avoid OR breach by simply not positing it as resulting in some sort of action and simply mentioning what the documentation says?--UhOhFeeling (talk) 03:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

hmm. Maybe. But I'm concerned that we don't know more. He's still practicing - maybe it was found to be untrue. Again, we don't know context, and this is so sensitive. My tendency is to steer clear of it, but I'd like to hear other thoughts - invocation of precedents etc.Tao2911 (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Responding to several issues at once -


 * "We don't know the result of this finding - he is apparently still practicing. Perhaps such a finding was appealed and overturned. Who knows?" - actually, we do know - it's in the public document (I only added a small portion of the 8 page document in this talk page).
 * "Tao is right, however, that more context is needed, such as the ultimate outcome of the action. The guidelines basically prohibit reporting on issues like this that haven't exhausted all appeals, etc." - we do know the ultimate outcome, which is included in the documentation, which outlines his response, the disciplinary action taken, etc.
 * "hmm. Maybe. But I'm concerned that we don't know more. He's still practicing - maybe it was found to be untrue. Again, we don't know context, and this is so sensitive." - As I said, we do know more - it's in the document, so of course we know that it wasn't found to be untrue, he did acknowledge his guilt in the matter, and that it took him several years, including probation, to be able to practice again.
 * Regarding OR - this I think might be the sticking point - whether or not this is original research. Macwhiz says no, and I tend to agree... but I'd like to get more opinions too. Ironically, we may be able to avoid the OR issue completely if I simply write up an article somewhere about this, include the document in that article - and then reference *that* article as the source for inclusion. What are some other thoughts? Jikaku (talk) 21:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe the outcome is not appealable, since it is my understanding from discussions with the State Board of Psychology that the outcome of the action by the State Board involved what was described to me by someone representing the State Board of Psychology as a "Settlement Agreement," meaning that it was an agreement reached between the two parties wherein Genthner agreed to accept the sanction in lieu of the Board not pursuing the matter beyond what was agreed to. The agreement included Genthner's license being suspended for a year, and his agreeing to be placed on a probationary status for another two years, according to the original terms of the agreement. Another commenter has stated that Genthner was able to have the amount of probationary time reduced from two years to one. The agreement was reached now almost 10 years ago and Genthner served out the conditions imposed on him by the State Board. This is, therefore, not an appropriate discussion about "all appeals having been exhausted" etc. since the conditions have already been served out. I believe that the action is very relevant, since there is also documentation within the files of the State Board of Psychology that points to Genthner's not always maintaining boundaries in terms of whom he views as a client versus whom he views as a zen student to recruit within the context of his aspirations within the Zen movement founded by Seung Sahn.

There used to be available an online publication that the State Board of Psychology published that had more specifics about the Settlement Agreement reached between Genthner and the State Board of Psychology. I don't know if the publication is citable, even if it is no longer available through an online search, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Concerninggenthner (talk • contribs) 19:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * it seems the previous commenter used the phrase "I believe" a bunch of times, without a single source cited, making most of this commentary irrelevant.
 * Reflecting on all of the above comments, I think it would be ok to include mention of Dae Gak's violations and sanctions if it can be carefully phrased with NPOV and no interp. Stick close to the source text, but condense/summarize (keeping spirit of the source). This shouldn't occupy an excessive word count relative to the page as a whole.Tao2911 (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

In spite of the dismissive comments regarding sources given, I do note that the commenter Jikaku refers to being in possession of documents from the State Board of Psychology documenting the Settlement Agreement that concerned Genthner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 04:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Tao states: "This shouldn't occupy an excessive word count relative to the page as a whole". The reference in place before it was removed was not even a whole sentence. It was a clause in a sentence. The clause stated: "although there has been action against his license". There was a footnote for the required reference that sent individuals that checked it to the website of the State Board of Psychology Examiners that verified licensure, and stated whether or not there had been any disciplinary action taken against the psychologist, hardly an "excessive word count relative to the page as a whole". I do not believe (saying I do not believe to use some care in how I phrase it) that the State Board of Psychology puts this information on their website unless a case has been settled, after the investigation and hearing or hearings have taken place, not while it is still pending or being investigated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC) 15:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC) cg 15:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC) cg 16:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Concerninggenthner (talk • contribs) cg 16:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Without reviewing how the passage was previously constructed, I can say it was problematic precisely for the sort of reason you allude to here by prefacing the comment "although he etc..." You are leading the reader, you are extrapolating causes and effects. YOU CAN'T DO THIS. There is no source evidence for any connection to anything with the action/sanction. any mention needs to just be one line untied to any other event or cause or effect.Tao2911 (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not certain I'm following you here - perhaps if you wrote an example sentence that demonstrates the point you're trying to make? Jikaku (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How about . . . "Disciplinary action has been taken against his license for exercising undue influence in such a manner as to exploit two of his clients for his personal advantage by sexual touching of those clients and improperly divulging confidential information about one of his patients to a third party without justification" . . . Or in the alternative we could just write . . . "Disciplinary action has been taken against his license." and have the relevant info in the citation.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I would tend toward something like the latter, but add the date. I think the details unwieldy, but we could condense. "In ____, [who?] ("____ Board"?)took disciplinary action against Genthner for sexual improprieties with patients and breaching patient confidentiality." Something like hat would work for me.Tao2911 (talk) 15:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I like that Tao - so if we're all in agreement then, I'll upload the file and add the reference? Jikaku (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, sounds good.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds succinct. cg 02:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * also, I removed info that was cited in one source, and simply wasn't in that source. It clearly had POV issues to boot.Tao2911 (talk) 14:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I say move on this - whoever has the reference. You can use the phrasing above, plug in the necessary info (date, particulars of who issued disciplinary action), add citation. We have good consensus here.Tao2911 (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

So what happened to this citation? There is no reference or citation to the disciplinary action on the page today. I respect WikiPedia's rules and it appears from this discussion that a consensus was reached on how to include this information with citation in keeping with WikiPedia's rules. It is also, in my view, highly relevant.Desertpapa (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

In re: psychologist Robert W. Genthner: the Fall 2000 Psychology Board News published by the State of Kentucky Board of Psychological Examiners, Volume 3, Issue 2, states (heading of article "Robert W. Genthner, Ph.D. June 2000 Settlement Agreement): "The Board alleged that Dr. Genthner, a Kentucky licensed psychologist, exploited two of his clients by sexual touching, had sexual contact with these, failed to create and maintain written psychological records of the therapy of the two clients, and divulged confidential information about one of his patients. Genthner denied these charges. The Board and Dr. Genthner agreed: 1) to a one year active suspension of his license to practice psychology as of June 2000 2) to have his license placed on probation with weekly supervision of his entire practice of psychology for a period of two(2) years after the one(1) year suspension; and 3) to pay the amount of $2,742.50 for investigative costs to the Board."

removal of material that violates wikipedia's BLP policies
Contentious material about living persons that is poorly sourced or unsourced must be removed immediately. This applies to talk pages as well. All of the material on this talk page should, therefore, be removed. In fact, it should have been removed long ago. On the one hand this is a no-brainer, because all of these discussions on this page pertain to material that has been repeatedly removed from the main article precisely because it violates wikipedia's BLP policies. But since this is a rather drastic step (to remove all of the current content from this page), I will wait for one week and see if there is any discussion. But please do not use such a discussion to post yet more material of the same sort.

It should also be noted that this is not simply a matter of specific policies about material concerning living persons. All content on wikipedia is supposed to be from a neutral point of view and properly sourced. Durruti36 (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * To the unregistered IP user who left the above comments, and anyone else concerned about all this, please familiarize yourself with wikipedia policies and guidelines concerning all material relating to living persons, as well as the over-arching principles of NPOV and proper sourcing that are applicable to all material on wikpedia regardless of the subject matter. All of the material currently on this talk page, including all of these most recent comments, will be removed by me tomorrow for the reasons already stated. --Durruti36 (talk) 13:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I support Durruti's stance. As I've stated before, basically what has to happen is some valid tertiary source (ideally a news source of some kind) has to report on this, providing us with a neutral report on what happened. And general discussions about abuse in Zen or elsewhere are really not pertinent, or acceptable here. Reinserting his material until a new source is provided is simply edit warring, and may result in an IP block.Tao2911 (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Note that an accusation was made by Tao about "edit warring"; Tao has also stated that she is siding with Durruti, who has engaged in "edit warring" in the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.192.53 (talk) 09:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * for the fourth time, FIND A SOURCE. Your saying so is NOT how things happen here! READ EDITING GUIDELINES. And it is completely unacceptable to 'out' editors names here. It is cause to get you quickly banned.Tao2911 (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies with respect to sourcing are pretty clear: Verifiability. Those who read an article or a talk page must be able to access any source cited therein. Anything in any article or any talk page that is not properly sourced is subject to immediate removal without discussion. Verifiability is one of three core content policies that are supposed to govern all wikipedia content (including talk pages). Repeated removal of such material is not edit warring. -- Durruti36 (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Do Not Remove Entire Talk History!
Editor Durruti completely dumped the ENTIRE talk page - this is completely unacceptable. While I agree that the anonymous user active of late is completely off the rails and breaking any number of wikipedia guidelines, that is not an invitation to wipe out the entire history here, and it does give credence to that editor's assertion that Durruti too is biased, and apparently in favor of a whitewash. There are some problematic statements from anonymous user, that could be specifically removed here from talk, and might even be cause to have user blocked temporarily if Durruti wants to get admin's involved. However, that is another process. Simply wiping clean the entire talk page is not the right solution.Tao2911 (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * All of the material that I removed contained material that violates wikipedia's BLP policies. The material cannot be posted on this talk page for the same reason that it cannot be posted in the main article. The same policies apply to talk pages and articles. I clearly stated what I was going to do and waited for one week. Just to repeat: everything that was "wiped out" was "discussion" that contained within it endless repetitions of the same unsourced allegations about a living person that have been repeatedly removed from the main article. This talk page cannot be used to post material of that sort any more than the main talk page can. --Durruti36 (talk) 06:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * At the risk of repeating myself, let me repeat once again the problem with this talk page, but in a little more detail. The "untitled" section leads off with a sentence about "allegations of impropriety". These "allegations" are contentious, NPOV, unsourced, and therefore must be removed from this talk page. The case concerning the next section titled "Disciplinary Action" should be self-explanatory, considering all the discussion (for years!) about the fact that this material violates wikipedia's BLP policies. The next section is titled "relevant information" and it is filled with more repetitions of the same allegations. The next section is titled "source discrepancy" and consists of a discussion concerning "whether Dae Gak wasforced out of Kwan Um or not due to misbehavior", which is yet another contentious unsourced allegation which should not be perpetuated on this talk page. Then comes another long section with the very original title "disciplinary action"! Tao2911, please, if you have some suggestions about how this material can be cleaned up to remove all such references, but in a way so that there is still some meaningful content, please make those suggestions. Simply reposting the material after it has been removed is not helpful. The reasons for removing it are simply to comply with the most basic wikipedia policies for material concerning living persons. --Durruti36 (talk) 12:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * These allegations are not "unsourced" - they have a source, the records of the Kentucky psychological board statements and action. While these are not sufficient to use for such controversial material in the article proper, they are completely valid for discussion here, as demonstrated by plenty of balanced, neutral, level discussion, the few partisans notwithstanding. I have NEVER seen talk pages wiped in the manner you wished to do so (except in cases when editors who did so were blocked for vandalism and edit warring). If every talk page that contained contentious argument was blanked, there would hardly be a talk page left, or a reason for them to exist in the first place. Leave the record for future editors to refer to, so these arguments aren't simply revisited ad nauseum. Oh, btw, it wasn't a full week, and I was not checking the page for a few days. When I checked, I reversed it. Consider this the disagreement you were looking for. I will appeal for admin assistance and a potential user block if you blank talk again. But why bother? The article does not contain the information you so seem to fear. It is clear that there are some serious allegations surrounding Genthner/Dae Gak - but until such time as there is a solid tertiary source, I don't see how this material can find a place in the entry.Tao2911 (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The same policies apply equally to talk pages and to main articles when it comes to material about living persons. "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, and categories." That is from the main article on BLP policies, specifically under Section 4., which is very helpfully titled Where BLP does and does not apply. I do not see any ambiguity or anything that is even slightly difficult to understand in that statement. Any material that violates BLP polices does not belong anywhere on wikipedia. --Durruti36 (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * your point is taken. Please take mine. Removing the entire talk page is not the solution. Allegations are not totally unsubstantiated. It's been a valid discussion to have. I removed one clearly offensive comment by another editor who outed you. Beyond that, talk pages can be a record, not just of issues, but of how those issues have been approached and by whom. They are extremely valuable. Blanket censorship is NOT in the guidelines you keep quoting. And again, allegations of misconduct by Genthner is NOT in dispute - he lost his license over it for a period of time. This is a fact. Should it be a part of any thorough biography of the guy? Absolutely. Do we have a valid, neutral, third party source at this time? No. Until we do, the issue rests. Do I agree with you that we should therefore wipe out all mention that this fact exists, in order to burnish his image? Absolutely not.Tao2911 (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is in response to Tao2911 from Durruti36: In a section of the BLP policy page that specifically addresses talk pages and other "non-article space", it clearly says that "Questionable claims already discussed can be removed with a reference to the previous discussion." (see: BLP: Talk) I honestly don't see any way to remove these "questionable claims" from this talk page and still leave anything in place that is in any way coherent. If you want to try to do that, then that would be fine with me. But there is also the issue of whether or not there is some looser definition for "proper sourcing" on the talk page as opposed to the main article. As far as I know there is no difference between the two. If material is judged unsuitable for the main article due to being improperly sourced (or not sourced at all) then it has no place on the talk page either, at least not once the issues involved have been discussed, as they have here at some length already. People claiming to have seen or have access to supposedly existing sources is not proper sourcing, obviously. The bottom line is that as things currently stand, this talk page serves as a repository of material that is simply and clearly forbidden by wikipedia policy, and that same policy requires that the material be removed immediately and without discussion. --Durruti36 (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * last time to make the same point (6 or 8 times now?): the claims aren't questionable. He was sanctioned for sexual misconduct - we have proof here, a secondary source, which for most things is fine. We simply don't have an article-worthy source for such contentious material, ie a NPOV tertiary source which is preferred in such instances. The talk page record will keep this debate from reoccurring, which it likely will otherwise. I don't care to make links for you, but please maybe review guidelines about "whitewashing", your seeming intent.Tao2911 (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

What the "pro whitewash" contingent needs to remember is that, as Tao2911 has pointed out - we know without doubt that Dae Gak was accused and plead guilty to ethical violations and improper sexual conduct with patients. We also know that he was run out of Kwan Um for similar reasons. The only thing we don't have is someone who's written up and published an article about him (as opposed to some of the other "zen masters" who have taken the spotlight of late for similar actions). Why? Who knows - maybe it's because it looks like Dae Gak has really cleaned up his act. But if you continue to deny what we all know and pretend it never happened, how long until someone who's actually holding physical papers from the State of Kentucky, or correspondence from Kwan Um administrators decides they need to just go ahead and write it up, because they can't just sit quietly by and watch yet another zen cover-up take place?Jikaku (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "We also know that he was run out of Kwan Um for similar reasons." This is exactly the kind of statement that is not helpful here, and that Durruti is correct in questioning. We don't know this at all. Unless you've scared up a source for this (which you never have to this point), I suggest you strike it, or Durruti36 will be justified in calling it out as a violation of guidelines.Tao2911 (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

License suspension
In re: psychologist Robert W. Genthner: the Fall 2000 Psychology Board News published by the State of Kentucky Board of Psychological Examiners, Volume 3, Issue 2, states (heading of article "Robert W. Genthner, Ph.D. June 2000 Settlement Agreement): "The Board alleged that Dr. Genthner, a Kentucky licensed psychologist, exploited two of his clients by sexual touching, had sexual contact with these, failed to create and maintain written psychological records of the therapy of the two clients, and divulged confidential information about one of his patients. Genthner denied these charges. The Board and Dr. Genthner agreed: 1) to a one year active suspension of his license to practice psychology as of June 2000 2) to have his license placed on probation with weekly supervision of his entire practice of psychology for a period of two(2) years after the one(1) year suspension; and 3) to pay the amount of $2,742.50 for investigative costs to the Board." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Concerninggenthner (talk • contribs) 04:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This is an unimpeachable source citation. Therefore, per many other previous discussions and agreement among various editors to include this information if the appropriate source was found and clearly presented here, I included it, cited according to the above material. It should be clear from my previous comments and activity here that I am completely neutral - I do not have any bias either way. For instance, we do not have a source stating why he left Kwan Um, therefore any accusations about that are merely rumor or inference (though admittedly 2000 was quite a year for him.) But we know that he was suspended, etc. This is clearly significant biographical information, arguably considerably more important that some of the more slight material in the rest of his bio here.Tao2911 (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The source does not substantiate the claim. All the source states is that allegations were made and an agreement reached. There was no finding of fault, according to the quote provided. Nor was there a fine (paying costs of an investigation is not a fine). --Durruti36 (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "Durruti36" - you have had one goal and one goal only on this page, and that is the complete and total whitewashing of this bio entry. Your personal bias in this matter has been pointed out, and considering that you stand as the sole voice of "opposition" when all other wiki editors agree is telling. Moreover, Tao is a wholly neutral editor, and anyone can see by viewing the archives on this page, has been adamant regarding proper sourcing. At this point, continued deletion of this well sourced, appropriate content should be seen as nothing other than bad-faith vandalism. Jikaku (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 'fraid I have to generally agree with that assessment. There are a few editors who have weigh in in favor of including this material if we have a clear source. Durruti saying that the source doesn't support the cited claim is a basically ridiculous - paying for costs IS a fine. Of course Genthner said he didn't do anything wrong - as in any court case in which the defendent is found GUILTY, the licensing board DISAGREED, TOOK AWAY HIS LICENSE for a year, AND PUT HIM ON PROBATION AFTER IT WAS REINSTATED. Durruti is totally off base, and out of gas.Tao2911 (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The source provided does not say anything about any actual finding of the Board, only allegations. Allegations of this type are not appropriate for a biography of a living person (also see further clarification on this point below). Removal of such allegations, no matter how many times it is done, does not constitute edit warring, just so you know. Also, another principle of wikpedia is assumption of good faith. There have now been repeated insinuations about my motivations with respect to the subject of this page. I would request that editors refrain from such personal comments and stick to the issues. --Durruti36 (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia policy on living persons specifically states: "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." See BLP:Public_figures. That sounds pretty straightforward to me. In this case we have only one source, and one that is not readily available to others for purposes of verification, which makes even this one source problematic. --Durruti36 (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The July 25th, 2000 edition of the Lexington Herald Leader, Page B3 of the City and Region Section, contains the following information: "Psychologist's license suspended: State officials have suspended the license of a Lexington psychologist after an investigation into alleged sexual contact with clients. Under terms of an order by the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology, Robert W. Genthner's license to practice psychology will be suspended for one year. He will be on probation for another two years after that, with weekly supervision of his practice by an appointed outside supervisor. Genthner, a Ph.D. psychologist, agreed to the disciplinary action, although he denied engaging in any conduct that violated state law. The case stemmed from a complaint that the psychology board filed in February, alleging several violations." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Concerninggenthner (talk • contribs) 04:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * well there ya go. Signed sealed and delivered. We have two solid sources, including the classic tertiary newspaper mention. I added them, and mention that Genthner denied wrongdoing. And allegations are "alleged" until a finding is reached after an investigation - which one was, not in Genthner's favor. We're done here. Durruti, please don't edit war.Tao2911 (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Sources must actually substantiate what is written in main article
The sources that have been provided do not actually document what is stated in the main article concerning the Board of Psychology. All that the sources document is that allegations were made and a settlement reached. There was no finding of fault, at least not according to the sources provided. In fact, there was no conclusion reached on any of the allegations. The current wording should be changed to reflect what is actually documented in the sources provided. This should be done by Tao2911 or one of the others involved in the supposed "consensus" behind it. If the wording is not changed in that way then the edit must simply be removed because it is not verifiable, and therefore does not belong on wikipedia, and especially not in an article about a living person. Just stick to the facts and don't make extrapolations. --Durruti36 (talk) 11:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I simply disagree with your interpretation of these facts and events. The good thing is, we don't have to agree on interpretation. We can simply and neutrally say what the sources say, which is how the entry reads ("In 2000, Genthner's psychology license was suspended for one year due to sexual misconduct and violating patient confidentiality; he was fined, and was under supervised probation for a year after his license was reinstated. He denied any wrongdoing"). This statement couldn't be drier, or more neutral. You clearly are demonstrating one desire and one desire only - to whitewash this article. We have two sources, secondary and tertiary. This is significant biographical material, well-sourced. You have no valid grounds to remove it.Tao2911 (talk) 03:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The statement that Dae Gak's license was suspended "due to sexual misconduct" is clearly unsubstantiated by the documentation at hand. All the documentation states is that allegations were made. The Board reached no conclusion, at least none that have been documented, about any allegations. Therefore the suspension could not possibly be "due" to something that the Board made no decision on. Any material added to the article that is not backed up by proper sources must be removed immediately. No matter how many times this happens, the removal of such unsourced statements does not constitute edit warring. --Durruti36 (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

In re: claim that section is libelous. By definition, statements that are true are not libelous. The action taken by the board occurred; that fact is available to the public, and is published in a newspaper as a matter of public information. Furthermore, the standard for claiming libel is much, much more difficult to meet for someone who is a public figure, which Genthner/Dae Gak is, especially within the Buddhist community. Since this individual has attempted to garner some fame for himself and Furnace Mountain, the idea is that he has willingly thrust himself into the limelight and therefore information about him is subject to a much higher standard of scrutiny in terms of the public discourse. As another commenter noted, whenever the information about his being a psychologist is removed, so as to avoid the discussion, someone reverts to restore the information. Since someone is making this a relevant fact, then whatever information surrounds the licensure is also relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Concerninggenthner (talk • contribs) 15:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

How about changing "sexual misconduct" to "sexual mistreatment," or state that there were issues of "undue influence" with regards to sexual touching of clients. "Sexual misconduct" could libel the patients involved, some of whom might be identifiable within certain communities and contexts; it could potentially imply that there was some kind of voluntary sexual behavior going on between therapist and client. However, when something like this occurs in therapy, legally it is often viewed more like an assault than consensual behavior because of the undue influence of the therapist, kind of like a statutory sexual assault because consent is problematic in such situations. The therapist may be presenting the touching as some kind of therapy to help them. The client may not even realize that there is a sexual component to the touching, not having had the opportunity to quite realize that the therapist is not engaging in behavior to benefit the client. Concerninggenthner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.192.53 (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing is documented other than (1) allegations, and (2) the terms of an agreement between the subject of this article and the Board of Psychology. --Durruti36 (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing in the sources cited that substantiates any claims about what the license suspension was "due to". Nothing. Also it is essential to emphasize that the Board made no decision with respect to the merits of the the allegations. Also, there were multiple allegations, at least according to what has stated here in the past, and all of them were, apparently, simply dropped by the Board with no finding of wrongdoing. And yet Tao2911 seems to always focus on only the sexual nature of one of the allegations. But why should this article focus on that in particular? It seems pretty clear that a laundry list of all the allegations, all of which were eventually dropped, would be overkill. But focusing on only one allegation overemphasizes that one allegation. Therefore I am going to edit the article simply to state that various allegations, none of which were found to be true by the Board, were made against the subject. Also, wikipedia editors should speak to each other respectfully, without making random accusations, insinuations of bad faith, or SHOUTING. It is always best just to stick to the facts and avoid personal comments unless they are friendly or at least congenial. --Durruti36 (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * In what world were *any* allegations "eventually dropped"? The State of Kentucky Board of Psychology alleged that Genthner "exploited two of his clients by sexual touching, had sexual contact with these, failed to create and maintain written psychological records of the therapy of the two clients, and divulged confidential information about one of his patients." Yes, Genthner denied these charges - however he still agreed to: 1) to a one year active suspension of his license to practice psychology, 2) to have his license placed on probation with weekly supervision of his entire practice of psychology for a period of two(2) years after the one(1) year suspension; and 3) to pay a fine in the amount of $2,742.50 for investigative costs to the Board. Jikaku (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The "dropping" of charges or allegations is a straightforward concept. The Board terminated its consideration of all allegations without finding any fault or wrongdoing. Thus the allegations were dropped, meaning that they are no longer under consideration, and have not been for well over a decade, and without any finding against the person who was the target of the allegations. The current wording that Jikaku has inserted clearly implies otherwise, and Jikaku's comments in this talk section clearly show an intention to interpret the events in a way that goes far beyond what is in the sources provided. Such interpretations, whether they reflect positively or negatively on the subject, are completely out of bounds. Only verifiable information can be included in the article (or, for that matter, in any article on any subject in wikipedia). The only verifiable information is that allegations were made but that all consideration of these allegations was dropped, and that a voluntary agreement was entered into between the subject and the Board. And as I said before, I believe that listing all of these charges is overkill, given the fact that they were all dropped. The fact that the specific allegations are listed in the reference section is more than sufficient, and might also be considered overly prejudicial against the subject. The bottom line is this: any insinuation of guilt based on voluntary agreement entered into by the subject of this article is a violation of the most basic principles of wikipedia as well as of specific policies with respect to material concerning living persons. Therefore all such insinuations must be removed immediately. --Durruti36 (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Your interpretation is just that - an interpretation, one I strongly disagree with. ACCORDING TO ACTUAL SOURCES, various forms of misconduct were alleged; a suspension was instituted, along with a fine, followed by probation. "Voluntary" is NEVER USED in the sources. He agreed to it presumably because if he hadn't, his license would have been permanently revoked. The current version is accurate to sources, neutral, and clear. All of your recent edits show an extreme pro-Genthner bias, and I will continue to contest them unless you find a more suitable approach.Tao2911 (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The key word here is "presumably". That says it all. --Durruti36 (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * that says nothing, about a statement that has no bearing on the entry.Tao2911 (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Accusations of POV must have some basis, other than simple disagreement.
If an editor wants to make a claim concerning POV, some basis for this accusation must be given. Wholsesale removal of multiple edits on the basis of blanket claims (MADE IN ALL CAPS) of NPOV are not conducive to constructive discussion. --Durruti36 (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any indication in the articles that Genthner was placed into a diversion program, which is the only circumstance that I can think of in which the charges would be "dropped" after a term of probation. concerninggenthner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Concerninggenthner (talk • contribs) 23:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

There were allegations made to the Board, which the Board considered. The Board is no longer considering the allegations, and reached no conclusions concerning them. That is the meaning of "dropped". As far as I know this is the only way of accurately describing the process of going from officially and actively considering an allegation to no longer considering it, without engaging in the kind tortured verbage found in this sentence. Just saying that the allegations were "dropped" states things accurately and in plain language. If someone wishes to propose an alternative wording I am all ears. But the essential thing is to communicate the facts as documented, and the agreement reached between Dr. Genthner and the Board should not be construed in any way that goes beyond what is documented. That is just wikipedia 101. --Durruti36 (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Durruti, when I have a spare hour or three, it looks like we might be headed to arbitration, or further admin action. You are edit warring, with transparent bias for Genthner. Now you are adding commercial mentions for books that have yet to be published? How can you sleep, dude?Tao2911 (talk) 01:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * as for your points - where does it say the allegations were "dropped"? Neither source says that to my recollection - which is appropriate, because that wouldn't make any sense. If the charges were dropped, why would he be suspended, then on probation, and charged fees for the investigation and proceedings? All of those aspects in any legal proceeding mean guilt! They are the result of being found guilty. You don't get any punishment when you are innocent, ie charges are dropped! What planet are you living on? Clearly one in which you greatly admire and wish to prop up Mr. Genthner. You are welcome to do that - elsewhere.Tao2911 (talk) 01:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Tao2911: Please stop wholesale removal of my edits. If you believe something is inaccurate, please state what the inaccuracy is supposed to be and give some justification for the claim. Also, please treat separate issues separately. If you want to discuss the best way to include information about the allegations that were made against Dr. Genthner twelve years ago, none of which were ever found to have any merit, and the agreement reached between Dr. Genthner and the Board of Psychology, which did not include any finding of fault against Dr. Genthner, then please discuss this separately and treat other issues on their own merits. The point of this article is not to criticize or praise the subject, but rather to report verifiable information from a neutral point of view. --Durruti36 (talk) 03:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * One: where do SOURCES say "no fault was found", or use the word voluntary? Second: if, and only if, sources cited say this, please explain why if no fault was found why he was fined, suspended, and probation-ed.Tao2911 (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * One: where do the sources say "fault was found"? Tao2911, you have explicitly stated that it is your intention to give the impression that the subject was guilty of the allegations. No such finding of fault is anywhere in the sources. Since you and others have gone out of your way to over-interpret the documented facts, it is necessary to counter-act the misinterpretation that you and others have intentionally and repeatedly engaged in, and this requires emphasizing the absence of anything in the sources that states that Dr. Genthner was in fact guilty of any of things that were alleged against him. Therefore it is essential that the article state that "no fault was found" or something to this effect. Two: Providing an explanation for the agreement reached between Dr. Genthner and the Board goes beyond what is in the sources. By making this argument, Tao2911, you are exposing the fact that you are imposing your own interpretation, which is something that wikipedia editors are not supposed to do. The fact that you ask for my interpretation reinforces the fact that I have refrained from providing any such interpretation, which is what wikipedia editors are supposed to do. Three: The phrase "voluntarily agreed" should be redundant in the English language. But you and others have made it clear that you do not accept either the common, vernacular meaning of the word "agree" or the more formal meaning that it takes on in a formal investigation. In either case, "to agree" always means that the parties involved give their assent, and that this assent is freely given, that is, "voluntary". Any "agreement" that is entered into involuntarily is no agreement at all, and if the "agreement" had any legal standing, that legal standing would be seriously called into question if the agreement was not voluntary on the part of all those involved. In fact, if a party to any kind of agreement can show that assent was not given voluntarily, the agreement would in all likelihood be rendered null and void. --Durruti36 (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You don't answer my questions. You apply reasons to me that are fallacious. Again, quote sources to me that use the words "no fault was found" or "voluntary". They don't use the word "guilty" either - so neither does the entry as it now reads. You wish you spin it. Your spin is transparent. I don't, so I just use language from the sources. So stop removing the mention, stop adding biased spin, and stop edit warring.Tao2911 (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Tao2911, please suggest alternative wordings that do not reflect interpretations that go beyond the documented facts. You have repeatedly stated your belief that the subject of this article was engaged in wrongdoing, but all we have are allegations. Any objective review of this talk page will show that you have expressed very strong negative opinions regarding the subject of this article, and that you have consistently attempted to edit this article in a way that reflects your POV. I have already made attempts to get Admin involvement in this page on at least three occasions. I would be quite happy to have a disinterested third party look all of this over. --Durruti36 (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I am wondering about this "forthcoming" book: is this edit warring buying time until the book comes out? Does the book contain some spin specifically about this issue that has been intentionally created just so that it can become, they believe, a quotable source in forums such as Wikipedia, and so justify the point of view being argued? In other words, does some piece or part of the bookave the purpose that it can become a published source to be quoted so as to fit within Wikipedia policies, and/or other similar forums? Also, as to the discussion pertaining to Agreements reached, I think that the term Agreement in the context being discussed is a legal term of art and a legal action that has a different function and meaning than the word in other contexts. An Agreement between someone being charged with abusive conduct and a licensing board does not imply equality because by definition the licensing board involved has certain powers that give it leverage with regards to individuals holding professional licenses. Concerninggenthner —Preceding undated comment added 03:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC).

Durruti36 states: "In fact, if a party to any kind of agreement can show that assent was not given voluntarily, the agreement would in all likelihood be rendered null and void." I am not sure who is arguing that the Agreement was not voluntarily given. In legal agreements, there is generally some "quid pro quo" in any legal agreement, so that Genthner gained something (ending the investigation, and the use of his resources, as well as ending the possibility of more serious action), and the Board got something (ending the investigation, and the use of its resources). Concerninggenthner —Preceding undated comment added 03:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC).
 * Tao2911 has repeatedly claimed that it is wildly inaccurate to describe the settlement agreement as "voluntary". In fact her comments on this talk page make it clear exactly why it is absolutely necessary to explicitly state that it was "voluntary", even though under normal circumstances this would be redundant. Both Tao2911 and Jikaku have repeatedly attempted to insert material into this article with the explicitly stated intention of portraying the subject of the article as guilty of actions that he was never found guilty of, and they have also repeatedly attempted to portray the voluntary agreement as an official disciplinary action by the Board against the subject. The article must now counter-act these false impressions, while still sticking to the facts. I am open to alternative wordings so long as they are consistent with the documented facts. --Durruti36 (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * stop saying this - my edits show complete neutrality. I believe that the fact that he was suspended for sexual misconduct happens to mean that he was "guilty" of something, or he wouldn't have been suspended. But I just use the sources in the entry, who don't in fact use the word guilty. Nor, as I've said six times now, use the words "voluntary" or any of the other weasel words you keep inserting, along with promo material and other edits that violate standards for BLP, NPOV and basic tone. Tao2911 (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Tao2911: "I believe that the fact that he was suspended for sexual misconduct happens to mean that he was 'guilty' of something". As far as your beliefs go, you have a perfect right to them. But what is it that you believe he is guilty of, and where are your sources documenting his guilt? You are only providing more evidence of (1) the POV nature of your editing on this article, and (2) the necessity of emphasizing the voluntary nature of a settlement, which under normal circumstances can be left as implicit, but in this case requires explicit emphasis because of your repeated (and admitted) attempts to misuse wikipedia to promote your own personal interpretation.--Durruti36 (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * we can go around and around on this, but I will repeat the same stupid point that should be obvious anyway - neither "guilt" nor "voluntary" are used in the sources. I don't want either one in the entry. I added "alleged" to placate you, because it is in the source. I'm still waiting for that "thank you." Everything you say above, for the fourth or eighth time, is pure conjecture, with a clear bias, and it doesn't actually make sense. Genthner agreed to a settlement of a suspension, fine, and probation. By your definition, everyone who goes to jail does so "voluntarily" if they happen to follow their sentence. But it makes no dif. if the words aren't in the source, they don't don't go in the entry.Tao2911 (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Please avoid using inflammatory language
Editors should avoid making inflammatory accusations. Phrases like "weasel words" and "insane" have no place here. --Durruti36 (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I said it was "insane making". Keep it together. And you are using "weasel words", as I have explained here. That is not inflammatory language. And you are edit warring. Let's get some admin help in here on this. I'll appeal for it when I have the time.Tao2911 (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have already contacted one Admin who has previously intervened on this article, posted several requests for help on the BLP noticeboard, and made one request for protection. FYI. Calling another editor's contributions "weasel words" is beyond the pale. And claiming that another editor is making you insane is obviously inflammatory. You admit that your edits reflect your own interpretation, which goes beyond what is documented. I will continue to remove all such POV edits. If you want to suggest alternative wording that makes it clear that you are no longer campaigning to give the appearance of guilt when there is no documentation of guilt, then I will carefully consider what you have to say. --Durruti36 (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Dude, "[|weasel weasel word]" is standard WP speak, and nothing to get your panties in such a wad about. And the words you keep using are precisely "weasel-y" ("beyond the pale?" Oh my, I'm think I'm feeling a touch the vapors! Someone please hand me a lilac-scented silk kerchief, and fetch me a fan boy!) Glad you contacted admin, as I only have had a minute here or there to check in.Tao2911 (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Phrases such as these present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. They are referred to as "weasel words" by Wikipedia contributors. They can pad out sentences without adding any useful information and may disguise a biased view. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed." Exactly what I contend your word choices in numbers of instances are doing - but especially using "voluntary" and "no fault found" etc, which are nowhere to be found in the sources.Tao2911 (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Puffery
So Durruti36 is clearly a big Dae Gak/Genthner supporter and fan. Another editor says that he is in fact a senior student and heir, according to the name self-revealed on his page here. I don't really care about that, only that his activity here is clearly biased, he is engaging in an edit war, and persistently inserting highly biased material. I removed uses of the title "Dr." as puffery, and not in keeping with BLP guidelines. He inserted minor academic essays from 35-40 years ago, that in a short, generally poorly sourced article did not fit, and are not in keeping with an encyclopedic entry, especially not of this length - and constituted another transparent act of puffery. And then there is the most obvious example of trying to weasel up the sex abuse/suspension bit, now that he can't remove it altogether anymore due to two solid sources (history documents this pattern clearly). So, other editors here, please weigh in here for the admins who should be soon descending upon the page. Everyone here seems to have a bias; I've been accused by both sides of having the opposite, which I find amusing. As I've said, I just happen to know enough about Zen to care, not enough about this guy to have an opinion in any direction.Tao2911 (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * As Tao2911 will readily attest, we certainly don't always agree - but this is one instance where I agree completely, and it's easy to, since this is pretty straight forward. I don't know what else to add to Tao's explanation above - I think the current Tao2911's NPOV edit is the most accurate, and honestly, the language is even a little less strong than could be warranted by the sources that are available. Given what we know of Durruti36's connection to the article subject matter, and how it directly benefits him to have a more "favorable" article, I don't see how he can even pretend at a "neutral point of view" here. My vote's with Tao2911's edits. Jikaku (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Durruti36 states: "Both Tao2911 and Jikaku have repeatedly attempted to insert material into this article with the explicitly stated intention of portraying the subject of the article as guilty of actions that he was never found guilty of, and they have also repeatedly attempted to portray the voluntary agreement as an official disciplinary action by the Board against the subject." However, the Settlement Agreement itself would not have been the disciplinary action; the Settlement Agreement was the instrument that both parties signed and entered into that allowed the Board of Psychological Examiners to discipline Genthner pursuant to certain terms that were negotiated by the two parties and entered into the Agreement, which included the suspension, and the supervised probation. That the Board considers the suspension and supervised probation to be disciplinary action (not the Settlement Agreement) is made known on its searchable website in the section that indicates whether disciplinary action has been taken against a psychologist, which for Genthner states "yes". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Concerninggenthner (talk • contribs) 01:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

What belongs in the biography of a public figure
A section of the Wikipedia policies is copied below:

"Public figures In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is this important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out, or stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe were divorced."

Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but The New York Times and other newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources."

1) The information is published in a reliable newspaper source, the Lexington Herald Leader (a tertiary source), as well as a newsletter published by the State of Kentucky Board of Psychological Examiners (a secondary source).

2) The information is relevant as long as the information about the psychology license appears on the page and as long as other information about the subject's past has been included in the biography.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Concerninggenthner (talk • contribs) 20:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This is very clear. Thanks for taking the time to even more clearly explain. I didn't need convincing of course, and clearly a couple of editors here won't be convinced by any reasonable argument, but it's good to have it spelled out anyway.Tao2911 (talk) 02:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

In re: Wikipedia rules about non-public info of living persons (BLP). The information that is being deleted by POV editors who are using the page for promotional/advertisement reasons is available publicly, and therefore this rule does not apply to Genthner/Dae Gak. Also, this page is not intended to be one that promotes Genthner / Dae Gak in his role as a "zen master", as some editors are indicating; Wikipedia is not a forum promoting any specific forms of religion or religious teachers. The article is a biography that also contains information pursuant to Genthner's life events. Therefore, claims that any information not relevant to his role as zen master such not be included are specious, particularly in light of the fact that the same editors are adding information that pertains to his activities outside of someone who has been given transmission as a zen teacher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Concerninggenthner (talk • contribs) 19:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit War - Suspected Socks
So I've filed a report that will hopefully get Deeplyconcerninggenthner indefinitely blocked. I suspect he's a sock of Recordstraight1234, who is a likely sock of Durruti36, who just happened to go quiet here after being flagged for edit warring himself. How coincidental! They all happen to remove the same passage, of which we are all too aware. I'll take another 20 minutes I guess and try to file a sock inquiry. Sigh.Tao2911 (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is the sock investigation. Three ID's are confirmed socks (deeplyconcerninggenthner, recordstraight1234, and brightdoju - all now blocked indefinitely); Durrutti36 isn't one of them, though meatpuppets are considered possible.Tao2911 (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Removal of controversial material
As is clear from this Talk Page, Genther's behaviour has been discussed before. One more removal, and I'll put a notice on ANI. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   03:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll just second this emotion. Clearly the editor in question has a stated POV, and removed sourced material, long fought over and settled. Thanks JJ for spotting this and reversing the whitewash.Tao2911 (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dae Gak. 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/20091231061231/http://www.mansfieldzen.com/id6.html to http://www.mansfieldzen.com/id6.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) 06:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)