Talk:Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo/Archive 3

Self Published Sources in Biographies
Would not Alyce's self-promotion through Palyul publications contribute to her definition as a public figure also? If a secondary source is needed to strengthen the article's accuracy - see the Encyclopedia of Women and Religion in North America published by Indiana University Press. Authored by Rosemary Skinner, Marie Cantlon and Rosemary Radford. This is a very reputable publisher and publication. Among other things it states that Alyce gave herself the title of 'Jetsunma', "stumbled with self-serving expectations" regarding salary. Also mentions that Alyce "used her position of authority to attract several lovers (both male and female) from among her students." It also mentions her "dubious" "channeling of a voice known as Jeremiah." It also states that she claimed that the recognition as a reincarnate person meant she was a "living Buddha" and that this was "strongly refuted by Penor Rinpoche (her teacher?)." the Encyclopedia is with Google books and can be easily searched to get page numbers etc for citation. This article may also wish to reference online material from blogs etc that are written by primary sources - namely those who claim to have been "abused" by Alyce and her organisation and any public response made by Alyce herself. TenzinGyatso (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Longchenpa, these policies say self-published sources are allowed in biographies.


 * BLP
 * WP:QS
 * WP:SPS
 * WP:SELFPUB

I am aghast you didn't learn this last time around.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This talkpage isn't meant for arguments strictly between you and Longchenpa. If you have something to say to him, send him a message on his own talkpage. Now, with that said, what sources did he use that are self-published? &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You are right, I did that not too long ago, and it ended up back on Talk page, (see COPIED above). Longchenpa has challenged Palyul Productions as a source, claiming they are Jetsunma's self-publishing wing.  They exclusively record and produce Jetsunma's teachings. However unlike a blog, they have a editorial process and they are an official organization. I rate them as a reliable source, because they have the most frequently available information.  I'll agree their editorial process could be better. There's no reason to exclude Palyul Productions as Longchenpa would like.  Case by case analysis must be applied with regards to WP:SELFPUB.   (BY THE WAY, the historical Longchenpa would welcome Palyul Productions as a source. Perhaps a new enlightened version will emerge now.)Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We're talking about Palyul Productions, which seems a bit suspect. However, I'm not too sure, so could you show me the specific source we're talking about? Is it a webpage or a written source? If it's a webpage, please link to it. We may be able to add the information, provided that we mention who we're quoting. Simply citing them as a regular source would be misleading. Even if it's not technically self-published, their strong ties to her make them unreliable. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 06:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This issues are Palyul Production's editorial process and WP:SELFPUB, which for the recent Palyul Production's sourced material I've added is not "unduly self-serving" because is avoids WP:PEACOCK and does not harm third parties. The parties are all in line with Tibetan Buddhism as first and second parties. It's highly notable and not contentious to me.  As far as Palyul Production's editorial process, at least they have one, but it could be better considering they have no paid staff.  I agree the info added must be properly attributed to the quoted sources. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I've never used self-published material. I've relied on Random House and mainstream publications.
 * Palyul Productions is Alyce's self-publishing wing. She tells Palyul Productions what to publish, she hires, fires, and appoints people to work at Palyul Productions and has complete control of the organization. Longchenpa (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Does this mean you won't allow Palyul Productions on a case by case basis? Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Archive
This can go to the Archive too. It seems my WP:SELFPUB efforts have fallen on deft ears. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 05:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPF enforcement relief
The tabloid aspects of this Article are subject to WP:NPF enforcement, which by my read says negative information must be substantiated by Primary and Secondary sources to be included. There is not sufficient notability when negative information comes from a single primary source. Thankfully, relief is on the way for any agenda to include irrelevant negative information by publishing on Wiki.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I'm not sure if this applies here, but I don't know. It hinges on a crucial question: When we say "public figure," do we mean within the relevant topic at hand, in terms of the international world, or in terms of the average Wikipedia reader? Jetsunma is a Lama and a Tulku. In terms of Tibetan Buddhism, that's a public figure. And she's been in the media like a dozen times over the past several years, so I would say she is an obscure public figure, but not a private figure like you or me. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 22:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are ways to degree public figures however, it's best to side with caution that WP:NPF applies. The key word in the policy is "relatively unknown" which is about the same as when you say "obscure public figure", so by your own reasoning it applies. Contrast with the "well-known" alternative WP:WELLKNOWN. We could split hairs, but I really believe most folks would say Jetsunma is unknown to them, that's a simple test. She was relatively unknown to me even after the publicity. I don't want to waste time on this.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In reviewing Public Figure I have greater certainty that WP:NPF applies, Jetsunma does not meet the public figure definition. She's not a politician or celebrity and for the most part 501(c)3 restrictions keep her our of the public influence arena. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If she could sue Wikipedia, then she could sue every book, newspaper, and magazine article about her. But she can't. Obviously, if she's been in the Washington Post several times, she is a public figure in legal terms. To settle this, though, you could easily e-mail Mike Godwin, Wikipedia's lawyer, and ask him what he thinks. See his userpage at User:MGodwin or email him at mgodwin[[Image:At sign in Bitstream Vera Sans.svg|12px]]wikimedia.org. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 06:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am convinced this issue will survive third party review. You can ask for one on this section. However, you're making an argument that has nothing to do with what the policy says. I call that grasping attachment.  Is it your intent to have a court case?  ... that would be a dereliction of editorial responsibility. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You keep asking for third party reviews on the same issue. I think you're wasting everyone's time. This has been resolved. You just don't like the answer. Longchenpa (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, it's not resolved, we have a RFC next in line. You welcomed this a short time ago.  I believe ZenWhat has admitted to the Wiki Administrators that WP:NPF should apply.  Why can't you?Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Considering Public Figure say's a fairly high threshold is applied (see ref *Legal definition of public figure via lectlaw). I don't find arguments convincing that a few press publications meet the threshold. Once again WP:NPF applies.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Zulu, I am the third party. This debate was originally between you and Longchenpa. Please, stop Wikilawyering (literally). There is more than a few publications. There was an entire biography on her, rofl.


 * If you are an advocate for Jetsunma and consider this article defamatory, write Wikipedia's lawyer and they can do an "office action" to fix this article if you actually have a case. You don't have a case, though, so you're just trying to argue the issue to death and edit war. That's not allowed here. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your views and involvement, precisely what's important is that the Wiki policy WP:NPF is adhered to through reasonable talk discussion. My intention is to prevent this article from being defamatory. I and you, should have no interest in escalating this to court, frankly neither of us have standing to take to court, we don't have a case in court. If you going to say Public Figure applies to this subject in the context of Wiki policies, I'll continue to disagree with you and seek relief. My first intention was to talk this over, not to edit war. I haven't begun to enforce WP:NPF.  When I do, my first step will be to add citation references to where negative material requires duly collaborated sources.  There may be "more than a few publications" and a biography and advertising however, there's not a sufficiently high threshold to meet Public Figure even when you consider the subject must have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved" to even be considered a "limited public figure". WP:NPF intends to included notable information and exclude tabloid editing, for the wiki readers benefit. I am sorry, if you don't like the policy, but it's there for the common good.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat, your proposal to contact Wiki's lawyer would have been non-productive see:Legal disclaimer. Furthermore, is not our duty to promote legal threats No_legal_threats Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Precedent Review
I've reviewed BLPN for wiki precedent on how to proceed with WP:NPF enforcement. The discussions seem to support me in source requirements and public figure definition. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone adverse to me seeking WP:RFC "Request for Comment" on WP:NPF applicability? I don't want to unless it's not clear to folks that is applies. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Citation Qualifying
In reviewing CITE, I realized that much of material that can be considered offensive has not been properly qualified as to who said it, who is the subject and who is the object. I am considering that defamatory material, is specifically attributed to Jetsunma by a single primary source. There is controversial material in this article, that has not been specifically attributed to Jetsunma, and really reflects the policies of the organizations she's started (i.e. KPC administration). Material reflective of the organizations, doesn't seem entirely relevant to this biographical article's notability requirements. I don't want to be rash or to provoke an edit war, however I see a need to:


 * * better qualify some content as per CITE - I'll apply here
 * * improve citations to support keeping negative info as per WP:NPF - I'll apply here
 * * delete irrelevant and potential defamatory material as per WP:NPF - I'll delete this.

As far as material that's relevant to KPC, Let's wait to see what evolves before considering the next step.

I would appreciate comments on this approach.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This was settled back in December. If it's from the Buddha From Brooklyn it's well-sourced and not a libel issue. As Curious Blue put it at the time, Wiki assumes that publishers like Random House will have fact-checked and vetted information for libel. Alyce didn't sue Random House. It is disruptive to repeatedly bring up the same settled issues again and again on the talk page. It's a dead horse, Zulu Papa. Longchenpa (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, we didn't consider WP:NPF and article notability standards back then. 19:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Zulu Papa 5 (talk)

A response from Mike Godwin
I e-mailed Wikipedia's lawyer, Mike Godwin, asking about the legal application of the term "public figure".

He responded:

So, no, WP:NPF does not apply here. As for your other comments, Zulu, this is really getting tiresome. I'm going to wait for Longchenpa to return and I'll continue this futile discussion whenever he is back as well. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. Zulu Papa is raising an issue that was settled back in December. Alyce is a public figure. Beyond the AP articles, the numerous Washington Post articles, articles in smaller publications such as the Gaithersburg Gazette that aren't listed here, the book about her life from Random House, the interview of her in a second book, and articles in Elle and Mirabella magazine, Alyce acknowledges this herself. This dead horse has been thoroughly beaten. Longchenpa (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry. it was not settled back then, we never looked at WP:NPF.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Mike has a WP:COI in this application
I appreciate Mike's response and largely agree with it. You're conclusion, ZenWhat, is hasty (maybe even reckless) and doesn't follow wiki policies. If there were a serious question about WP:NPV and Public Figure applying to Jetsunma, Zenwhat ... you could be leading folks astray!!

Because Wiki as an organization would be liable, it's in Mike's commercial interests to have Public Figure apply in court because it affords Wiki greater protection. I appreciate Mike's response however, I consider it to be a WP:COI as far as editorial application of WP:NPF, therefore only relevant from an educational viewpoint, and certainly not unbiased legal advice to editors.

When Mike says "If there are false statements, they may be libel if the editor was negligent (or worse) in including them." certainly leaves room that it's the editors that are responsible, and could be responsible for negligent application of WP:NPF or Public Figure. So Wiki under Mike's lead, would most likely counter sue an editor for violating Public Figure application and WP:NPF guidelines. Anyone reading this should be aware that your contribution to how Public Figure is applied in court could be used by Wiki to sue you. Please take caution.

Now with that said I agree with Mike, I don't think there is any serious question that Jetsumna is a public figure, specifically now because it's not in court and will likely never ever be. I have no interest in a court case application of public figure. There is very little chance of any lawsuit in this process, because we are having this discussion, which will likely lead to a fair WP:NPV application to prevent any issues.

Mike has an extreme WP:COI and the decision should be deferred to informed editors responsibility. Please ask Mike what is an editor's responsibility to prevent libel, that's the issue here with WP:NPV. This is what is most relevant now within Wikipedia.

Please side with the greatest caution ZenWhat and apply WP:NPF. Again, it's in everyone's best interest to apply WP:NPF to this article. Especially, after we've taken great steps to educate you as to the issues. As per policies, this issue may require a Request for Comment among editors for better resolution.

Would you have Wiki exposed to libel?

Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is something not even Alyce would argue. As she put it in the Buddha From Brooklyn, "I have the karma for fame." She's a public figure and has been since she was enthroned as a tulku in 1988 was written about by Associated Press. Since then she's had a book written about her life, a second book with an interview of her, numerous articles about her in the Washington Post, Mirabella magazine. Information about her has been published to over two million people. We've gone over this before with other editors. I welcome an additional third party of this question if you so desire. Longchenpa (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, and you intend to apply her quote for "defame". In opposition to her intention. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Jetsunma not found in "Public Figure" databases
I've checked the databases suggested in Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard and have not found a listing for Jetsunma. This suggests little evidence that she is a Public Figure. WP:NPF applies. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think everyone would agree that Wikipedia is a work in progress and its list of Public Figures isn't complete. Look, not even Alyce would contest the fact that she's a public figure. We went over this last December. To quote her again, "I have the karma for fame." Longchenpa (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, I've contact the KPC leadership folks. They disagree and consider this a potentially  "serious question".  I had to tell them, based upon your talk page comments, folks were making decisions upon your edits. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I'd assumed that you were a student and yet you grew irate at my "assumptions." I appreciate the confirmation.


 * It's irrelevant whether KPC students think she's a public figure or not. Obviously the press thinks she's enough of a public figure to write two books and numerous articles in the Washington Post, Associated Press, Mirabella, Elle magazine, and elsewhere. If I recall, The Buddha From Brooklyn mentioned that Alyce was making a documentary about her own life and sold the story to Hollywood as well-? You can't seek out fame and then only selectively call yourself a public figure when it suits you. Longchenpa (talk) 23:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's entirely relevant to folks that may be also harmed by libel. You ignorance of the standards to be applied is beginning to offend me. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 01:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This Public Figure definition http://w2.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-defamation.php#7 should help you see that there's no evidence that Jetsunma "actively sought, in a given matter of public interest, to influence the resolution of the matter."  To do such, might violate 501(c)3 restrictions on political activities (see 501(c)3). These rules specifically excluded her from being a Public Figure. So with this included, it doesn't apply. 02:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Zulu Papa 5 (talk)


 * Second verse, same as the first. Here you go:


 * This is not private information. It is widely known. It appeared in Mirabella magazine which has a circulation of 600,000 people, The Buddha From Brooklyn by Random House which has gone through two printings in both hardcover and paperback, and it was in Tricycle magazine (the main Buddhist review) circulation 60,000, and it also appeared in the Washington Post Magazine, circulation 750,000 people.


 * In magazines and newspapers alone this information has been made available 1,410,000 people. Random House is a very large publisher so two printings is no small run. Not to mention that Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo participated in the Buddha From Brooklyn.


 * On the one hand, I get tired of the repetition of the same argument that's been settled by third party review. On the other hand, it does save me some time when I've already answered the same question. Longchenpa (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I hear you, let me suggest making points that are supported by relevant standards. Your pointless repetition absent a standard citation is tiring.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Requires Conservatism in WP:BLP
Look, the argument to not apply WP:NPF is really quite risky. It's very clear in many cases and notices that Wiki Requires Conservatism in WP:BLP, see the two at the top of this page. Wiki even has special procedures for Politician's because they are public figures. By my judgment, not applying WP:NPF is not conservative. Given that there is a high Burden of proof required for Public Figure (possibly Burden_of_proof, requiring multiple sources as WP:NPF intents). None of us in a position to assert the "truth" because as far as I know we were not witnesses. Anyway, we must go by references. To be conservative about the "truth" WP:NPF requires a primary and secondary reference. I am a loss to provide better guidance to you, aside from reaching into public figure lawsuits to pull out precedent. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Case precedent, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. illustrates that mere negligence in applying WP:NPF could be cause for concern. Again I urge you to consider the "serious question" here.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Starting Dubious Material Enforcement
I've begun to "be bold" Dubious material enforcement with citations and "black lines". Unadressed negative material without original secondary source ciation will be removed to avoid lible. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Stop removing entire sections from the Talk page. Also, stop abusing the "dubious" tag for everything you don't like. Random House is not even remotely dubious. Longchenpa (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Longchenpa, you have excuted 1 revert in two instances to subvert this policy, and risk a ban. see Three-revert rule. I am self-reverting your reverts. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL! You are not a moderator and you don't set policy on Wikipedia. Longchenpa (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been applying the dubious tag with regards to enforcing WP:NPF requiring a secondary source to be verified and protect the truth. There may be a better tag as I've notice folks are editing out my dubious concern. Does anyone have a sugestion for how I should tag material that is contencious and requires a secondary source? Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Published by Random House means it's not dubious
Zulu, please don't abuse the "dubious" tag for everything that you don't agree with. The material is from The Buddha From Brooklyn. The book was published by Random House, and written by a reputable journalist. Hell, it has a blurb by Bob Woodward on the back and he even helped edit. The reputations of the publisher and editors involved are so far from dubious that it's hard to find anything less dubious. Longchenpa (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

One again, you may be Civility with Feigned incomprehension, "playing dumb"  The material must be verified with 2 sources, (a secondary source) and the burden of proof is on you, to protect the truth. This was well announced to you here in this section, please don't fork this section's issues it's not civil. I am working on WP:NPF enforcement. You can rewrite the material with better qualification or cite a secondary source to keep it. Let's it be deleted. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to move this discussion down to the bottom, because it's hard to find it here. Longchenpa (talk) 00:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I respectfully refuse to engage at the bottom, it belongs here. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Picking up here, the material is dubious becasue folks have complained, and WP:NPF requires a primary and secondary source in order to assure better verification against possible libel. Random House alone does not provide adequate protection here. I have no better tag but dubious to apply. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Longchenpa, the Martha Sherril and Will Blythe sources you extensively cite for negative information. They were not authorized by Jetsunma, were they? Has this no bearing on your decision to include them without a back up reference to be sure? Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Bias and other's concern
For a overview on bias and other's concerns with this article see here:


 * User_talk:Longchenpa

Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Biography Privacy Rights
As a notice so folks are not reckless in their considerations here, when Privacy Rights apply as to the "Public Disclosure of Private Facts", this deals with the publication of private and embarrassing facts that are not related to matters of public concern. So please, when considering what to include with a single reference, you must ask:
 * Did the subject act to make this information a matter of public concern or did someone invade the subject's privacy by publishing the information without consent, in a biography such as we are working on here. Zulu Papa 5 (talk)


 * "False Light Invasion of Privacy" -- this involves statements that may be literally true and not "private" or necessarily "embarrassing", but may still be a privacy invasion it suggests something false or misleading about the person. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Dispute History

 * Third Party Review -


 * ANI Resolved


 * Alert -


 * 3RR No Violation

Archive
I've ended the RFC related to this section. Will be best to Archive in continuous block with other sections in this talk. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 05:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Acclaim section
Zenwhat, please explain which POV you are excluding by removing the Acclaim section? I was working toward matching Chögyam Trungpa which has similar Acclaims. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed WP:NPOV and really don't see much about obvious POV pushing. The Recognition and HHPR acclaim quote content are highly significant to this subject's notability. The Crucify quote is controversial, however like many of the other controversies, the subject is not notable for them. see Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We need something meaty for a separate acclaim section. If it's just a review of her CD saying she has a lovely voice, it'll sound like damning her with faint praise. Longchenpa (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as using a blog for the acclaim section, as you yourself pointed out in March, we can't cite blogs on Wikipedia. Do you really want to do that anyway? What Lama Tenpa had to say about Alyce in his blog was damning. Longchenpa (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Blogs aren't reliable. I've heard that Tenpa was a fraud. I don't know for certain, but because they're both blogs, for all we know, both sites are fake. Neither should be used. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Neither should be cited because blogs just represent personal opinions. They're not fact-checked, and blogs are by nature highly biased.


 * Off-topic, I looked into the Lama Tenpa situation. I could find nothing to substantiate Lama Tenpa's recognition. On the other hand, I could find nothing to indicate he'd put up a shingle and announced he was a guru either. There's some personal altercation with a past girlfriend, so he sounds like a pretty ordinary Joe to me, except that he's been married a dozen times.


 * I spoke with some people who know the situation. The whole thing is classic KPC: Tenpa was running his blog and recommending this teacher and that, and was doing something with Tibetan medicine. Alyce has ongoing health problems (talked about in the Buddha From Brooklyn) and invited him to come to the temple to consult. His qualifications are zero as far as I can tell.


 * Within five months he and Alyce were engaged (not something mentioned on his blog and not uncommon for Alyce). He was asked to take over as CFO by Alyce after two students were arrested in Texas for driving Alyce's car with drugs in the back (turns out it was a mother and son, a pretty squeaky clean pair). After checking out KPC finances Tenpa pointed out what every other CPA has told Alyce (as published in Mirabella): that she could get in trouble with the IRS. He told her because of his past situation with his girlfriend (the girlfriend had shot him and then set the house on fire to cover up the blood. Against his attorney's advice he refused to press charges because she'd get deported. He ended up going to jail.) he could get into trouble being anywhere near KPC's finances. He called in an investigator and told Alyce to come clean and cut a deal with the IRS. Alyce then ordered the nuns to hold Tenpa hostage. One of the nuns refused and got Tenpa out of there. KPC students then descended on the nun's house demanding that she turn Tenpa over to them. She ordered them off her property. She then got Tenpa and drove him halfway across the country, fleeing KPC. It sounds an awful like like that other nun who ran, see The Buddha From Brooklyn. KPC then started leveling charges against Tenpa that he'd defrauded them, with no evidence that I've seen so far. They've also made claims on one of their many blogs that the nun was crazy, etc., with no evidence for that either, the usual slander against an ex-student. Sounds like revenge to me. Longchenpa (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting story, I wish I could believe it. The man works his way in to defraud, with financial implications, seems like an allegation, to be withheld for jury.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have never met or spoken with Tenpa, although KPC students told me last winter that he was marvelous. When I asked what his credentials were, they didn't have an answer. It seemed it all came from Alyce praising her latest pet. *eyeroll* As far as the details, these are well-known among the "first wave" KPC students. You're a student of hers, so don't bullshit me. Longchenpa (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Longchenpa, I should advise you that meeting minutes can be considered private, and not to be published. I don't have these, and you consider me a student? I often wonder what your role as a student is, you have been studying this subject for some time longer than me?Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 01:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know why you wouldn't. They were posted publicly on the internet. As for my stance on KPC, I think it's no secret that I think the evidence very clearly that Alyce Zeoli is as corrupt as they come. There's complexity to the issue, which is what makes the story interesting. Longchenpa (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Corrupt is a really serious allegation from someone who should be holding a Neutral Point of View. What publications do you have to support your potential libel here?  Seems like you continue to defame on this talk page which is serious breach of wiki standards. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me remind you Longchenpa, this section was intended for Acclaim, lest you corrupt it.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) She was arrested for physically assaulting her students.
 * 2) She has a salary of $100,000 per year and no one knows what she does with it, given she has no rent or expenses and students pay for her houses (plural).
 * 3) She has diverted temple funds intended for statues and monastery buildings for her own personal use.
 * 4) She hosted a divorce party where she and her students abused her ex-husband in effigy.
 * 5) She has taken one student after another as her consort, publicly vilifying them on the way out the door (Tenpa is merely the latest) and punishing students who say no.


 * You can call that what you like. Other than sit on a throne and get recognized, has she done anything good? Every time I've found anything good about her, it's her students who gave all the money or did all the work. I'm noticing that you're having trouble finding stuff not published by Alyce herself (i.e. Palyul Productions) for the Acclaim section. In 1995, Penor Rinpoche said that most of the harm in Dharma right now is being done by tulkus, while most of the good is being done by ordinary sentient beings. 75.172.79.127 (talk) 04:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Look you're getting out of hand. I apprecaite your agenda. However you are violating BLP with some of your discussions and by repeating blog material.  I'll have to ask you to withdraw the dubious material. These claims are not fully substantiated as to WP:NPF they could be harmful. At best your Begging_the_question with circular logic to assume there is guilt where there is accusation. Any reference to these claims must meet WP:NPF and be citation qualified. You know the source would not like this here, is that not reason enough. I'll remind you that if administrators find concern they can block you.  I would like to see you stay on.  Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 05:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree it's somewhat off-topic, but you and Zenwhat have both participated in the discussion of Tenpa, and you opened the discussion of blogs by using one to support your acclaim section. I note that you called Tenpa a fraud here (he's arguably not a public figure) without acknowledging pertinent facts like he was engaged to Alyce -- which complicates KPC's accusations all over eSangha. Konchog Norbu, a KPC monk and student of Jetsunma, was the person who made the accusations before the thread was frozen by eSangha mods back in March.


 * "I would like to see you stay on." rofl! This would be more convincing if you hadn't threatened in the past (was it February?) to have me banned. Longchenpa (talk) 05:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Tenpa's defamatory blogging is the most unreliable, not substantiated. By my research Tenpa was a fraud as far as the Ngingma are concerned. He was recently arrested for probation violation on ex-wife assault. It's in the pubic record. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Alyce has shown her usual good judgment in consorts. But knowing that Alyce and Tenpa were engaged changes the issue quite a bit. Longchenpa (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I can't continue in your tabloid discussion. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The point remains the same. You can't use a blog to support your acclaim section. Even if you could, you wouldn't want to, because you'd open the door to Tenpa's blog. And Captainsnark for that matter. Longchenpa (talk) 05:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The point that negative material must have a secondary source remains the same as well. Zulu Papa 5 (talk)


 * By the standards of Wikipedia, blogging in general is regarded as unreliable. Your own research is irrelevant here. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * True about blogging by it's self, I contend it supports that PP published the material. It matches. As far a Tenpa, I was researching for a article on him, and found no sources.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Palyul Productions is run by Alyce herself. It's her publishing wing. Longchenpa (talk) 23:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, now please don't be evasive. How do you consider WP:SELFPUB to apply?Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 01:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you try for a new argument? Just to keep this interesting? Because we've down this road before, here let me get the link. ETA: Here we are. From four months ago. Longchenpa (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:SELFPUB is the standard that applies, I am sorry if you don't like it. I must remind you that continued effort to be evasive would not likely be looked upon favorable among commentators and administrators. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Isn't it your wikilawyering that's being questioned at the moment? Longchenpa (talk) 05:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The WP:WL issue was quickly resolved by experienced folks as an over-reaction. You'll see it's a pejorative term. I have not been making "ill-founded legal reasoning" for things like standing, or authority. Just simple reference for Wiki standards for dispute resolution which is OK.  You might want to consider retaining a lawyer if you continue to press a POV that may include libel. This off topic talk is not OK for this section.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In other words, it was your wikilawyering that was in question. That's what I read. Longchenpa (talk) 23:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggest removal of off-topic material as GRAPEVINE and WP:coatrack white space violation.. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you decided that you will not use a blog to support your new Acclaim section? Because until then, the discussion should stay. Longchenpa (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please understand, negative infomation from blogs, must be removed. I am disapointed you brought it in here off-topic, I would like to strike the dubious material. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The discussion is about your attempt to use a blog and self published material as a source. As I said above, "Neither should be cited because blogs just represent personal opinions. They're not fact-checked, and blogs are by nature highly biased." If we're no longer using a blog as a source, then we can archive the discussion. Longchenpa (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest archiving this discussion and beginning anew on the material itself. Discuss each blog or self-published source separately as the deciding factors are about the source itself, not so much the content. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, what should we do with unsourced/poorly sourced negative info from blogs in this talk page? Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The offtrack material also treads on WP:FORUM and WP:SOAP. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Archive Proposal
If folks will OK removing potentialy harmfull blog and unsourced material, I am OK for archiving this section. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't. Not right now.  Let it sit a few days.  Once the section gets stale, archive it.  Otherwise leave it alone.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Teachers and Terton Acclaim
Longchenpa, the Terton and His Holiness teacher's acclaim, long life prayers, I wish to include are published by KPC and Palyul Productions with 1 other blog instance.


 * http://www.tara.org/JALmoreinfo.html
 * http://www.palyulproductions.org/

I heard you when you could find no good things to say, I assumed your bias (indicated by the long uncivil off topic discussion blinded you to the Tibetan Lama long life prayers. The off topic discussion above violates many and must be removed. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You cannot use a blog and self published material as evidence. Longchenpa (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't because you have a POV bias against the self-published material. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Petty insults and mean-spirited labeling are not conducive to a civil discussion.


 * The reason why blogs can't be used is that they represent one person's opinion. The reason why self-published material can't be used is pretty much the same. Longchenpa (talk) 04:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What civil resason do you have for ignoring WP:SELFPUB? Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Zulu, if you want to add new information (especially using self-published sources), the burden is on you to say why they qualify, not state the policy and accuse everyone else of ignoring the policy. Make your case and stop with the wikilawyering. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have made my justification proposal on WP:SELFPUB. Once I copied right in front of you and you missed it, while complaining about formating and edit conflicts and something else I must stop. Please look again.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ngawang Tenzin wrote Jetsunma Longlife Suplication
As far as the other blog for Ngawang Tenzin, well you're right Longchenpa, however the Mandarava material in question is support by the Blog and Palyul Productions publication. It's also highly relevant to this subject and the Madarava relevance can be co-berated by many other publications cited in this article. Can you supply any specific reason to doubt His Holiness Ngawang Tenzin acclaiming Jetsunma? He's taught at KPC a few times. One of his followers was married at KPC.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The blog is a blog and doesn't conform to Wiki standards. Palyul Productions is Alyce's self-publishing wing and can't be used as a source. You'll have to find a source that's not self-published. Longchenpa (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Why do you chose to ignore WP:SELFPUB for PP, this is tiring? Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 01:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * See now both KPC and PP offer the material for verification in WP:SELFPUB see http://www.tara.org/JALmoreinfo.html. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Specific language
Since a part of WP:SELFPUB is about the content from the self-published works, what specifically, Zulu, do you want to add to the article? If it's on the terton acclaim, would something like "KPC adds that His Holiness Kusum Lingpa discovered that Jetsunma as a "direct emanation of White Tara and the manifestation of Mandarava, mystical consort of Padmasambhava" be ok? It recognizes that it is self-published (good enough until we can find a reliable source), is fairly non-controversial, and is just factual.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking, I am intrested in adding properly qualified quotes from the "long life prayers" found here . I started the specific language it was edited out and lead to the Acclaim discussion, until it got derailed with an off tract coatrack.  I'll propose specific language again. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * * For ref copied from below "... I am making a claim that Tenzin wrote the supplication as PP published. I claim it's not harmful to third parties and not "unduly self serving" because it serves him and Jetsunma for the same purpose and harms no one else. I claim it highly relevant to this subject. The passage can be qualified as per Wikipedia:CITE#QUALIFY and be included as per Wikipedia:SELFPUB. It's not contentious to me. I don't see how the "academic" argument is relevant, any academic would begin research with this self-published souce.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)" Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Zulu, stop changing the formatting. It's impossible to respond when you keep changing the text every few minutes.  I keep getting edit conflicts every time.  Second, you pointed to a single reference and a single link and instead of telling me how you are planning on using that reference, you've added a bunch more for language you want.  I will not respond to these until you deal with these things one at a time.  The discussion is specifically focused on the one link you provided me first.  There is no "Tenzin" in the article so you are introducing a new section.  What is it about and what is its purpose?  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Listen, I am starting to consider all your "Stop", "Stop", "Stop" to be uncivil. I get edit conflicts from you too. Let me take some time to review this better. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

For Recognition Section
In 2004, H. H. Ngawang Tenzin of the Drukpa Kagyu lineage in Bhutan recognized Jetsunma in a Long Life Supplication.
 * "Mandarava the Dakini, nurtured by Guru Orgyen Pema Jungne


 * To benefit beings of the degenerate times without Dharma


 * Manifesting in ordinary human form to tame beings, Precious Jetsunma"


 * What do you intend to use this for? Longchenpa (talk) 00:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Longchenpa, I won't find a productive discussion with you until you adopt WP:SELFPUB. Can you accept this? You seem to have evaded it so far. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

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


 * Did you find a new cite for this quote? Because when this came up last time you were quoting an interview where Jetsunma quoted Penor Rinpoche. We can't use a third party quote. Longchenpa (talk) 23:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We've had this discussion, I must ask you to cite your policy to be productive. You seem to ignore WP:SELFPUB. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

For Acclaim Section

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


 * Can we link to YouTube videos? Longchenpa (talk) 00:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, this it a World Wide Web citation of a Self Published Source. There's no copyright issue because it's fair use. see:Citing sources Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm. YouTube is a self-uploading site and those clips are uploaded by Jetsunma's center. I'm not sure about this. Let me look into it. Longchenpa (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Musical - "The latest example of someone getting it right comes in the form of a new CD from Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo, a female Western Dharma teacher from the Nyingma School, called Revolution of Compassion...”


 * Looks fine to me. Longchenpa (talk) 00:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I'll add it. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Justification
Following WP:SELFPUB, here's why the self-published quotes are acceptable:

The material used is relevant to the notability of the subject being discussed;

1. it is not contentious; The material is agreeable and not marked by jealous discord.

2. it is not unduly self-serving; The material serves both the subject and object for the same purpose. It's not "unduly" in the sense of cross purpose conflicts or harm. Nor, is it overly promotional in the WP:PEA sense.

3. it does not involve claims about third parties;  There is no third party cited in the quotes. These are single and two party quotes. The parties are all united in well established Tibetan Buddhist guru yoga student teacher relationships that aim toward non-dual unity. 4. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; The claims are directly related to the subject's notability events.

5. there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it; The publications are verifiable to the sources. The quote are reasonable attributed to the authors, who have a distinct connection to the publication sources.

6. the article is not based primarily on such sources. Nope, it is not. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

A week has passed since I posted this Justification, no feedback yet received. Safe to assume the material is relevant to the article. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks like you just reposted Wiki policy again. What quotes do you mean? For what? Longchenpa (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The quotes in this section. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding Edit War (From L: don't make massive changes and then preemptively call any corrections an "edit war")
I reverted Longchempa's removal of the Penor Rinpoche quote. Discussing this in the Edit Summary isn't appropriate, more so when we have taken great efforts here. I appreciate Longchenpa concern about Self Published material, however I am not seeing a specific issue in conflict with the appropriate Wiki Standard. It would be unfortunate if this would turn into an Edit War, with no reason but a bias. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The Penor Rinpoche quote is sourced through a YouTube video uploaded by Kunzang Palyul Choling. This is not kosher. Find another source. And once again, personal accusations do not contribute to discussion. Longchenpa (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I hear your concern about "kosher", where's your policy to justify removal. I've made my justification with policy to include. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 01:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's self-published. If you can use a self-uploading site like YouTube, then we can use blogs, which aren't included because they are self-uploading and self-published. But we can ask Protonk if you like. He seems to know the policy very well. Longchenpa (talk) 03:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, you can when you follow WP:YOUTUBE and WP:SELFPUB. You are being unreasonable and You leave me no choice but to ask for a third opinion in this dispute. (P.S. I don't appreciate the refactoring of my section title.)  Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 04:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Questions for Longchenpa
Longchenpa, what is the source for:
 * "Only Orgyen Kusum Lingpa has confirmed this recognition" and "Other Lamas, including Penor Rinpoche, have remained silent concerning her second recognition"? If there's no specific source for that, then the sentences could be considered weasel words.


 * I'll check The Buddha From Brooklyn for a page number. Longchenpa (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That could probably be considered original research and I accept it being deleted. I have a file on KPC 8" thick including various articles written about them, financial records, and in this case meeting minutes from last February discussing how the heck they were going to pay for "Liberation Farms." I'd have to go to Maryland to access the public records on the ownership of the property and it's not worth the trip. Longchenpa (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * How is "several years" untrue?


 * You yourself acknowledged on my talk page that the criticism of KPC is long-standing. "Several years" is in particular not true. Even if we just go by her arrest and when the scandal of her beating students spread, that was in 1996, twelve years ago. By no standard is twelve years "several." Longchenpa (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Pardon me but 2 source verification not truth is the correct standard here. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, now I see what ZuluPapa5 was trying to add. Palyulproductions.org is obviously not a reliable source on Tibetan Buddhism overall, since they are themselves biased. Similarly, you can't cite a Christian group's website on the overall truth about Christianity. That's soapboxing, Zulu. Cut it out. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Precision Case-by-case is what I say for Palyulproductions.org. Excluding whole hardly would not be beneficial.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Case-by-case is right. We can cite Palyul productions as a source for the opinions of Jetsunma and Palyul, but not as a reliable academic source on Tibetan Buddhism as a whole, which is the issue at hand here, since you're making a very specific claim about Tibetan Buddhist theology and just using a blog as a reference and "palyulproductions.org" as support. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I an not following you, I am making a claim that Tenzin wrote the supplication as PP published. I claim it's not harmful to third parties and not "unduly self serving" because it serves him and Jetsunma for the same purpose and harms no one else. I claim it highly relevant to this subject. The passage can be qualified as per CITE and be included as per SELFPUB. It's not contentious to me.  I don't see how the "academic" argument is relevant, any academic would begin research with this self-published souce.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, so then switch what I just said around: You're using "palyulproductions.org" as a reference and using a blog as support. You're still using unreliable sources. It doesn't matter which one is the main source if they're both unreliable. Please stop wiki-lawyering. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am applying WP:SELFPUB sources and requesting that they be qualified. Did you miss that request? Please engage in relation to this standard.

Why are you offended by my rational discussion (i.e Wiki-lawyering)? I don't consider it a personal attack, however it does not seem appropriate, while I am working my best effort to be civil with you, in a standard course of dispute resolution. I must disclose, I've been trained by some of the best in the area. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 01:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hahahaha. Okay, then. I suppose we should seek mediation!


 * Please file a request here: Requests for mediation &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome to file yet another request for mediation. At a certain point this is just wasting everyone's time. Longchenpa (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Mediation is not appropriate at this time, just like whining to the administrators, it's too early.  RFC on the  sections here on this talk page would be helpful.  We should move stuff to the archive before inviting guests.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)



Requests for comment/Biographies is the best place to ask for help on WP:NPF and WP:SELFPUB. If these don't help then an RFC on user conduct in evading polices would be beneficial. This is not a waste of my time. Seems like if folks would like to avoid this, then they should abide by the standards. We can wait a few days.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"yet another request for mediation"? So there has been mediation between you and Longchenpa in the past? &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 12:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution History
Formally we have one (1) third part review on one (1) subject, resulting in me disclosing my Conflicts and well, still waiting on Longchenpa. Informally, there have been maybe 1/2 dozen other editors involved in this article. Longchenpa recent three revert violations, started me down a dispute resolution path to clean up the article and prevent a coatrack. Overall, I appreciate Longchenpa contributions, they have been helpful, just seems to be very bias on a negative agenda, that now I realize is a question beg. They article can be citation qualified during rewrite to avoid this. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What? I don't have a three revert warning. Please don't use the talk page to lobby against other editors. Longchenpa (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What's with all the "warnings" from you on my (talk) Talk page? You're not a Wikipedia moderator. Longchenpa (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyone is allowed to warn someone else. If the warnings are excessive or clearly an attempt to harass, inform the admins at WP:ANI and they'll look into it.  Zulu, stop with the personal attacks against Longchenpa.  Whatever his views are, discuss the content and the sources you want to use.  Don't wikilawyer with vague policy discussions and instead just say "this should be allowed because (a), (b), and (c)."  I am going to archive this section soon and warn you Zulu to stop making new sections that simply are a way to attack others.  If you disagree, tell me exactly what you would like done with this section and this section alone.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Pardon me, please see the first pargraph inTalk:Jetsunma_Ahkon_Lhamo about being specific without WP:WL perjurative use. This section was intended to keep track of the disputes as they occur and are resolved.  Removing it would not help that intention. It could be updated. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please don't archive any of this section, you will disrupt the Request for Comment. It was started by ZenWhat. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This belongs in the request for comment section then. I still don't see its relevance.  The fact that there was another 3O is not important.  The fact that Longchenpa hasn't revealed his conflicts while you have is a separate matter and isn't relevant now.  Go back and ask the third-party about it and if not, make a mention at WP:ANI if it is impeding the article work.  If you want to comment on his conduct, do a user RFC.  Otherwise, I still don't see the need. I'll leave it be however.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I propose archiving this and added a new Dispute Summary section toTalk:Jetsunma_Ahkon_Lhamo. Would that be Ok? Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Added the new updated Dispute Summary, can Archive now if folks want. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Teaches Compassion and Bodhichitta (again)
I apprecaite your concern ZenWhat about "She teaches compassion and bodhicitta", these are very specific occupational characteristics for a biography. We chose this subject for her occupation as lama. It can be verified to KPC and Palyul Productions like any other employment issue. They are the primary sources for this information. It's not original research. It was made the most simple language to apeal to Longchenpa. We had an extensive discussion resulting in this language. see Talk:Jetsunma_Ahkon_Lhamo/Archive_1 01:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Zulu Papa 5 (talk)
 * It's not a job description, Zulu. It's vague. Saying she "teaches love and peace" doesn't objectively describe anything she actually does. Now, if you were to say, "She teaches Tibetan Buddhism, and the value of love and the doctrine of bodhicitta are aspects of that teaching," that is actually describing a fact. In this case, you are not presenting a fact, just a ridiculous metaphor. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Zulu Papa, we went over this before, months ago. That's exactly what I said. It's not a job description. At best it's redundant and useless information. Longchenpa (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll look again, it sure sounds like a job description to me. Do you have a alternative job description proposal. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. "She's an enthroned Nyingma tulku and controversial American Lama of Tibetan Buddhism. She is the first Western woman to be named a reincarnate lama and she serves as Kunzang Palyul Choling's spiritual director" serves just fine. Longchenpa (talk) 05:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

MOSBIO item 4 was the best guideline I could find aside from other living Lama article examples. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Line 4 reads "what the person did." So, your argument here is that it should stay up, because "It's what she does." Wow. That is brilliant!!! &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 12:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, she has to have an occupation, right. We can add some specified x and y adjectives "She teaches x compassion and y bodhicitta" as long as they are not WP:PEA and are appropriate to reflect her teachings, yes? Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The argument's ludicrous. Her occupation is Lama. End of story. Longchenpa (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you find ludicrous about adding unique specifics as per style guidelines? Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait on this issue
OK for now, we have more important WP:BLP issues to clean-up. Longchenpa, you have changed your mind since the discussion you started here Talk:Jetsunma_Ahkon_Lhamo/Archive_1 I'll wait to address this later. I fear logical Fallacy going down Vagueness and Ambiguity for a Continuum fallacy or Slippery slope with Zenwhat.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 06:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Published by Random House means it's not dubious (Let's stop moving things around on the Talk Page so everyone can follow the order of discussions, eh?)
Zulu, please don't abuse the "dubious" tag for everything that you don't agree with. The material is from The Buddha From Brooklyn. The book was published by Random House, and written by a reputable journalist. Hell, it has a blurb by Bob Woodward on the back and he even helped edit. The reputations of the publisher and editors involved are so far from dubious that it's hard to find anything less dubious. Longchenpa (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * One again, you may be Civility with Feigned incomprehension, "playing dumb"  The material must be verified with 2 sources, (a secondary source) and the burden of proof is on you, to protect the truth.  This was well announced to you here in this section, please don't fork this section's issues it's not civil. I am working on WP:NPF enforcement. You can rewrite the material with better qualification or cite a secondary source to keep it. Let's it be deleted for libel potential. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Random House is a reputable publisher. We have gone over this many times. It is not dubious. You have had a third opinion who said Random House's book was legit. Longchenpa (talk) 00:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This discussion is only relevant to Talk:Jetsunma_Ahkon_Lhamo requiring a secondary source to not be dubious. I will not continue this discussion in this section. You started the move with a section fork. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Talk page discussions need to be in date order so that other people can join the discussion and follow it. Longchenpa (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I realise things get heated here, try to step back and take a breath instead of replying straight away. -  Toon  05  17:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Quick note on talk page guidelines:
 * You shouldn't move discussions around the page - it just confuses everyone. This includes moving comments from user talk pages somewhere else. Simply reply under someone's comment.
 * Also, never edit someone else's comments, particularly correcting spelling or grammar - it's irritating and unnecessary, this isn't going to be published.
 * Try not to accuse people of things or call them names - it's never going to help improve the article, just focus on that.

Archive
Any objections to archiving this section? I want to make room for the new discussion. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 05:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you've just launched a long series of edits. It's important not to archive the discussion. Longchenpa (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

RfC - WP:NPV violations
''' See dispute in Talk:Jetsunma_Ahkon_Lhamo where negative information requiring primary and secondary sources is being maintained against WP:BLP and specificaly WP:NPF. ''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZuluPapa5 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Mike Godwin already responded to this question. In his opinion she is a public figure. He's Wiki's attorney with a vested interest in protecting Wiki from libel. His opinion is convincing to me.


 * Information published by Random House is vetted and not dubious. Longchenpa (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note that this discussion has been going back as far back as December 2007 all with the same view on outside editors. If Godwin thinks she is a public figure and Random House has vetted it, it seems reliable to me.  BLP (and especially NPF when the figure is consider public) is not meant to be used to hide damaging information.  I've reverted the dubious additions.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * With all respect, Godwin says it's not a serious question. Editors must avoid false info see above. Have you considered:


 * Biographies_of_living_persons
 * Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am well aware of policy. I was here when the policy came into effect and saw what started it.  Quit jumping from policy to policy to keep trying to make the same point.  I think we all get your argument: you believe Random House isn't reliable and want to see the material removed as poorly sourced or harmful because it's a living person we are discussing.  While I'm not enamored with everything the sources have been used for, it's clear that they are reliable.  The alternative is that you find sources that respond to the allegations (including self-published ones if needed) instead of simply attacking the source(s) again and again.  I can't imagine that there isn't some response to some of the allegations.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I apologize, but my point is that negative material requires a primary and secondary source. Maybe, even greater when there have been complaints with folks saying the subject doesn't want it here. Random House alone, is not adequate for negative when it is contentious, must be published by another to be safe.   I am sorry if I haven't made this directly clear to you. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no requirement to two sources for negative material. Besides, WP:BLP concerns material "whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable" so the same argument would apply to everything in the article.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * How do you read NPF then? Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been asked to give some input on this RFC. Rather than give a big 'ole wall of text, I would like to link and summarize a discussion I had elsewhere with Zulu Papa 5.  Basic ideas:
 * I believe WP:NPF is an important policy and where it applies it should be followed scrupulously.
 * I believe that the determination of 'when' it applies is a case by case matter. I don't know the subject so I won't make comments about this article, but some consensus should be reached among concerned editors.  That consensus should be formed from an honest discussion about whether or not the subject: seeks publicity (e.g. interviews and profile pieces), is treated as a public figure by reliable (non-tabloid) sources, or holds some presumed position of public trust.
 * I believe that the application of NPF in articles where the subject is a public figure do damage to wikipedia and likely violate WP:NPOV.


 * some support for those claims and a back and forth over some details is here at WT:BLP. Hope this helps. Protonk (talk) 23:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Protonk. It's not a point of debate at this point, but in case it comes up again (as it has many times), I believe Jetsunma is a public figure for these reasons:


 * Her recognition has been covered by Associated Press and picked up by such newspapers as the Washington Post and the New York Times.
 * She's had articles written about her in Mirabella and Tricycle magazine.
 * She filmed a documentary about herself in 1995, expressing her hopes to have it played on PBS.
 * She's produced, promoted, and sold several CDs of her singing.
 * She's been interviewed by Elle magazine, the Washington Post, and the Associated Press.
 * She participated in a biography that was published by Random House.
 * She was interviewed for a book about American Buddhist teachers.
 * She sold her life story to Hollywood, specifically Turner Productions.


 * There's more. I haven't included smaller local papers like the Gaithersburg Gazette and Sedona's Red Rock News, but I think the question is settled. Longchenpa (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Longchenpa, before you get too far off track. We must have a standard for Public Figure and I don't see how these meet the threshold that could be applied. Please, cite your standard before continuing.  Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Protonk, I apprecaite your input. I might ask you to consider the protection of privacy, and basic human dignity, as that what the Public Figure threshold exists to protect. Do you have any words of wisdom on these aspects?  Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok. I read the article and most of this talk page.  My opinion is that she is clearly a public figure.  No doubt.  This doesn't mean it is open season.  It just means that the very stringent provisions of NPF don't apply here.  And looking back at the talk page, this is the position you have been presented with from almost everyone here.  Even the foundation's lawyer chimed in.  My suggestion is that you ensure the page meets WP:BLP as material is added or removed but that you refrain from pushing the 'private figure' issue anymore.  That probably isn't what you want to hear from me, so I'm sorry.  about the page in general, as an uninvolved editor, I think it places undue weight on the controversies she has been embroiled in.  Sources or not, devoting something like two sentences on an arrest without a conviction isn't kosher.  But fixing WP:UNDUE and other POV problems doesn't require invoking WP:NPF.


 * As for the requests for a legal standard, wikipedia is not a moot court. We make a good attempt at following policy and we don't edit or make community decisions on a purely legal or procedural basis.  It is unnecessary to make a formal argument as to what we mean by public figure if what the policy means by public figure isn't defined.  In contrast, take WP:N.  The words in the WP:GNG sentence are all independently defined.  In those cases we may make statements appealing to thresholds and definitions.  Where the policy is vague, assume it is intentionally vague.  Assume that we are meant to work through this process through discussion and consensus, not sealawyering.  I hope this helps you guys. Protonk (talk) 04:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, folks seem conflicted on this that's for sure, we'll have to talk through with reason, absent a standard. I get concerned that selfish editor's are outweighing concerns for an individual's privacy. There is a conflict here, folks want it both ways to be protected. They want Public Figure protection should Wiki go to court, and so they get all the dirt. Then they want to cover themselves with WP:NPF, just in case.  Specifically, when we have folks citing unauthorized biographies to created this unauthorized biography and we have indications that the subject is concerned about privacy rights.  WP:NPF should be upheld as a conservative precaution in this case, ir regardless of the public figure definition.  I can not support selfish activity that may recklessly disregard these concerns to reasonable privacy. Zulu Papa 5 (talk)


 * (outdent). That's totally unreasonable.  This talk page is filled with messages from people who want to meet you halfway on this.  NPF doesn't apply in this case, not in a million years.  Application of NPF to this subject is inappropriate.  It's especially inappropriate to seek NPF protection "irregardless of" the individuals public figure status.  As for the 'selfish' comments, it's pretty old hat to come in here and complain about anonymous editors seeking protection from scrutiny while they "expose" public figures.  There's no tread left on that tire.


 * And irregardless isn't a word. Protonk (talk) 04:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I want to meet folks half way on this too. There's only one editor that insists on keeping dubious material.  Most do want to fix the POV and better qualify the source to "cover" themselves and so do I. What I have realized in this discussion, is that the sources must be qualified as an unauthorized biography. Possibly even to qualify that the subject may dispute the biography.  I feel silly it took so long to get there, but we were facing edits wars in any attempt to change the content. I don't like that folks can keep dubious material, without a better ref qualification, and no real oversight.  However, that's part of open source free rights. I wonder if my negative bias edit friend will agree to better qualification?  I would not expect them to stand by the truth, only that the unauthorized biography has been released into the public record. I appreciate your "old hat" point, if it fits a bias editor, well then folks can see the selfish motives quite clearly.  Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 05:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as how WP:NPF applies, I must still disagree, it will always apply. Let's just hope it does not reach a court to enforce it. The aggrieved have only the Foundation to appeal to when editors go astray. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Longchenpa, I revered your closing the RFC because I think folks would like to hear your proposal to "meet you halfway on this". Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You've had your community response from Protonk, Ricky81682, Mike Godwin has also offered his opinion in response to Zenwhat's question. The answer is unanimous with the exception of yourself. It's done. My understanding is you're supposed to take it down once you've received your community response. Otherwise it clogs the RfC page. Longchenpa (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You've had feedback as well. If you are having trouble finding a middle path in this, then we might have to proceed with mediation. It really seems like you are missing something here, most folks have looked at what it takes to be cautious in Public Figure (limited or not) and NPF.  Do you notice anything about what makes a subject notable in these comments? Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you expecting more community response to this question? It has been six days since you posted the template, and three days since anyone in the community has commented. This template isn't a flag like most templates. It automatically posts a link to the RfC page. If you've already received comments, then it's supposed to come down. Longchenpa (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am expecting you to make comments about relevance and notability, in regards to limiting negative material. Some indication that you believe in caution to be respectful of privacy and human rights. Perhaps even acknowledgment that due process comes before guilt and no one should suffer the tyranny of false accusations.  You might consider seeking a WP:MENTOR if you are having trouble with a bias POV. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This template is a request for community response. The community -- in the form of Protonk, Ricky81682, as well as Mike Godwin -- has responded already. Personal accusations do not promote a harmonious discussion. Longchenpa (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate a harmonious discussion. I am starting to realize you have little to give for a resolution. So, I must now take the editing into my own hands. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We can leave the template up for a few more days, but I think you have all the community response you're going to receive. Longchenpa (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Why are you in a hurry to close this? I am leaving you all the time allowed to be responsible toward limited public figure. Please see WP:RFC about closing. 15:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from personal swipes. Discusssion should stay focused on the article itself. If you think you'll get more responses, we can leave it open, but I believe it's been over two weeks now. Longchenpa (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Pardon me, I am aiming to improve the content here. Working to have you abide the Policy is not in WP:PA. You seem to be oversensitive and unspecific about WP:PA. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This should help: Template:Criticism-section/doc in this discussion. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved to Longchenpa, the Martha Sherril and Will Blythe sources you extensively cite for negative information. They were not authorized by Jetsunma, where they? Has this no bearing on your decision to include them without a back up reference to be sure? Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion
RFC Ended, ZuluPapa5 conclusion is consensus not received on requiring 2 sources for negative info to be conservative. Many editors would like to see NPOV in this article. Now finding false light original research mixed in with sourced negative info. Some minor souring ref issues. Collaboration improving while some other disputes are escalating. Difficulty in having other Longchenpa acknowledge wiki policies to improve content. Remaining optimistic about the article NPOV improving. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 05:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Further reading section
I removed the entire "Further reading" section. The article is on Jetsunma and any further reading should at least involve her in some way. Books on the nature of Buddhism (or even on Western Buddhism) are far outside the scope of this article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That was disruptive. There were several Books by Jetsunma in there. And all the books were verified to have a discussion on her. Please consider a reasonable revert. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I put back the books by her specifically. However, I don't see how general books on Buddhism apply.  If there were other biographies on her, on her church, specifically on her style, that would make sense to me but a book like, for example, How We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God cannot possibly have anything more than a scant mention of her. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, how's my change? I would like to keep the ones with American Buddhist relevance too. Zulu Papa 5 (talk)

Archive
This can be archived too, unless anyone objects. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 06:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, no archiving now that you've launched a long series of extensive edits to the article, changing virtually every section. Longchenpa (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * ZuluPapa seems like a bit of a douchenozzle.

Sherrill citations
Could someone help with the Sherill citations? I want to combine them but I've noticed that they come from five differences sources. I assume that most of the page numbers are from the Buddha from Brooklyn but I just want to make sure. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe the Pico Iyer cites can be combined? It's a short article. Sherrill's book jumps back and forth in time quite a bit. Even with the index it is not easy to navigate. We need page numbers. You can't simply go to the TOC and find a chapter on the monastery, for example. It's organized by character.
 * ETA: Ah. I see the issue. The other articles by Sherrill were added after all the Buddha From Brooklyn cites.
 * ETA2: I've combined the remaining cites and clarified which are from the Buddha From Brooklyn and which from Sherrill's other articles. In a couple places there are pages that are close to eachother (241 and 242), so maybe those can be combined as well. Longchenpa (talk) 23:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see them combined too. There are several sources and the cross refs to correct may have been mixed up. Thanks for your help here. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we should remove everything from Sherill unless all the citations are fully clear, with date, year and even where someone read the book. We can never be too careful especially given the already dubious nature of Random House as a source.  It also violates WP:BLP, particularly Biographies_of_living_persons and WP:NPF.  We need to have two if not three very very reliable sources before we even hint at something negative about her.  It wouldn't be fair otherwise.  -- 76.171.201.224 (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * According to Wikipedia's style guides, citations are supposed to be as specific as possible. A long time ago, I made the mistake in the Zen article of trying to combine the "notes" and "references" section into one section. Upon further reconsideration, it simply makes sense: The notes section is where we keep detailed citations, such as specific page numbers. The references section is where we keep a bibliography of all the sources used. At some point, I need to go back to the Zen article and split all the citations, to back the way that they were.


 * If you combine all of the sherill references into one or a few citations, then ZuluPapa5 is going to start arguing, "There are no sources in this article!!" or slap citation tags all over the place.


 * Now, if you combine some of them, because the pages are in close proximity, then that makes sense, but combining all the citations would be a bad idea. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. I'd like to see it cleaned up, but I've had to support statements line by line or else find them deleted or marked as dubious. Longchenpa (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You disappoint me Zenwhat, my next argument is CITEZulu Papa 5 (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I meant combined by page numbers, so that it is clear (like I did for Blythe). I also wanted to make sure all the citations are to the correct actual source.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I guess that makes sense. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I figured out that's what you meant when I looked at your changes. Longchenpa (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Archive
Is it OK to archive this? The links are cleaned up now. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 06:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You've just launched a long series of edits. I think it's important not to archive the discussion at this point. Longchenpa (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ref Check

 * This caused the organization to run at a serious deficit. According to one of her monks who was their finance manager, the temple was perpetually on the brink of collapse and foreclosure.


 * I double checked, and this material didn't show up in my 1st ed hardcover BFB pages 112 and 241. I looked a few pages plus or minus and can't find.  It's questionable right now. Can someone provide an exact BFB quote to help home in better? Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

OOPS, The second sentence checked out on my page 240, however is has a false light ("perpetually") to be corrected. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The page 112 cite is from Will Blythe. Longchenpa (talk) 03:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The Buddha From Brooklyn cite page 241: "We were always on the brink of collapse and foreclosure, and that was hard to live with." It's possible different editions of BFB (I have the hardcover) don't match exactly. Longchenpa (talk) 03:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

However this one doesn't check out right either near page 308.


 * Taiwanese donors gave $100,000 for a 100 ft Amitaba statue, but the donations were instead used to pay for the first of Jetsunma's three houses.


 * "And I was thinking about all the other things that I had learned from her--how the money for the Amitabha statue was raised in Taiwan, then used to pay for her new house" (Sherrill, 308). Longchenpa (talk) 03:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, so the $100,000 and first of three houses is original research? Right. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 04:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not seeing "crippling" in my BFB source page 79. It looks like false light OR to me. Seems like "long standing debt" would be conservative to protect the innocent.


 * * Ani's Ink - A small typesetting business predicted to be a "sure thing" by Jetsunma left behind a crippling debt.


 * BFB p78 says: "There was a typesetting business called Ani's Ink -- much vaunted by Jetsunma a "sure thing," partly because of the auspicious year of its inception -- which left behind only debts and a cumbersome and obsolete typesetting machine that xxxxx was still paying off."

Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 04:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Poor Rinchen. Ed M. and Jane P. both told her that they thought typesetting was moving towards desktop publishing, but once she asked Jetsunma and Jetsunma said Ani's Ink was going to do well (since it was the year of the Iron Horse) -- no one could say anything anymore. Rinchen's never had much money and her job skills (typesetting and Word Perfect) had just become obsolete. Plus she'd just been ordained. Ten years later, she was still paying it off and wondering why Jetsunma had told her it would be such a success. Longchenpa (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've seen editors on other talk pages immediately delete WP:OR material from folks that violate talk pages with WP:FORUM, WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP by bringing others in when are not well known. Longchenpa, if you continue this, I must complain.  It's unfortunate that folks are taking this seriously here.  Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 20:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Google Books Word Check
Ok, I searched with books.google.com and did not find these words in BFB in the context presented above. Longchenpa is losing credibility in this content disscusion.

crippled - crippling - failed - perpetually -

Musical "Acclaim"
I don't have any problem with the information being in the article, but having a section simply called "Acclaim" because one Buddhist magazine gave her a positive review on a CD seems a bit POV. I suggest keeping the information and moving it elsewhere. For instance, in her biography, we could mention when she started her musical career and then add, "Her album, Revolution of Compassion, was positively reviewed by Shambhala Sun magazine." &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 13:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I agree about having a seperate Acclaim section. The orginal intention was to NPOV by combining the Controversy and Acclaim into one section, following the Chögyam Trungpa example. What may be an issue is what to include as noteable (i.e. What the subject is well known for) in the combined section. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I don't agree to combining the sections. A separate Acclaim section is fine. Longchenpa (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I seem to recall you agreeing Chögyam Trungpawas a good format to work towards. The only policy difference I can make is living vs. dead. With what reason do you propose to keep separate sections?   I am Ok for now, but ultimately as the material develops, it will be good to combine.  Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We should add an Acclaim section like his, certainly. But I do not agree with combining the sections. Longchenpa (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Archive
I am ok with Archiving this too. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 06:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no need. This is a recent discussion and the Acclaim section is not settled. Longchenpa (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Authorized Biography
The Buddha From Brooklyn is not an "unauthorized biography." That implies Alyce didn't participate, which in fact she did. She and the KPC students opened their doors to Martha Sherrill and gave her their full cooperation with hundreds of interviews over a five-year period. Alyce only claimed it was "unauthorized" after it was published because it included criticism of her. Only a student of Alyce would call this unauthorized. By publishing standards, it is an authorized biography. Longchenpa (talk) 22:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, we can better attribute this when you point to a reliable source other than yourself. I see nothing in the Buddha From Brooklyn (BFB) saying authorized or unauthroized. This wiki biography is unauthorized too, as per wiki policy. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 01:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Page 37, The Buddha From Brooklyn, Wib Middleton -- KPC's main PR person -- handled all Martha's interviews with Jetsunma. Page 60, one of many interviews with Alyce. Page 63-69, more interviews with her. Page 21, interviews with Sangye Dorje, her former consort and student. Page 17-18, more interview material with Wib... I could quote the whole book. Alana, Sherab Khandro, Aileen... interview after interview after interview. It's all from interviews with her and her students. The students inside KPC who spoke with her were vetted by Alyce. The problem that Alyce had with the book is that Martha, on page 66, didn't agree to not call Alyce's mother or her ex-husbands. But Martha was still given full access and even invited to go with Alyce to India on her pilgrimage to Mandarava's sacred sites. The sources and degree of access Martha had is obvious from the book itself. Longchenpa (talk) 02:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have yet to find a source other than Jetsunma who considers this an unauthorized biography. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Jetsunma quoting Penor Rinpoche
It seems we need to bring some things out of archive. We've gone over Jetsunma quoting Penor Rinpoche before. That quote is from her, not Penor Rinpoche. Longchenpa (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please site you sources and policy. The quotes are relevant, notable info from verifiable WP:V and a reliable source WP:RS.  It's not appropriate to go by your original research. I'll be Restoring the quotes and will consider any further reverts without valid policy site to be disruptive. We might want to consider a third opinion on your assessment.  Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't do wikilawyering. This is standard procedure for any quote: you cite the source who said it. Penor Rinpoche didn't, she did. You've had more than one person tell you this. Longchenpa (talk) 02:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well should I ask for an opion on this. We have standards to work with to help with dispute. I find your application of wikilawyering to be inappropriate and uncivil. If you don't address the standards, the administrators may not be kind to you. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Veiled threats are not appropriate for the Talk page. Longchenpa (talk) 03:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you I feel it's best to warn before acting. Now remember original research is not appropriate for the article or supporting sourced material removal. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Reborn In The West
Reborn In The West never interviewed Penor Rinpoche, nor does it claim to. The book is from one interview with Alyce and needs to be cited as such. It's all from her. Longchenpa (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I only attributed it to her, it seems apparent the info begins with her. This biography is about her.  Please make edits to cite as you wish, but please avoid original research? Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 01:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the quote is what she says Penor Rinpoche said. She's misquoted Penor Rinpoche before. For example, what Penor Rinpoche had to say about her title "Jetsunma" was: "How did she get that title?" (Will Blythe, page 112). Longchenpa (talk) 02:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please cite your source, this sounds like original research to me. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's cited right there. That's the page number. Longchenpa (talk) 03:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll have to check further. I was interested in the source saying Reborn in the West is from one interview with Jetsunma, it appears students were interviewed as well. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Quotes sourced in The Buddha From Brooklyn are not original research
I realize you have fought tooth and nail for the last eight months to prevent anything from Random House's The Buddha From Brooklyn appearing in the article. Calling information cited from The Buddha From Brooklyn "original research" is unacceptable. You have had everyone up to and including Mike Godwin, Wikipedia's lawyer, tell you that Random House is considered a valid source by Wikipedia. Anything from that book is not "original research." Longchenpa (talk) 03:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

My concerns are with your original research mixed in with the material. I am increasingly concerned about correcting to a WP:NPOV to address the many comments we received about working to a NPOV. As I checked The Buddha From Brooklyn I've found material that's not represented in the source and presented in a bias false light. I also found some info there the pages ref were not correct or the material could not be found. I would like you help to correct this.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfair Characterization
You know, you unfairly characterize my efforts with regards to BFB. I've been working to have cites qualified, proper attribution, negative info sourced by 2 sources to be conservative. I have not been working to prevent the entire BFB to be excluded from this article. However, I feel you have been working to entirely exclude self-published info, when there are case by case exceptions. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 05:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Jetsunma Quotes from Mackenzie
Help me understand why these are objectionable? They seem very relevant to her religious declaration and teachers instructions to me. They are not self published and I don't see WP:PEA issues in them that would be off tone or off topic or a coat rack bias. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 04:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

""... If I had to say I had a religion at all, I'd go right along with the Dalai Lama in saying my religion is compassion. That's all I care about.""

- - Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo p80

"'He told me that I had to buy a center, a real temple, that I shouldn't be afraid. ... "Your going to think you can't afford it," he said-and oh, we can't!-"but you will find a way. Have faith, it will be all right. Eventually, " he added, "you will have places all over the world." '"

- - Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo, p72


 * Could it possibly be that it is blatant soapboxing, that it is blatantly POV and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia? Noooooooooo! &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 15:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I see your point about soapboxing, however these quotes are relevant to the article. It would be great to have quotes in the article, do you agree?  These are the best I could find.  Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I propose we keep the first quote on compassion and incorporated the second's meaning into the text as Jetsunma's interpretations of her teachers instructions. She must keep Guru Yoga too. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 01:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Longchenpa, ZuluaPapa5: Cut it out.
Longchenpa: Much of the tone of the article is extremely inappropriate and needs to be toned down for NPOV. For instance, ZuluPapa changed "crippling debt" to "long standing debt". This change is pretty reasonable, but you strangely reverted it. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Crippling debt is a quote from The Buddha From Brooklyn.


 * It was the nun Ani Rinchen, who never had a lot of money, who was encouraged by Jetsunma to use all her savings and borrow as much as she could afford ($4,000, which wasn't a lot in the first place) to pour into a typesetting business. People in the field told her the trend was moving towards desktop publishing, but when she wrote to Jetsunma about it, Jetsunma told her that it would be a tremendous success because it was the year of the Iron Horse. The students who'd advised her that it was a bad plan then shut up, because who could gainsay the Lama? It was a financial disaster for Rinchen. Ten years later she was still paying it off. It was devastating to her personally, and also caused her to question her faith in her teacher on a spiritual level. Longchenpa (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Talking about investment details for someone who is not well know isn't appropriate here. It could be an invasion of their privacy. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, however I am concerned your OR is harming their intentions. see WP:BLP, WP:FORUM Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Referring to her temple as a "failed monastery," is POV, because the monastery still exists. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What monastery? The monastery doesn't exist and it never has.


 * Jetsunma told the ordained from 1988-1991 that KPC was going to build a monastery. It was never built. From 1988-92 sixteen monks and nuns lived at a retreat center that was considered to be a precursor to the monastery, and KPC did purchase 65 acres of land and draw up blueprints. Then in 1992, Jetsunma asked the ordained to offer her the retreat center to be renovated into a house for her, and any pretense of KPC building a monastery was dropped. Monks and nuns at KPC work full-time jobs and rent group houses, two here, three there, with no support or infrastructure whatsoever. People assume when they see these monks and nuns that they get to live like monks and nuns -- or that they have at least a building -- but they don't. Yet KPC can purchase three houses for Jetsunma.


 * This is what Penor Rinpoche has been the most upset about, that she doesn't support her monks and nuns in any way. Longchenpa (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Failed is a poor tone and OR, not appropriate for NPOV section title. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, Longchenpa, when I challenged the Acclaim section, you told me privately that you thought it was good for the Acclaim section to stay up, merely because she doesn't have much acclaim... Well, that doesn't make any sense. A section should only exist if there's enough information to create a section (this was the reason why I argued against the section in the first place: not enough content to fill the section). Since there isn't enough information on "Jetsunma's acclaim", you seemed to just want to allow the section in order to further make Jetsunma look bad in this article, by having the whole article filled with critical content of her, and a tiny Acclaim section which looks out-of-place (which ZuluPapa is now trying to fill with dubious POV garbage).


 * The reason there is no acclaim is that Jetsunma has a terrible reputation in the Tibetan Buddhist world. But who knows? Maybe there's some acclaim out there that I don't know about. If there isn't, I figure the Acclaim section will have to go eventually. Longchenpa (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

ZuluPapa5: You are clearly trying to white-wash this article for your cult leader, Jetsunma. You have been uploading information derived from horribly sources (I mean come on, Youtube?! Also, it's been well-established why Palyul Productions is unreliable), outright removing information, wiki-lawyering, dumping copy\paste of policy on the talkpage, and trying to quickly archive talkpage discussions ASAP, in order to hide the fact that you are uploading the same kinds of nonsense, over and over, without any consensus. You are pretty obviously acting in bad faith and are not worth conversing with. Considering the extensive past mediation (and the fact that mediation should not even be done with contentious "advocacy editors," commonly known as trolls), I hope Wikipedia's administrators ban you immediately.

That's all. Stop the edit-warring. Both of you should drop the agendas and leave this article alone, so that people without an axe to grind can make sure it's not pro-Jetsunma or anti-Jetsunma propaganda -- just letting the facts speak for themselves, without unreliable sources, weasel words, or omitting information. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's how it has worked: I started out on the center with this article eight months ago. I'm not a fan of Jetsunma, but I have journalism experience and I can write a fair article. The more ZuluPapa has POV pushed, the more I've pushed in the opposite direction. Now I can write a better article, with more nuance to all of these issues, but I need to know that it isn't going to be turned into a sales pitch. Longchenpa (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Both of you, I appreciate your concerns and POV about me. Best I can do is head the Wikipedia guidance with your feedback. Some of your characterization about me seems like and offensive WP:PA however it's best for wiki and us all to be true to the sources we apply and cut out our own bias. ZenWhat thanks for getting back involved. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Palyul productions, seems like we should go for a request for comment on this in the future. Folks just aren't getting the point about WP:Selfpub. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Damn it, lol, and now my comments have been sliced to pieces by the two of you, so that it's difficult to tell what's even my original comment!


 * I added the time-stamp to all the other comments, so that it's a bit easier to follow who wrote what. In the future, don't insert your comments in the middle of someone else's. It's rude and difficult to read. Instead, place your comments at the bottom of theirs.


 * Longchenpa, even though Buddha From Brooklyn uses the term "crippling debt," that doesn't really justify its usage here. Martha Sherill may have used such passionate terms in order to create a more interesting narrative, but language in an encyclopedia should be judgment-free.


 * You're right about the failed monastery part, though. I misunderstood that part.


 * Now, on the issue of the Acclaim section, you didn't provide much of a response, so it seems pretty claim that nobody can really justify the Acclaim section.


 * ZuluPapa5: We don't need to go to an RFC every time you disagree with me and Longchenpa. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I was concerned about the comments cut up too. I tried my best to keep white space, follow the indents and out dents, this is the preferred approach.  You have my permission ZenWhat to reedit the format in this single section.  see WP:TP and WP:TALK Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 01:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding the RFC process, your right ZenWhat, I don't need to go to a RFC when there are disputes among multiple editors. However, you can be sure I will consider this when I feel like the policies --- and specificlay the purpose and intent of the polices --- are being ignored to push a POV. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 01:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding "Crippled" in the text and "Failed" in the section title. I don't mean to be difficult, however I am not seeing this text or POV right now in my BFB source copy.  Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Key Teaching and Acclaim Sections
ZenwWhat, I hear your POV concern about the Key Teachings and Acclaim Sections you recently removed. It might be best to keep the sections and work to improve the POV with additional sourced material. Seems to me you are stomping these valid sections before they better bud. I want us to assume good faith that a balanced NPOV will emerge. Please consider restoring your removal. I have found additional material to better characterize Jetsunma's perspective on Guru Yoga and well there is additional acclaims to be found. In humor, eventually we must follow Wiki's Jimmy Wales (the wiki guru cult leader) and adhere to his intentions and policy guidelines here. Jimmy could be seen as the 1st generation Wiki Guru Yoga leader with administrators as ordained. We are just the lay practicers. All in wikilove land where the truth comes from literary sources and not necessarily a lineage of Buddha nature revelations. Go ahead, look into Jimmy's comments on what wiki articles should be. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any reliable sources which would detail her key teachings. What sources are you mentioning? Also, characterizing Jimmy Wales as the cult leader or guru of Wikipedia is laughably absurd. Wikipedia is not a cult or a religion; it's a community of individual editors. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 03:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Jetsunma's approach to Guru Yoga and compassionate teaching is illustrated in both The Buddha from Brooklyn and Reborn in the West. I guess I have to pull out a better example to build it up.  I am sorry if you didn't appreciate my humor about Wiki Jimmy, I suppose a cult psychologist might call it your reprogramming. :-)   It's kind of absurd to characterize KPC as a cult, when there's a long line of lineage masters with proven teachers and methods.  Jimmy hasn't had to deal with successions as of yet, know he has the nearly the last word on wiki policy. Really, Wiki isn't a religious non-profit, however I am compelled to extend the cult analogy for a new humorous article.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 04:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, many cult leaders are part of mainstream religions and run 501(c)3 non-profit organizations. Jim Jones was a Methodist minister. Scientology is a 501(c)3 non-profit. Part of the problem is Alyce's treatment of the students. Having a public beating of a monk and nun sends a signal that this is a cult, for example. Longchenpa (talk) 09:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You really must review Coatrack. Upon investigation anyone will see that the monk and non incident was a single event that was met with law and remorseful correction. It's not regular practice for Jetsunma and to call it cause for cult is really a very biased view for your WP:Forum for perhaps your own treatment.  Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the monastics who filed charges would have a lot to say about that. Longchenpa (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Did they ever publish what they have to say? Else, this is not a forum to invade their privacy or make false light interpretations about them too. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

YouTube Distributes and is not a source
I want to clarify the talk here about YouTube. YouTube links are allowed as per WP:YOUTUBE. YouTube is a free content distribution network and is not a source. Trying to exclude YouTube as a source is analogous to someone trying to exclude a The Buddha From Brooklyn based on upon the which store from which is was obtained. Bottom link, the self published material from You Tube, should be excluded mearly because it came from YouTube, that would be prejudice. Self-published material must meet WP:SELFPUB, which what I have proposed does. 17:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZuluPapa5 (talk • contribs) Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you want to add? Remember, according to WP:SELFPUB, it can't be contentious or unduly self-serving. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking, I'll re-propose it. With regards to contentious, I interpret this as if the material itself is not contentious as I suspect there are editors who will find a contentions as if their bias POV jealousy were present.  With regards to unduly, I interpreted that to mean the material must serve a single or joint purpose and not at cross purposes. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * YouTube is not a distributor but a self-publishing source in the Web 2.0 model. Longchenpa (talk) 10:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * False, YouTube distributes self-published material to millions via anonymous user accounts. To call them a Publisher is a real stretch, since their editorial model relies on user complaints and copywriter enforcement. Their editorial process is loosely akin to Wikipedia open editorial principles.  The point is WP:SELFPUB applies to YouTube material.  Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you not know what Web 2.0 is? Longchenpa (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do. Web_2.0 This is off topic. It's not an editorial policy, which is relevant here.  Do you ever agree to anything? Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 01:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Zulu, your latest string of edits:
In the article by Mackenzie, are you quoting Mackenzie, or are you quoting what Jetsunma said about herself in the book?

The claim, "She liked Buddhism's simplicity, having an alter and posters in her room," doesn't seem to match up with other info in the article, that she had absolutely no contact with Buddhism, until she came across Penor Rinpoche.

Some of the stuff you've put in seems like more annoying soapboxing. What does "she was rebellious against religion" mean? And how can someone be "vaguely" horrified? &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. The material was a true to the source as I could be. We may have to check the claim that she had no contact with Buddhism, most folks of that time had an awareness but no lineage, guru or lama. In Mackenzie, its says something like no formal contact. Rebellious came from her quote, it seems to reflect that teenage rebellion folks come to have as a right of passage. I have yet found better info about her teenage years than Mackenzie. You might try to check the source, I can post direct quotes if required. "Vaguely" was taken directly from the BFB source and seems to set a better tone for the Tibetans response. Simply horrified by itself is too harsh. Perhaps we can weasel a better word than the source to describe or we can put in quotes. In all, I believe having attributed references to what the subject says on these issues is entirely appropriate. Really, soapboxing would be to take the quotes and place them in other articles. I appreciate your concerns, however it's difficult to see how one can be a soapboxer with reasonable sourced quotes in their own article. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I see you really took out greater than you discussed here. The material came from quotes in Mackenzie. You are going to have to point me to a policy to be convincing about soapboxing or I might interpret it to be handwaving. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The handwaving is contagious as Longchenpa now claims soapboxing to gag the subject's published voice. Suppression of the subject's voice, seems like a practice for oppressive communities to me. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Cult Link
Removing the cult link Cult removes valid context for a NPOV. The link is relevant and balances the view as per WP:PCR. Why is it considered obnoxious? see    Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's an obnoxious characterization of all critics of KPC as being "apostates." I recognize that you are a member and to you they are apostates. Longchenpa (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You are overreacting, it's a simple relevant link for folks to make their own assessment. The obnoxious view comes from you. There was no attempt made to call all critics "apostates". It's a link.  Perhaps you should disclose your student status. You are making incorrect realizations about me. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Suspect Weasel Words
"The assault was widely criticized in the press as it was out of accord with Buddhism's non-violent image, and lent credence to many former members' accusations that Kunzang Palyul Choling is a cult. "

This line is suspect to WEASEL. Can anyone substantiate that it is not, with a direct quote from the source. I would like to abide to NOTSCANDAL. Thanks. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have new things to add, please put them on the bottom of the page. It helps other editors follow the conversation. Longchenpa (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't wish to folk the issues here, thank you for asking. Do you wish to substantiate your words. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 01:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It is substantiated, but I've added more. Longchenpa (talk) 02:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but you have neglected to address the weasel words issue I've pointed out and that you reverted several times.  (Should I assume bad faith to NPOV here?  Could this be WP:IDHT about weasel words aka uncivil "Feigned incomprehension" yet again?  Would you actual work to provoke people as such?) By substantiate, we must look at the source text to address "out of accord with Buddhism's non-violent image, and lent credence."  This sounds like original synthesis to me. Also, the new material is now suspect too.  Let's look at exactly what the sources say and substantiate as such, OK. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Significant Rewrite Needed
Hi everyone. I have been drawn into the wikipedia world by this article, but have no intention of this being a single-purpose accountWP:SPA. I want to contribute more broadly to articles related to the Nyingma lineage of Tibetan Buddhism, the Palyul monastery therein, and contemporary issues related to Mongolian culture.

In the interest of full disclosure, I have been a student of Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo since 1990, and a monk since 1993. It won't be difficult to discover my identity and I've no interest in hiding it. What I do want is to use my experience and full resources to make this article accurate and balanced, which it is far from at the moment. Looking over the history, it's easy to see that Longchenpa is relying on limited sources (especially the mistake-riddled Buddha From Brooklyn) in order to cast Jetsunma in as negative a light as he or she can get away with. ZuluPapa, in his efforts to redress this situation, has sometimes gone a little overboard also and has not availed himself of all the published references. As a result, there is much here that is both misrepresented and omitted and, frankly, the whole thing is not very well-written.

So. I've done extensive rewriting and additional writing for this article. But so that I don't get accused of vandalismWP:VAN, I will post the changes/additions section by section on my user page, with notices here that I have done so. They will be there for a specified comment period, after which I will drop them in.

I feel that this process will present a much more accurate portrayal, and bring the edit war to a stop. At least that's my hope.

Gyrovague108 (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your admission up front that you are a member of KPC and therefore highly biased. We've been over the validity of The Buddha From Brooklyn so many times, I would appreciate your reading the past Talk pages to avoid repeating the same arguments. You should know that according to Wikipedia, Alyce simply calling Random House's biography "inaccurate" is not proof that it is.


 * Attempted outing removed. Comment on content, not the contributor.  x42bn6 Talk Mess  13:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The author of the comment says upfront and states clearly that he is not hiding his identity, which he isn't: "It won't be difficult to discover my identity and I've no interest in hiding it." This is a very well-known student of Jetsunma's who's quoted in The Buddha From Brooklyn. Longchenpa (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I mentioned this elsewhere, but since it came up here as well... I've had two attempts to out me. One of them was by ZuluPapa. They didn't bother me since it wasn't me, but should I have reported it? Longchenpa (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This talk page is not a forum for your original research see WP:FORUM. Please find another way to communicate outside wiki.  Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Calling him bias without reading his work is simple prejudice. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Konchog Norbu is KPC's representative in Mongolia and to the Mongolian embassy. He also handles Alyce's off-shore bank accounts, some of the more problematic ones that have no transparency to the rest of the organization. It's a highly trusted position within KPC.


 * Make no mistake, this is an official voice from Alyce. Longchenpa (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Longchenpa, this type of preposterous and unsubstantiated slander of a Buddhist monk should in and of itself disqualify you to be an editor on this page. Yes, I am the director of KPC's Mongolian Buddhism Revival Project. No, I am not our "official representative" to the Mongolian Embassy, unless you count meeting the Mongolian ambassador at a backyard BBQ and offering him a couple books from our project as a welcome gift. As for "off-shore bank accounts," thanks for the laugh of the day. I know of no such accounts and in my 18 years as a member of KPC I have never been in charge of any aspect of our finances in any way. People know better than to put me in such a position.


 * Now, can we try to be serious? On a subpage of my User Talk Page I've posted the first section of my rewrite, the introduction. I'll allow 48 hours of commentary before publishing it. I want to restate that my intention is to fix an article that has become a badly-written mishmash that is the result of incomplete and biased research on all parts. The posted intro will have all cites in place. Next will be a major extension of the "Buddhist Recognitions" section. Gyrovague108 (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to contribute, the proposed section requires source links and wiki links. There may be one instance of vague or weasel words to fix.  It might be best to clean up this talk page and work on proposed sections here to better track comments on the revisions.  It may be difficult to track changes on Gyrovague108's talk page. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a mistake to be prejudice. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 14:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * OUTING is a violation mistake too. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This may help us here: WP:NOSPADE Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok Welcome ... I accept this article should be improved with regards to WP:NPOV the bias from the main contributors  seems apparent to me, that doesn't mean we can not improve the encyclopedic tone. You must be careful to edit with WP:V sources and omit original research to avoid Pejorative labels on you. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There are some articles that I've taken the lead on. I'm also the main editor of People's Liberation Army invasion of Tibet (1950–1951). I'm one of the four main editors of History of Tibet and a few others as well. Longchenpa (talk) 06:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Zulu Papa 5 (talk)


 * Do you have difficulty indenting? Anyway, I went through your edits, and I can't seem to find many articles you've worked on in any appreciable way besides this one. As far as I can see, most of the articles you've worked on have been in direct connection to this page, linking here in some way. Longchenpa (talk) 22:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's been frustrating working to a NPOV here. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You're not working towards an NPOV, you're working towards a whitewash, as evidenced by the fact that you have persistently tried to remove embarrassing facts from this page, added soapboxing quotes from Alyce, and pressed so hard to prevent the Random House biography (the one with the blurb from Bob Woodward?) from being used that even Mike Godwin had to weigh in on the subject. This is not an effort at balance. Longchenpa (talk) 20:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You must CIVIL. My intention here is to put wiki principles in line and ahead of my own. I appreciate and hear your concerns. You seem frustrated too. You are making very unprincipled accusations, which may be considered bad faith.  This is not the place, but for advice, you'll have to site wiki standards, with examples, to be taken seriously.  Else it's further handwaving and disruptive (maybe even harassment) here on this talk page.  Best to focus on NPOV for the content by being true to the sources and not working in synthesized original research. This is what I've worked on correcting.  I fear there are further corrections to your bias here. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Self Pub Source
Longchenpa, good to see you will aply a self published sources in this article. see: I'll take this as a good que to reapply the relevant self-published info I've found. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. We should take it out. It is self-published. Plus, there's an additional problem in that it links to land for sale which could be misconstrued as trying to use Wiki as a back door to sell something. I'll remove it. Longchenpa (talk) 05:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, the amended text was a fine NPOV on the web page. I am amazed, if anyone but the feigned incomprehension folk would suspect this. You must be commented commended for policing your own work.    Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Who are "the feigned incomprehension folk"? It is nice to be "commented," however. :) Longchenpa (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Mirabella Magazine Ref
The current Mirabella Magazine reference for Blyth's "Bad Karma" gives a citation from a 1998 issue. Apparently, the magazine started publishing in 1989. See: Mirabella. It must be better verified as to which month the article appeared. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There are 17 22 citations from the 3 paged "Bad Karma" article. I would like to combine all 17 citations into one reference for all 3 pages. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite Sections Posted
I have posted a proposed rewrite/expansion of the Buddhist Recognitions section of this article. With all due respect to the previous authors/editors, it was clear they did not have access to the complete story, which is quite significant in American Buddhist history. I will leave the section on my Talk Subpage for comment until this weekend, after which it will replace the current section. I will, of course, have full cites, etc. gyrovague108 (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I made a minor edit. The material is ok with me however, some might be moved to other articles to better serve the named subjects. It can start here. ☆Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Changes made to main article. gyrovague108 (talk) 07:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Poetry Section Removed
I removed the Poetry section as irrelevant and biased. Jetsunma has written hundreds of poems, as yet unpublished. One, "War Cry," was printed, without the preliminary invocation that gives it greater meaning and context, in The Buddha From Brooklyn. This was further "excerpted" by the another editor, with four of ten verses presented with no indication of where verses had been taken out. The meaning is lost, and I cannot see how its inclusion in this truncated way adds to this article. I suspect that the editor had an agenda in presenting these verses, with their violent imagery (which, it should be noted, is directed at the personification of samsara, the delusion that keeps us in endless rounds of suffering, according to Buddhist teaching), to create a negative impression of Jetsunma. I personally have numerous poems written by Jetsunma that employ gentle, peaceful imagery dedicated to love and compassion. Because there are no published sources for these, it seemed to me best to just remove the section for now until it may be presented more fairly and retain NPOV. gyrovague108 (talk) 01:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)