Talk:Michael Roach/Archive 3

Biography section needs to be completed
if one reads the opening "biography", he/she will find that it contains many unanswered questions, as well as incomplete thoughts. for example, one sentence says Roach "returned" to the US -- but it doesn't say where he returned from. i believe that Roach's extensive training included study with Tibetan teachers at Sera Mey is what qualified him for the title of "Geshe" -- and yet there is no mention of this in the bio.

someone needs to update the biography so that it is complete, (while still being concise).

Removed some of the text pending discussion
"Roach has since taken to wearing Armani suits, rather than a monks robes, and has been inviting his students out to nightclubs in New York. This is reported to be creating confusion amongst his followers, and that many of his students are leaving him."

I just read the Page Six article cited for this paragraph, and this summary looks to me to be highly biased and contentious in parts. First, "has since taken to wearing" is questionable pending further verification - we do have him in the story wearing an Armani suit at least once, but "taken to" is questionable as it implies two things: that he never did before (seems likely) and that he does as a regular matter of course (less likely).

Second, although there is a statement that some followers are confused, there was - unless I miss it - no claim at all that "many of his students are leaving him". That may well be true, I don't know, but Page Six didn't say it (unless I missed it somewhere).

My own perspective is that the Page Six story is highly questionable for a number of reasons and that unless and until we get confirmation from other sources, we should be very cautious about it. The story cites as a source a Yogi instructor but admits to faking her name - not exactly a journalistic hallmark to give rise to confidence.

I'm also concerned that whoever added this material has misrepresented it. The story is quite clear, for example, that Michael Roach denies that his prior relationship was romantic, but we had him "admitting" that it was - in directly and obvious contradiction to the source cited. That's really bad. (I'm about to study the history to see who did that.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * [Addendum] This edit contains the insertion of the claim that Michael Roach 'admitted' that the relationship was romantic, while citing the precise paragraph in the text of the Page Six article where it is made clear that he does exactly the opposite: "maintains the relationship wasn't romantic". That's a pretty appalling state of affairs, I must say.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

""Everything is going into chaos. It's all exploding," says Erin, who's close to many of his followers. "People are switching partners, and some are leaving him.""


 * I have no problem with the latest edits, but I do think the Page Six article merits some inclusion for the reasons stated earlier - Roach clearly cooperated with the piece, and it's one of the few profiles of him by a major media source. I do agree that whoever added it initially put a disingenuous spin on the points mentioned, but I don't think the misrepresentations were quite as egregious as you do. The article indeed does not say that "many" students are leaving him, but it does say that "some" are. And you are correct that he denied that the relationship was "romantic" (whatever that means in this context) but then concedes in the quotes that he has not "truly overcome" being "trained since childhood to think of a partner as romantic." So I would not characterize the representation as appallingly misleading, although it is somewhat so.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

""We are not allowed to have sex, but in yoga there are practices that involve joining with a partner," he explains. "They are secret, and you are not allowed to disclose them. You might think of them as sex, but their purpose is to move inner energy. It takes very strict training. There would be penetration, but no release of semen." Sex or no sex, the two developed a unique bond, and their unorthodox message attracted thousands of followers around the world, including in New York and Arizona—where in 2004, they founded an unaccredited Buddhist University and retreat center called Diamond Mountain."

Might as well go into it thoroughly. He also says that sex isn't allowed, but intercourse is, as far as some rituals go  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  06:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't really understand that. How can intercourse not be sex? Clearly, it's not "casual sex", but it seems it would be a form of sex just the same. Could one of those more knowledgeable about the subject please explain, or give a pointer to a resource that might clarify this? Yworo (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think what he means is it's not conventional sex, or sex as most people conceive of sex. The idea is that it is possible to manipulate ones internal energies in a way conducive to spiritual realization by having sex without ejaculation. It is something that has been part of Vajrayana Buddhism for a long time, but very discreetly.Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * So essentially he's saying that Tantric sādhana isn't sex? I'm sure most people (and sources?) would categorize it as a form of sex. Our own article on the topic calls it an "aspect of sex". I'm just not clear how we could work this dichotomy into the article without it being original research. Wouldn't we have to find an independent source that directly says something to the effect that "tantric sex is not sex?" I don't see how a practice that includes penetration as Roach say could somehow not be sexual. I could understand that it is not intended for procreation, but I don't think that the prohibition against monks having sex was specifically aimed at preventing procreation. It all just seems like some sort of double-talk. Yworo (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Roach's quote indicates that the situation is a little ambiguous, depending on how you want to define sex. I would call it sex myself, but I understand what he's trying to say.Sylvain1972 (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Great. Glad to know I'm not going bonkers about it. If any of this needs to go into the article, I'll leave it to the experts, that's for sure! Yworo (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it might be helpful to recall that Buddhists can be obnoxiously pragmatic.  Anything that will get us to enlightenment quicker, we will do, if we have the Wish.   So you hear stories of sages who do things like deciding to live on fish guts, because the fishermen consider them garbage, and so they can be had for free, and thus the sage can practice all the time and not spend time earning money for food.   Who cares if they taste like, well, fish guts?   They are in fact the essence of bliss, if they bring us to enlightenment.   You can see in His Holiness' book that in the Gelukpa lineage, practices with a partner are held to be proper, even for monastics who can do them with the highest of motivation.   Whether you call it "sex," "tantric sex" or "practice," the point is to use practices of the physical body to get enlightened.   This is why the distinction between "high school romance" and practice.   You're doing it for pragmatic reasons, not because you want a relationship.   There's no commitment in the sense that we normally think of in relationships.  This is my understanding from reading His Holiness' book, How to Practice, particularly p. 193.  Abhayakara (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm dismayed to visit this wikipage and find that, once again, there are individuals trying to distort basic facts so they resemble truth. This page previously had a section entitled "Controversy." Unfortunately, this section has been removed, watered down, and sublimated with the new title "Spiritual Partnership." Michael Roach is likely the single most controversial figure in American Buddhism and his wikipage should reflect that controversy (as well as his many laudable achievements). A Gelug-pa monk has taken vows against wearing his hair longer than two finger-widths, wearing (diamond) jewelry, and engaging in sexual activity whatsoever. To take a tantric consort for completion-stage tantric sex, a monk must give back his vows. To my knowledge Geshe Roach has not given back his monk's vows. Though he is a gifted and charismatic teacher, his activities do not accord with a Gelug-pa monk's behavior. His students and friends come to this forum and try to obfuscate, dilute, and, it seems, in fact remove the section outlining why many find Geshe Roach controversial. This does a disservice to Wikipedia, the very nature of which is to provide information to those wishing to find it. Fledgling readers coming to this page to find out why Michael Roach is so controversial will have to leave roughly as clueless as when they came because a few editors here are engaged in a relentless campaign to obscure the controversy surrounding Michael Roach. 152.133.7.130 (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes well life stories are not all about so called controversies, we had a discussion about it and looking at it now it is a lot better. Partisan dislikes are not worthy of inclusion. Off2riorob (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that's balanced. Most erudite.152.133.7.130 (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It all comes down to what can be sourced reliably. Perhaps changing the title from "controversies" was excessive but I think readers can still get an accurate sense of what the issues are. I pushed back on a lot of the changes that were made and I think the result is satisfactory. There is a reliable source from the Dalai Lama saying (highly realized) monks can practice tantric sex with a consort without breaking vows.Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

==

Update, try for NPOV on spiritual partnership issue.
User:Yworo asked for an example of what I think the section should look like, and since we don't seem to have had any new reviewers, I decided to take a stab at it. I pulled in some new references, in particular the "Get to know us" article, in which Geshe Michael and Lama Christie go into some detail about the incident with the Office of HHDL. I hope this comes across as a constructive attempt at NPOV, because that's what I was shooting for. If not, please tell me what I got wrong.


 * Thanks! Abhayakara (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it is generally OK, except I'm not crazy about the paragraph starting "Geshe Michael's openness . ." I don't think Thurman's quote should be removed.Sylvain1972 (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Which of Thurman's quotes do you mean--the one where he says that he's skeptical, or the one where he says that the monks are all in a tizzy?  The reason I ask is that the latter seems kind of random.   Which monks think he's gone crazy?   All Tibetan monks?   Clearly not--the Nyingmas and the Kagyus find the whole thing completely unremarkable, for example, and many Gelukpa monks were happy to hang out with Geshe Michael during the height of the controversy--some even came to the teachings in Palampur, where we relocated after we were asked not to establish a visible presence in Dharamsala.   Khen Rinpoche (GMR's lama) never expressed the opinion that Geshe Michael was crazy.   None of the monks in Howell did either.   Surely they would be most qualified.   I used the "superhuman" quote instead because it's Dr. Thurman's own opinion, which I think carries a lot more weight.   I kept it brief because I think the section's too long already in relation to the rest of the article.  I realize that the "the monks think he's crazy" quote makes him seem crazier, and if you really think he's crazy, taking it out does compromise the NPOV.   But if you really think he's crazy, I don't think that's justifiably an NPOV.   There's little evidence to support that position, and a lot to contradict it.  The controversy is over real issues that can be analyzed rationally, not over Geshe Michael being crazy. Abhayakara (talk) 01:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to Thurman's quote “there is a tremendous amount of opprobrium by the Tibetan monks; they think they have gone wacky." But on reflection I agree that it is lacking in specificity and is perhaps not so useful for that reason. Archtypical Thurman in that regard.Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a mindreader here
Someone needs to rewrite the paragraph(s) to explain what the controvery IS. WHAT are the two of them "practicing" together? Is it a matter of "holy monk found with secret girlfriend"? Lotta quotes about how it would be "superhuman" of him to "practice" with her, but again, what are they TALKING about?!

I've read the page 4 times now, and I can't even get the basics! 66.3.106.6 (talk) 02:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right, it was confused and confusing. I hope the revision clarifies it.Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * My apologies, I myself was confused yesterday and had even forgotten the Post article, so thoroughly was the relevant information suppressed last summer. I hope it is clear now.Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

New Material
I'm going to add some new material to the article that's not related to the spiritual partner section. It probably won't happen for a few days at least, but I'll do a work-in-progress page as a subpage of my user page so that interested editors can comment on it before it goes live. The article is very out-of-date right now--it doesn't really talk at all about the Enlightened Business Institute, which is Geshe Michael's big project right now, and it's also missing a lot of information about his books, translation work, ACI Phoenix, and so on. There is some text I'd like to add to the spiritual partner's section as well, but I'll bring that up as a separate matter because it seems to be of interest to a number of editors. I think the other stuff should be pretty non-controversial. Abhayakara (talk) 01:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Controversy Section is Too Long
I tried to trim down the controversy section because it's quite long and rambling, and it's not clear what it's trying to say. Unfortunately, User:Sylvain1972 apparently did not agree with my edits. I would challenge User:Sylvain1972 to come up with a more concise way of making whatever point it is that he or she is trying to make here. It's frankly bizarre that a Buddhist monk who's been teaching since the 1970s, who has founded several major Buddhist projects that are in widespread use beyond his own sangha, and who has done many, many interesting things in his life, gets half of his Wikipedia article dedicated to a practice that some Buddhist practitioners consider controversial, but that in fact the Dalai Lama says is perfectly permissible. The mere fact that someone finds these practices questionable doesn't seem like a good reason to be talking about body fluids in the Wikipedia page.

So, User:Sylvain1972, could you try to articulate what it is that you want to say here on the discussion page, so that we can try to figure out a way to say it that isn't so long-winded? Alternatively, if you feel that this is an article that ought to be longer, so that the controversy section would be a more balanced part of it, it would be awfully nice if you could help to expand the other sections of the article. Abhayakara (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The controversy section is there for self-evident reasons - there was in fact a controversy around his spiritual partnership and open practice of karmamudra, as reported and cited by the reliable sources which have been included. That seems pretty clear to me. If it is large in proportion to the rest of the article, that is only because the rest of the article is thin. The obvious solution is to expand the other sections, not to once again truncate the controversy section to the point where it is no longer intelligible. See the earlier comment from User:66.3.106.6 - he/she was no longer able to make sense of it, so completely had it been bowdlerized. The only recent edit of yours that I did not agree with was the one in which you deleted the sentence featuring a direct quote from Roach clarifying that the relationship that he had earlier characterized as "chaste" includes penile-vaginal penetration. Surely that is relevant to understanding why there is a controversy. As far as the Dalai Lama saying it is permissible, he says it is permissible in general, but in the case of Roach he does not condone it, and other prominent teachers have spoken out unfavorable as well. That is certainly relevant to the article and worthy of inclusion.Sylvain1972 (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry, I guess I failed to explain my objection properly.  Suppose we were to take out everything but the controversy section.   Would what we had left be a Wikipedia article?   I don't think so—I think it would just be a random slam against a person who might or might not be considered notable according to Wikipedia tradition.   In and of itself, there would be no point in the article's existence.   So the point is that the "controversy" section is, in my opinion, not notable.   Okay, so a bunch of Buddhists from one sect happen to disagree with the practices of a Buddhist from another sect.   Why does the average Wikipedia reader care about this?   The fact that User:66.3.106.6 was unable to make sense of it doesn't mean that it needs to be expanded—you could just as well say that because of this it needs to be removed entirely, because it's confusing and pointless, and only of interest to a very select group of people, not to Wikipedia readers in general.


 * So this is why I asked you to explain what it is that you're trying to communicate with this section.  Are you trying to say that Geshe Michael did something improper?   If so, what?   Is the controversy between his sect and other sects interesting?   If so, why not have some academic references describing the controversy, and explaining the positions of the two opposing sides?   Why not have a Wikipedia article that's specifically about this controversy, and that explains why it is interesting?   Why the gossip column and a New York Times culture section article as the primary sources?   Surely someone more notable in the context of Buddhist thought has had something useful to say about this in a printed publication that you can use as a reference.


 * Also, I see that you admit that the article is a bit thin otherwise. You obviously have some interest in Geshe Michael, or you wouldn't have edited the article at all: surely you have more to say about him than some comments about a decade-old controversy.  What is it about him that inspires you?   What about him initially attracted your attention?   Do you find his founding of ACIP interesting?   Do you find the eighteen-course ACI series interesting?   Does the three-year silent retreat in a yurt in the desert catch your fancy at all?   Do you have anything to say about the Diamond Cutter book?   Or is this particular practice that he was doing, years ago, the only thing interesting about him to you?   Abhayakara (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not a Buddhist, nor do I have a particular interest in Geshe Roach but I have contributed to a number of articles on Wikipedia. My interest in this article is entirely related to having verifiable information available in NPOV so that readers can make up their own mind about the subject. The controversy section in this article is important as it relates directly to the actions and decisions of its subject. In order to understand the controversy you must understand the Vinaya Sutra which spells out the restrictions placed on the Bhikkhu (Monk). If you understood this you would understand that one of the main ideas of the restrictions is to keep the Sangha of Bhikkhus free from gossip and distractions. In this light, Geshe Roach's long hair, jewelry wearing and open admission to having and working with a consort caused quite a lot of talk. As is cited in the article, working with a consort is permissible if it is done in absolute privacy. The whole idea is so that the Sangha is not gossiping or laying odds on whether or not the "Monk" is ejaculating or how often. Geshe Roach decided to part with tradition and go public in contradiction to established norms of practice. This is what the controversy is about. He was advised to remove his robes and he refused. Many found his reasoning and actions to be insulting to the tradition and Vinaya. That this article does not reflect this non remarkable information is a failure largely due in my opinion to editors who fail at NPOV and likely have a WP:COI issue such as students of Geshe Roach are likely to have. I have edited this article a number of times and this information is rapidly reverted even if correctly cited. Even this Talk page gets "cleaned" if the controversy is clearly brought up here. It would be nice if people could understand the issues and make up their own mind about the subject. Vritti (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 17:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC).


 * In reply to User:Abhayakara: One could say that about any wikipedia article - remove everything but one section and it no longer is a coherent article. That is not an argument to remove the section. The section is not a "slam" against him. It simply notes the existence of a controversy that does in fact exist, and presents it in a way that conforms to WP:NPOV. The controversy represents a major focus of much of his coverage in general interest media sources, including the New York Times, one of the most prominent newpapers in the world. For that reason alone it is notable. My interest in this is simply that wikipedia adequately incorporates the reportage of the controversy by reliable sources, and it now does that. My opinions about Michael Roach are not relevant or at issue. If you have academic references relevant to Michael Roach, by all means incorporate them, but the existing references are certainly permissible reliable sources, and the material in the section is noteworthy, well-cited, and in accordance with WP:NPOV. If you are inspired to expand the rest of the article, by all means please do so.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If it were your intention to communicate what was communicated in the two articles in popular media that you claim are the only ones about Geshe Michael, I would expect to see the tone of the New York Times article, for instance, conveyed in the text that uses it as a reference.  But that's not what I see.   What I see is very selective quotation from this article, arranged in such a way as to convey a very different message than is conveyed in the Times article.  The tone of the Times article is "look at what these crazy Buddhists are doing, isn't that interesting, and oh, here's some controversy to keep you reading."   The tone of the controversy section is to focus in on a detailed description of the controversial practices, without saying why they are controversial, and while leaving out pretty much all of the context that is presented in the source.


 * And when I ask you to explain what it is that you are trying to communicate in this section, you ignore me, as if I had not asked the question at all.  Part of working on wikipedia articles is collaboration: different editors working together to make the article as clear and accurate as possible.   Perhaps you didn't notice that I asked, so I will ask again: can you say, in your own words, what it is that you are trying to communicate in this section?  Abhayakara (talk) 04:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I did address your question, but I will address it again. I am trying to convey what the sources convey, which is that Michael Roach has been fairly open about his unusual "spiritual partnership," as he calls it, and that partnership has provoked comment in the press and among his peers. As I already mentioned, it is notable because it has been a focus of his press coverage in reputable publications. Roach himself has been forthcoming about the nature of that partnership, more so in the Post article than in the Times article. I don't agree that there is not any context. The section clearly states that karmamudra practice by monks with a live rather than visualized partner has some precedent in the Gelukpa lineage, although it is traditionally kept secret. Roach himself has a long quote providing further context. Including Roach's own detailed description of the practice is certainly relevant, especially considering that he himself felt the need to publicly clarify the nature of the partnership in detail. It is peculiar to me that you are imputing a motive to me of wanting to make him look bad. He clearly feels that a high level of transparency regarding this practice is the best policy.Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have further refined the section, I hope you will find it improved. In my view the section should convey clearly and in a NPOV manner 1) what the practice is that is the subject of controversy and what is the nature of it (karmamudra involving celibate monks and female partners), 2) why has Roach's practice of it caused controversy (it is traditionally kept secret and Roach has gone public with it), and 3) Roach's explanation of his motivations in being open with it (times have changed and secrecy in his view is no longer appropriate).Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There is nothing in the section that I find particularly objectionable except for your insistence on speaking in very explicit and also ordinary terms about secret practices that you stipulate are sanctioned by the lineage.  It's true that Geshe Michael did talk about these practices in the same degree of detail in the article you reference, but that was an article written at the time of the controversy several years ago.   The controversy is pretty much dead at this point, so retaining a lengthy explanation in an encyclopedia article about Geshe Michael seems weird to me.   It's not a problem for Geshe Michael; it's a problem for his students who are less pure of heart, and have to deal with seeing this stuff in a general article about him.   His practices with his partner are between him and his partner, unless there's some accusation of wrongdoing, and it's no more fun for his students to see graphic descriptions of these practices, no matter how holy and proper they may be, than it is for a child to see a detailed description of the encounter that led to his or her conception, or for a stranger to see that same description.


 * Anyway, the point of these criticisms is not to say anything about you.  I don't really know anything about you.   The point is that I think you're making this section longer than is appropriate, and when I propose changes intended to shorten it, you object, but I can't figure out what the basis is for your objection.   This seems like a relatively straightforward matter to me. Abhayakara (talk) 05:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That is basically the essence of the dispute. It is not for us to censor certain information for the perceived benefit of those of his students who by your assessment "are less pure of heart" for whom you imagine this will be a "problem." The purpose of the article is to provide an accurate and NPOV reflection of the information published about the subject by reliable sources. Whether or not the controversy is "dead" is not relevant to the fact that is still notable and appropriate for inclusion in the article. The Monica Lewinsky scandal is also dead, but it has not been purged from the article about Bill Clinton. The suggestion that I have been unwilling to work with you is unfair. The section has been revised and shortened time and time again. I have also articulated my objection to your purposes over and over. By your own admission, you would like to shorten the section to the point where it is no longer clear, for the purpose of hiding the information therein for the perceived benefit of Roach's "less pure of heart" students. That is simply not an acceptable editorial policy, and that is what I object to.Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to argue for cutting it down, not "to the point where it is no longer clear" - but to the point where it is clearer and isn't WP:UNDUE weight. I also agree that the needs of "less pure of heart" students isn't really the point, of course.  But right now, the article blows a very minor thing into a long controversy section.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is a little problematic to invoke WP:UNDUE weight here, considering that one of the previous complaints about the section was that there was insufficient context. Most of the section is now devoted to providing that context.Sylvain1972 (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the earlier complaints was indeed that there was insufficient context.  However, I just rewrote the section and had no difficulty expressing the needed context in a single paragraph.   My rewrite does elide some of the juicier details; I persist in claiming that these are private details.   It's true that the students' feelings shouldn't be predominant here, but it ought to be the case that some purpose is served in including these details.   User:Sylvain1972 has not been able to articulate what the purpose of these details is; therefore, I have left them out.   If there is some purpose, User:Sylvain1972 should be able to say "these details need to be included for X purpose," not simply "these details appeared in the source material, and hence must be repeated in the article."   Many details from the source material are not repeated in the article, so clearly the mere fact that some detail appears in the source is not sufficient grounds for its inclusion in the article. Abhayakara (talk) 04:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Er, one additional point.  I expect that someone might take exception to my assertion that the physical details of the karmamudra practice are private, when they were described in the source material.   What I mean here is that even if the details of some public figure's sexual activity is known, unless that activity is held to have been inappropriate, it's considered unnecessary to broadcast the details of that activity.   For example, unfortunately we must endure the descriptions of a certain U.S. president's sexual activities, because it is relevant to events that unfolded in the latter portion of his presidency.   However, it would be quite odd to see, in an encyclopedia article, physical descriptions of the activities occurring between a public figure and his wife or her husband, even if source material existed that could be cited.   In this case, since the behavior being described is private conduct, the mere fact that source material exists that describes that private conduct does not justify its inclusion in the article, because those details are immaterial—they do not speak to the character of the subject of the article. Abhayakara (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Gah, or her wife or his husband, of course. Abhayakara (talk) 04:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the changes, except the cryptic wording. It is not private conduct after a person has described it in detail, on record, to the New York Post. If you object to a precise description of the conduct, we can just call it sex - Roach acknowledges that's what most people would call it. Already after your edits we had an editor who could not understand the passage anymore, given that he thought karmamudra referred to the female partner rather than the practice itself. The controversy was that a supposedly celibate monk engaged in secret sexual practices that are sanctioned as long as they are private, and then he went public with them. All of those elements are relevant to the article, and the elision of any one of them makes for an incomprehensible account.Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm with you. There are some significant issues here, that needn't be explicitly discussed here, but are nonetheless implied (and are discussed in the articles cited). Karmamudra is NOT ideally supposed to be a romantic partnership - it is a religious partnership. Not that it matters, but personally I question the possibility of that sort of exclusivity - and Roach himself said that it didn't turn out that way for them either. They did indeed have a romantic relationship, with all of the complications that implies, by his own admission ("It got kind of high school" he said. !) Also - their secrecy was never very, well, secret. Their students knew, so they went public before the whistle was blown more widely. Most Tibetan Buddhist leaders were highly skeptical of their highly irregular "karmamudra" practice, and were vocal in their opposition, or so reports say. So - I find the passage covers the issue, with citations for those who wish to dig up more of the dirt, or understand the issues. 48 hours ago, this page read like a Michael Roach pamphlet. It is considerably better now.Tao2911 (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

New edits to controversy section

 * If there is something that you think the article should say, you should say it.  Do bear in mind though that in none of the source material does anyone assert that Geshe Michael and Christie McNally were not qualified to do this practice.   Lama Surya Das says he's skeptical, but he doesn't claim to have any actual knowledge on the topic.   Robert Thurman doesn't say what he thinks: he talks about the reaction he's observed in others.   The reason that nobody says what they think, of course, is that the lineage does not require any test other than that the practitioner receive permission to practice from his or her root lama; in this case that would have been Geshe Lobsang Tharchin.   So what Robert Thurman thinks, or what Lama Surya Das thinks, does not matter, and they know that, and are careful to avoid saying anything that would imply otherwise, even when pressed by a New York Times reporter.   But if you have some additional information to add—a reliable source that says that it's not up to the root lama to determine whether or not a disciple is qualified to do the practice, or a reliable source that says that Geshe Lobsang Tharchin did not give his permission, then you should cite that source and make whatever statement it is that you want to make plainly, rather than trying to imply something that your source material doesn't support.


 * Again, of course, I question why the deep interest in this question, when this spiritual partnership is far from the most interesting thing Geshe Michael has done in his life so far.  Indeed, I would argue, far from the most controversial.


 * BTW, I think the edits in general were good.  Citing Christie's current partner as the cause for the breakup seems unwarranted; if you really think that belongs there, it would be nice if you could explain why.   (By "you" here I mean User:Tao2911 and User:Sylvain1972 of course).   I think it's worth noting that His Holiness' book actually disparages the use of the term "sexual intercourse" to describe the karmamudra practice, although he also uses it several times to describe the practice.   I added "a yogic practice involving.." to make it clear that the karma mudra practice is not simply two people having sex.   Otherwise, while I think that this section still goes into more detail than is warranted, it's much improved.


 * I was interested to note that both this discussion page and the main article disappeared from my watchlist sometime in the past two days.  Probably some kind of bug in mediawiki... Abhayakara (talk) 03:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, User:Tao2911, it's news to me that the karmamudra practice is not supposed to be romantic.  It is of course a secret practice, so it's not surprising that I am so uninformed.   Perhaps you have a source to cite? Abhayakara (talk) 03:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah - Michael Roach. He talks about how their relationship became colored with typical American romantic realtionship programing, and that this was not in keeping with the spirit of karmamudra. The high school bit, etc. Reread the interview, with any devotional goggles removed. Also discussed pointedly is the end of their relationship due not to some enlightened, clean, mutual agreement, but because she left him for their attendant. This is significant to the casual reader - ie me. To fail to mention that, when it is discussed clearly in the source for most of the events being detailed, is a gross oversight, and smacks of biased POV. I read this page, thought it was waaay too positive and hagiographic, encountered the controversy bit, read the actual sources, and had that assessment further confirmed.Tao2911 (talk) 04:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You seem to be stipulating that it wasn't a standard romantic relationship: that Geshe Michael saw the tendency to think of it that way as a problem, not status quo.  If it was not a romantic relationship, what's the proper sort of ending for it?   Do you have some source material that says that all such relationships continue indefinitely?   Or that there is some proper way that they should end, which was not honored here?   What would be a "cleaner" ending than that the two Lamas continued to teach side-by-side after the "breakup"?   "Waaaay to positive and hagiographic" seems like POV to me; if in fact there is something negative that needs to be said, can you articulate it clearly and cite a source that supports your point, so that we can add it?  All I see here at the moment is innuendo.


 * The gossip column claims that the new relationship was what caused the end of the old relationship; however, to the extent that the article offers any facts to support this assertion, the only facts it offers are that the one relationship ended, and that the other one started.  No details about the timing of these events are on offer, which suggests to me that the author was not privy to such details.   So I don't think that your citation really justifies the statement that "she left him for her attendant," with all that implies.   Aside from this point, your edit seems fine. Abhayakara (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I have zero desire to get into "general discussions" (against WP guidelines) of what you think romance is or isn't. Your bias is crystal clear. I don't have one here. I have no opinion about this guy whatsoever. I don't need to. We go by sources here. The section is on "controversy", as the header states. The article is in fact called "Monk-y Business: Controversial NYC guru Michael Roach", for heaven's sake. The quote is as follows: "Last summer Christie left Geshe Michael for another man. Ian Thorson, a young student who had once served as the couple's attendant...had come between them....the couple's spiritual partnership came to a dramatic end. Now both Geshe Michael and his followers are devastated and questioning what, and whom, they believe in. "It's chaos" says Erin." It goes on. And on.

You can feel whatever you choose to feel about this. But it is a major newspaper article. They were not sued. Roach participated, and his statements support all the allegations in the article. There were no retractions. I see no reason to question this source, or in particular this assertion, which is presented with absolute NPOV in the entry. Do not remove it again, or you face accusations of edit warring, and administrative sanction.Tao2911 (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the present version is quite mild and NPOV. I am satisfied with it.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Coolness.Tao2911 (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The article might want to include the newspaper articles about Michael Roach suggesting that people should look beautiful and dress up, and his hitting the clubs as not seeming to make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.147.58 (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * if you have useful content from valid sources you would like to include, go for it. But this doesn't sound like you have neutral information you wish add; just more of an axe to grind.Tao2911 (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone added a bunch of text about the recent tragedy at Diamond Mountain. I think if there is some way that this can be written so that it is relevant biographical information about Geshe Michael, then it would make sense to include it here, but otherwise it belongs in a biography page about Ian or about Christie. I suggest that the authors write a bio page for Ian or Christie if they feel this is something that needs to be documented in Wikipedia. Abhayakara (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * wrong. He is the head of Diamond Mountain. McNally is solely authorized by him (and importantly by absolutely no one else), she and Thorson are/were officially his students, and all these events occurred at his "university". It all follows on the heels of reports (discussed in the entry) of their "partnership", and her leaving him for Thorson. Also, Roach issued a lengthy and highly controversial message about these events. He is the central pivot around whom these events turn. It is perfectly applicable.Tao2911 (talk) 15:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand that the previous paragraph feels incomplete without some update as to what happened to Ian, but you will recall that I did not agree that it was appropriate to include that text in the first place, and I still don't.  Be that as it may, the text you have now re-added does not suit the purpose you describe.   If these events are Geshe Michael's doing, you need to show that, or else it's not relevant to his biography.   Your current text clearly states that this is something that Ian and Christie chose to do.   If you don't think that's the case, why did you say it is the case?   If you do think it's the case, then this text belongs in Christie's or Ian's biography, perhaps with a reference here.   If you must mention these events here, please seriously rethink your approach so that what you write is germane to *this* article. 173.162.214.218 (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Argh.  Sorry, the above edit and also the recent edit to the main article were done by me, but I didn't notice I wasn't logged in. Abhayakara (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Look, you clearly have a bias here. I'd suggest you review guidelines about editing on pages where you have a clear POV (wp:npov). For instance, your suggestion to create a new page is classic content forking. I suspect you are a follower of the subject in which case it is suggested you not edit on this page at all. Given your bias, I make this case here for others, as I suspect you will argue against the inclusion of this material no matter what - given that you would remove the totally NPOV material about other controversy around him as reported in the New York Times and new york Post. Roach is a religious teacher, a spiritual leader. You didn't have any problem with highly inflated puffery that constituted most of this article when it shone his spiritual activities and organizations in a positive light (much of which I have edited to be more neutral). You only wish to remove the negative material. The death of one of his most senior students, whom his "partner" left him for (as reported in the Post), and the subsequent controversy and upheaval being created in his organization, can not and should not be left out of any thorough profile. I am not affiliated in any way with this guy, or his purported spiritual tradition. I am informed enough however to know that if I am to read a profile of him, I would expect this material to be there - just as I would if the founder of some other spiritual "university" had his partner (and most senior TEACHER) leave him for a senior student, later marry, then stab, said student, and then find him dead while they were alone in a cave having been kicked out of said university, all while claiming to be practicing according to the Buddhist retreat guidelines of their teacher, that they believed themselves to be following. Well...it's such a no-brainer that your repeated removal of it completely outs you as biased. And btw, there is no rule that says material needs to prove some kind of personal guilt to be included - it is of high general, and institutional, significance - and THAT is the guideline. So please leave it alone, and allow other editors to weigh in if they have opinions.Tao2911 (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

If i can weigh in, the link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christie_McNally redirects to the Roach bio page, so therefore in my opinion either we make a separate christie McNally page and link it to the roach page, or we remove that redirect.. Tao2911... why dont you write that page. I think its a good idea and i think youd be a good person to do it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.142.222.226 (talk) 04:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Changed Diamond Mountain University to Diamond Mountain Center as this is the official wikipedia page for that institution. The name 'University' is also not used on the official website other than as a strapline under the logo. There is no official use of the term 'University' that I can find on the website. If anyone feels this should be changed back, then please also change the wikipedia page so that Diamond Mountain Center redirects to Diamond Mountain University and not visa versa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.85.78 (talk) 00:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard thread

 * - Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard - there is a report about some disputed content - please join in the discussion there and seek WP:Consensus for the desired addition - thanks -  You  really  can  21:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thorson's death
It is a matter of reliable sources (including recent articles in the NYT and the Independent) that are making the connection. I agree we shouldn't get into details of McNally and Thorson, but the basic fact of Thorson's death following their expulsion from the retreat belongs in the article, given that that's a connection good sources are making. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Think through your logic a bit here.  You are saying [a] Ian Thorsen died. [b] this death occurred after Ian left the retreat. [c] Geshe Michael is the spiritual director for the retreat. Therefore [d] Ian's death is notable in an article about Geshe Michael.   The sources you cite are sources reporting on Ian's death, not stories about Geshe Michael.   It makes sense to talk about Geshe Michael when you talk about Ian's death, but the converse is not necessarily true.   You would need to establish some kind of misfeasance or malfeasance on Geshe Michael's part before it would make sense for you to report on Ian's death here—that is, it would have to be the case that Ian's death was Geshe Michael's doing.   The text you have added to the article doesn't make this case, and neither do the sources you cite.   Hence, the text about Ian doesn't belong here.   It belongs in the wikipedia article you do on Christie, or on Ian, if you feel that it is notable.   That article would of course mention Geshe Michael, and that would be entirely appropriate. Abhayakara (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, it is the sources that make this connection, and the sources themselves are just as much about Roach as they are about Thorson. The sources do not say that Roach is responsible for Thorson's death, and neither does our article here.  I assume we're at least done with the misguided notion that there was a coatrack problem, nu?  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, an article about Ian's death would rightly mention Geshe Michael, as the source articles do.  However, the converse is not true: the mere fact that an article about Ian's death at a retreat center founded by Geshe Michael talks about both Ian and Geshe Michael does not mean that an article about Geshe Michael should talk about Ian.   Can you explain why you think this is notable? Abhayakara (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, because multiple reliable sources are discussing it, quite prominently. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't a valid reason, because you could also use it to justify adding some text here about the space shuttle because multiple valid sources attest to its historical existence.  The mere fact that an article talks about Ian, and talks about Geshe Michael, does not mean that the subject matter of the article as it pertains to Ian is notable in an article about Geshe Michael.   In order for it to be notable, Ian's death has to say something about Geshe Michael.   So if you think it is notable, you must be able to say what Ian's death says about Geshe Michael.   Can you please attempt to do so? Abhayakara (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is preposterous to suggest that this episode involving Roach's main protege, his ex-wife, and his former attendant, both of whom owed their prominence and status entirely to Roach, has no relevance to his wikipedia article. It is just not even arguable.Sylvain1972 (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Divorce
We have had some discussion (not enough) on WP:BLPN about the recent edits where User:Nomoskedasticity has tried to introduce text indicating that Michael Roach dumped Christie McNally and immediately went to New York to go clubbing, when the source that talks about clubbing says that McNally dumped Roach, and the source that talks about filing for divorce doesn't give any context as to why Roach filed. The claim that Roach instigated the divorce is not sustained by the sources, and the juxtaposition of this claim with the clubbing claim tells a story that is contrary to the source material as well.

If you really, truly think this text needs to be in the article, please get someone who is neutral to agree with you. When I've raised this on WP:BLPN, nobody has supported your position, and several have argued against it. Arguing with you about this over and over again is a huge waste of time. Don't you have anything better to do? Abhayakara (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. No-one on BLPN took any view at all about this issue, so it's inaccurate to say others argued against my position. 2. Sources: New York Times, "Mr. Roach had filed for divorce from her."  New York Post, several paragraphs about post-divorce activities, including clubbing in New York with young models.  If you want to add context to all of this, please do suggest edits here as per the guidelines for COI editors.  When you do so, avoid mischaracterizing other editors' edits (e.g. I did not talk about anyone dumping anyone else).  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've mischaracterized your edits.  The text about clubbing has been added several times in the past by other wikipedia users, and taken down again.   It's simply not notable.   You haven't explained why you think it's notable.   The fact that it appears in the source doesn't make it notable.   This has been discussed on WP:BLPN before, and neutral parties have agreed that this is so.   You can read all this history if you are interested—I'm not making this up.   If you aren't interested enough to read the history, why are you editing this article? Abhayakara (talk) 06:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Intervening comment by User:Canoe1967 removed despite WP:REDACT
 * Please do have a look at WP:TPO. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Intervening comment by User:Canoe1967 removed despite WP:REDACT
 * You have not identified a BLP problem with my posts to this talk page. Presumably, that's because there isn't one.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Intervening comment by User:Canoe1967 removed despite WP:REDACT


 * "My edits ... were not coatracking" -- that doesn't seem relevant to how to edit the article? In any event, you are now focused on discussing me (and I on you, in response).  In fact, I agree with you: we should get back to a discussion of how to edit the article.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." WP:TPG  and 'timshol' --Canoe1967 (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems that User:Tao2911 is back and wants to add back the talk about Ian. The very tenuous claim that a distraught mother blames Geshe Michael for the death of her son seems to be the basis for claiming that this paragraph is notable. I think this is highly questionable, but I'm not prepared to unilaterally decide that the paragraph has to go. However, if the paragraph does need to be here, it needs to be complete and accurate, and not draw conclusions not sustained by source material. In particular, if you leave out Geshe Michael's long letter explaining what happened, and why Christie and Ian were asked to leave, the added text makes it sound like Geshe Michael is the villain. So I've added a sentence summarizing the letter. I think it makes the paragraph more balanced.

User:Tao2911, if you want to make more changes, it would be nice if you could participate in a conversation about what you are trying to communicate and why you consider it notable, rather than leaving us to guess what you may have intended. Abhayakara (talk) 04:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the edit User:Nomoskedasticity made on the bases of WP:SPS, I don't think that applies here. WP:SPS is specific to things like personal blogs, public postings on forums, tweets, and group blogs. Diamond Mountain Center is a 501c(3) religious organization with a board of directors, and this open letter was published on their web site, which is not a personal blog or a group blog, but rather the online public face of the retreat center. I can see where you might be tempted to say that it's still self-published since Geshe Michael founded Diamond Mountain, but then you are essentially claiming that the DM board are meatpuppets, and I would think you ought to justify that claim with some kind of sourced evidence. Abhayakara (talk) 06:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:RS is very clear on preferring sources that are independent. No matter how you slice this one, the Diamond Mountain board is not independent of Roach.  Putting that point in Wikipedia's voice instead of Roach's is not the way to do it -- a point that will be perfectly obvious to anyone who doesn't approach this article with a conflict of interest.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

In case of such controversial figures and material, like we have here, no, arguments saying that the Diamond Mountain website could somehow be considered a valid "secondary or tertiary source" are utterly absurd. Of course it's not. The independence of the board is exactly the question in a number of places. Nomo is exactly right to call it into question here. Diamond Mountain is Roach's baby - you can't extol it as his creation, and then use it as independent source! Abhayakara is an admitted follower of Roach; considering this, I think s/he is doing ok with some edits - by basically no longer fruitlessly fighting the entire flood of information that is becoming available from an astounding wealth of reliable tertiary sources (that happen to include most major newspapers in the English speaking world.) Clearly, this editor would like to see this page be a glowing portrayal of their guru. Happily, there are other people here too. My motives, you ask? To have a decent, NPOV overview of this guy. I think we have one at the moment. Probably for a brief moment.Tao2911 (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As an aside, I removed "non tradional" from in front of "American". If this is readded, can it be after the nationality? Thank you. --Mollskman (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Tao2911, the fact that you have the various beliefs that you state above does not make them true. In order for them to be in the article, you have to have a source that says what you say above. You do not have a source. Therefore, it does not belong in the article. "The board is not independent?" Which source said that? "It's Geshe Michael's baby?" Which source said that? Furthermore, even if it's Geshe Michael's baby in the sense that he founded it, it's legally an independent entity with a board. It's not appropriate to presume something that's not stated in a source.

BTW, your motives really don't matter here. What matters is that you are making non-NPOV edits. Maybe you sincerely believe that your edits are accurate. That belief is not sufficient to establish that they are. To establish that they are, you need sources. The sources can't merely imply what you would like the article to say. They have to say it. The fact that these articles you are citing—as full of innuendo as they are—never actually come out and say what you are trying to say should tell you something. Abhayakara (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * praytell, which of my edits are biased? Show one, darling. I don't see one line - except the ones about his claimed accomplishments, which I leave alone mainly out of good will - that we don't have absolutely perfect tertiary sources for, in triplicate. We're about business here, not name calling. If you actually look at mine, you'll see that I have fleshed out his early bio, corrected timelines, made sure his linguistic accomplishments were reinserted in the right place, worked on the grammar, fixed citations, corrected negative bias, added about half of the current sources, etc etc etc. And yes, I have fought your wish to make this a promotional site for your guru. I am sorry if this makes you sad or upset.Tao2911 (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You wrote that Ian and Christie were appointed as retreat directors by Geshe Michael.  I don't know if Christie was in any sense appointed by Geshe Michael, but I wasn't able to find anything in the cited articles substantiating that.   I do know that Ian was not retreat co-director, and by extension that he was not so appointed.   As far as I know Christie volunteered to be the spiritual director for the retreat, but I really don't have any specific personal knowledge on that topic, so it would be necessary to find some source backing up the claim.   This is just one of the many unsubstantiated and inaccurate additions that you made to the article.  Abhayakara (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Christie said that Ian was co-directing; I read it in numbers of early accounts. It wasn't in latest sources, so if you notice I did not re-add that after you removed it. Anything else? Oh, and the sources say (not inside rumor or guessing or personal knowledge) that Diamond Mountain is run by Michael Roach, and that he organized and was leading the three year retreat, and appointed Christie to be "director." Do you have another source, or have some alternative proposal for how she would end up directing a THREE YEAR LONG RETREAT without being appointed by the religious leader of said event? She just appointed herself you say?Tao2911 (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I couldn't find the source that said Geshe Michael appointed Christie.  Which one says that?   Geshe Michael and Christie founded DM, so your statement that Christie would have had to have been appointed by Geshe Michael is mistaken.   In any case, it's not for us to speculate.   If the sources say that she was appointed by Geshe Michael, that's fine—I just couldn't find that in the sources. Abhayakara (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've never seen a source that says she co-founded the place. Roach is sole man at the top, according to every news story. Find one source that differs. Please. Also, any teaching authority McNally has at all comes from Roach and no one else. So it makes the same point. Why are you even arguing this? What's your point? You say I am making all these biased additions, ruining the article. Is this all you have?Tao2911 (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You seem to have dodged my question.  Which source says that Geshe Michael appointed Christie? Abhayakara (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

At the moment, I think the article is in pretty good shape. The only point of cognitive dissonance I have is that Abhayakara hasn't been booted from editing this subject due to an obvious conflict of interest.Vritti (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Vritti for your opinion; I happen to concur. I think the page is a good, NPOV summary of what is now a cornucopia/bumper crop of tertiary sources. And yes, Abhayakara is an admitted devotee of Roach, with a transparent history of whitewashing the page. Seriously, now...Tao2911 (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh btw, Roach in a clear attempt to deflect responsibility says in his public statement that the "Diamond Mtn board appointed Mcnally director". They are all of course picked by him, he's the head of the board and leader of the retreat - but I just took out his name, mainly because it just reads better.Tao2911 (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If you find my participation so fascinating, maybe you should do a Wikipedia page about me.  If you are interested in this article and in NPOV, perhaps you could respond to the question that I asked, instead of continuing to gossip here about topics that are irrelevant to the article. Abhayakara (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * apparently your bias is effecting your literacy, since I did, in the line preceding your snark? Read that and get back to us. And btw, agreeing with another editor's assessment of your bias is hardly "gossip." This kind of discussion is a record for future editors to track those involved and get a sense of what's going on. Your bias is important to delineate, for those who might have missed when you admitted Roach is your guru.Tao2911 (talk) 21:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The correct answer to my question would be in the form "the article at http://blah says that the board appointed Christie."  It is not snarky to ask you to answer a clarifying question.  Also, BTW, read the article and tell me why it's notable.   You seem to be really interested in editing it, but if in fact the only thing that's interesting about Geshe Michael is that he is a monk who was married, and someone died near a retreat center he's in charge of, then it's hard to see why there should be a Wikipedia article about him.   If you think he's notable, why don't you add some text that says why? Abhayakara (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * read the letter from Roach, already used as citation - its there in black and white. "Lama Christie was appointed to be director of the retreat." And Roach is plenty notable - he just also happens to be increasingly notorious, or so it appears. Again - I don't know the guy. I just know what I read in sources. And I've been working on cleaning up that totally inaccurate virtual nonsense that was his bio before.Tao2911 (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, okay, cool.  Thanks.   That wasn't one of the sources you cited—it's a source I added later.   None of the sources you cited, as far as I can tell, contain this claim.   But be that as it may, what about my question about notability?   Why do you think this article is notable? Abhayakara (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you proposing we delete it? He's your guru, after all.Tao2911 (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm asking why you haven't proposed we delete it: why you think it's interesting to talk about a person who, according to you, has never done anything of significant aside from getting ordained and then practicing with a partner, and then having someone die nearby a retreat center he founded. Abhayakara (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * so, in other words, you don't have a proposal for the article, just some kind of mind game you want to play? No thank you. And I've never said he didn't warrant a page. Ever. Or anything close to it.Tao2911 (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that you said he didn't warrant a page.  I'm saying that your edits suggest that he isn't notable—the only thing you're interested in editing is the controversy section, or taking out text in the rest of the article that you consider "hagiographic."  So I'm asking you to say why you think he's notable, and therefore his article shouldn't be deleted.   This isn't a mind game.   It's a legitimate question.   All of this back and forth is exhausting.   I have a job, and I'm building a house, and I volunteer for various local organizations who actually need my help.   I don't have time to spend several hours every night going through all your edits to see if your sources justify them.   From my perspective, it would be better that there be no wikipedia page than that there be a page with all the non-notable gossip you've added.   So I'm just wondering why you think that's not so. Abhayakara (talk) 23:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Aw - Saint Abhayakara is taxed by my heresy. So sorry. You clearly don't understand wikipedia. As others have pointed out, and alerted you to, your bias is clouding your judgement. Roach has accomplished some things. He's also currently the most controversial member of the entire Tibetan Buddhist religious mandala, completely and utterly sanctioned and rejected by the entire establishment, Dalai Lama on down, for concrete reasons. It's not gossip dear. Why don't you just stay away, get some sleep, and let reality (not your fantasy about your guru) play itself out here.Tao2911 (talk) 13:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Please try to refrain from all of this ad hominem stuff.  Your duty as a wikipedia editor is to engage constructively when there is debate about what should be in an article you are editing, not to call the people who disagree with you names.   As to your point, if he is, as you say, the most controversial member of the entire Tibetan Buddhist religious mandala, completely and utterly sanctioned and rejected by the entire establishment, Dalai Lama on down, why is it that the only source you have for this is a New York Times article that doesn't actually say that?  Wouldn't it be more helpful to include, for example, a link to the page on His Holiness' web site where this is discussed?  Abhayakara (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

OWN network proposal
I had included this passage, which has been removed for notability issues. I'll make my argument following:

''In 2010, Roach submitted a video proposal for a television show on the Oprah Winfrey Network to be chosen by online voting. In the proposal he states, "When I was young, my mom got breast cancer and just before she died she put me into a Tibetan monastery. I stayed there for 20 years and became the first American geshe, or Buddhist Master. Nowadays a lot of people come to me with their problems and dreams and I help them figure out what karma they need to get things they want." The proposal has not yet been selected for production.[23][24]''

Ok. So the lead says, "Roach's teaching includes the view that yoga and meditation can lead to financial prosperity. He has at times been the center of controversy for his views, teachings, activities, and behavior."

This quote directly demonstrates nearly everything in this passage, in a succinct way, in Roach's own words - better than many other parts of the entry. It is a proposal, viewable online, for a television show on the Oprah Network. This is exactly the kind of information the general reader, to whom we are told to be writing for in guidelines, is going to be interested in. We also have it referenced in a critique of Roach that is used by the New York Times, and other sources, cited throughout the article - in the Elephant Journal, an influential and highly regarded online and print subscription magazine. I think it genuinely fleshes out the article, and is a great opportunity to see Roach himself talk about what he's about, his views, and shows his aspirations. Why wouldn't we have it in the article? Such material is often included in profiles of less, and more, well-known figures.Tao2911 (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Link, please? Abhayakara (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * http://myown.oprah.com/audition/index.html?request=video_details&response_id=19324&promo_id=1 Tao2911 (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm still not seeing the significance of this element, Tao2911. It would be an easier sell if it had been selected/broadcast.  What does the Elephant Journal article have to say about it?  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * http://www.elephantjournal.com/2012/05/tragedy-at-diamond-mountain-an-update/#idc-cover It's a scathing critique of dozens of problematic issues around Roach, written by a former senior student. This post and the discussion threads following it were a source for NYT article, referenced and linked to. The threads by the way are fascinating - Roach's former attendent for the first 3 year retreat says the "five paraticpants" were all women, and that they all had sex together, and Roach liked to wear their lady things. I am not suggesting this for inclusion!


 * Here's the quote from the author, who while wearing opinion on his sleeve has done some amazing research. "In 2010, Roach recorded a video audition for the Oprah Network to propose a new show that he would host called “The Karma Show”. Oprah didn’t go for it, despite 11,861 votes. I think this 3-minute clip pretty much sums up Roach’s entire pitch and method. He confabulates his educational story, brags about the commercial bravado of his students, oversells his matchmaking and medical powers, all while bastardizing the crown jewel of Gelukpa metaphysics."Tao2911 (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The conclusion you want to draw here is WP:OR: you are making an original criticism on the basis of a primary source.  Not only that, but your criticism is not based on the content of the video, but the one-paragraph blurb.   The video does not say what the blurb says.  Abhayakara (talk) 23:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I really don't think you can read - let me rephrase: Please read more carefully. I am not making any criticism, anywhere. And the blurb quoted accompanies the video on the site, and yes, pretty well synopsizes what it contains.Tao2911 (talk) 13:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hm, that would tend to suggest that I wouldn't be able to reply to what you said, and yet here I am replying, just as if I could read.  This is a criticism: I think this 3-minute clip pretty much sums up Roach’s entire pitch and method. He confabulates his educational story, brags about the commercial bravado of his students, oversells his matchmaking and medical powers, all while bastardizing the crown jewel of Gelukpa metaphysics. Abhayakara (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * hmm wow, that would be the part that I didn't say, put in quotations, and in fact immediately preceded it with the phrase "Here's the quote from the author, who while wearing opinion on his sleeve has done some amazing research." Abashed? No of course not. You have no shame - that's why you keep editing this entry, your stunning obtuse bias notwithstanding.Tao2911 (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh my, you are right.  You didn't say that.   I'm sorry for having misrepresented this.   I actually agree with you that the pitch explains Geshe Michael's teachings, since that's what it's intended to do.   However, the blurb accompanying the pitch doesn't accurately represent what's in the pitch.  And BTW, what he says in the pitch is something you'll hear from Tibetan lamas too, not just from Geshe Michael.   It sounds weird and uncomfortable to western ears, including mine, but he says it because he's trying to get people to feel strongly motivated to keep their vows, and from what I've seen, it does have that effect. Abhayakara (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I've read a few critiques from Tibetan lamas of that very pitch calling it an abomination, but who cares? I too listened, I am relatively conversant with Dharma Tibetan, Gelug, and otherwise, and the summary provided is perfectly accurate. If it weren't, presumably Roach wouldn't allow it to represent his pitch. In any case, IF we were to summarize the video, we would use the summary provided, not yours. Or mine.Tao2911 (talk) 02:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The video is as valid a source as the summary; more so, since it contradicts the summary.  Sources aren't more or less valid because of the form they come in.   E.g., the summary of a Nightline episode in TV guide (does that even still exist?) is not more reliable than the Nightline episode, simply because it's text and Nightline is video. Abhayakara (talk) 02:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

First, basically nothing you say here carries any weight since your bias is heinous and damning. Second, your analogy is utterly fallacious. The summary at OWN is FIRST PERSON, it is not pretending to be an independent summary. Third, I have watched the video, and read ROACH'S summary; it is perfectly suitable and accurate. Fourth, the issue is a none starter until I find a source that passes muster. So, you can stop now. Really. Go back to all those pressing issues you claim we are distracting you from. Please.Tao2911 (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Tao2911 your edit history is public, you know. And it shows a pretty clear POV. The summary is unattributed. We know that Geshe Michael spoke in the video because we see him speaking. Both are primary sources, but one is not reliable, because we don't know who wrote it, and the other is reliable, because we see Geshe Michael speaking. Primary sources are generally not usable because using them requires interpretation, which would be WP:OR. So I'm glad you've concluded that you can't use these. But please dispense with the accusations and just do your job as an editor. A good start would be to remove all the text you've added to the article that's not backed up by the sources you've cited. Abhayakara (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Elephant Journal
Tao2911, I'm sorry, but it is now clear to me that the Elephant Journal does not meet WP:RS. The question is not whether it's prominent or well thought of. The problem is that it is, in its own words, an "open forum". The journal owners explicitly disclaim responsibility for what its authors write. They say they are simply providing a platform for others to write their own stuff. I'm confident you will disagree with me -- and so I suggest that you raise the question at WP:RSN. In the meantime, per WP:BLP I will have to remove anything that relies solely on a source in this "journal". I'll add that some of what I saw made for a fascinating read -- but there's no way that source is going to pass muster here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh I expected as much. No big deal. I still think that Oprah proposal should be here. I'll see if I can find another mention in the plethora of other sources. Springing up like weeds these days...Tao2911 (talk) 13:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Full history of incident at DM
User:Tao2911 recently made the following change:
 * In December 2010, McNally was appointed director of a three-year meditation retreat at Diamond Mountain. She and her husband, Thorson, participated in the retreat and had their own cabin. In a "Great Retreat Teaching" on February 4, 2012, Christie McNally revealed an incident in which she had stabbed Thorson in February, 2011. Following meetings by the Diamond Mountain Board and outside legal counsel, the Board voted to remove McNally from any leadership roles and to ask the couple to leave the campus for one year.

to:
 * In January 2012, McNally was appointed director of a three-year meditation retreat at Diamond Mountain. After an incident in which McNally stabbed Thorson in February, they were both told to leave.

This change is inappropriate. If the stabbing incident is not notable, it should be removed in its entirety. If it is notable, it's notable enough to describe in context. I originally just reverted User:Tao2911's revert, but then noticed that the editor who added the text has no edit history. Since User:Tao2911 has a history of accusing me of sockpuppetry, I decided to revert the edit back to User:Tao2911's version and explain here why I think the edit was good. Abhayakara (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * god can you get nothing right? I've never accused you of sockpuppetry. Again, literacy, dude. And I'm quite sure you would like to remove the stabbing. Quite sure. Then remove them having to leave, then remove thorson's death, then remove the Dalai Lama censure, etc etc. Back to the way the page used to read, of course! Like a Michael Roach commercial. Perfect!Tao2911 (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the user who made the edits that you reverted. I've never edited wikipedia before, but the timeline of events is right on the Diamond Mountain website. I'm also frustrated that media outlets might get the sequence of events wrong if they look at this page. The stabbing incident did not occur shortly before the expulsion, but a full year prior. It was that McNally *spoke* of the incident on February 4 of this year. Some retreatants did know about it, but no one told the board. 96.246.62.95 (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "Media outlets" don't use wikipedia without careful fact checking anyway, so I wouldn't get that frustrated...Tao2911 (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Retreat and death timeline
Current page is factually inaccurate as to timeline. My edits were removed, however.

Retreat began December, 2010. McNally was both its director and a participant. She and Thorson had their own cabin. On February 4, 2012, McNally gave a "Great Retreat Teaching" in which she mentioned an incident in which she had stabbed Thorson. This event, according to an account posted in April 2012 on her behalf by an assistant ("A Shift in the Matrix"), had occurred a year before, in February 2011. The actual audio of this talk is not posted online, unlike the other talks given the same weekend.

The Diamond Mountain board met, and also sought legal counsel, before asking McNally and Thorson to leave the campus for one year, and stripping McNally of any leadership role.

The couple left the campus on February 20th. Thorson died April 22. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.62.95 (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Whoever did this edit, would you please get a wikipedia account and learn wikipedia procedure before making edits to the article?  It's great that you want to make the article more accurate, and your edit did improve the article, but there is a dispute going on about the content of this article, and so you can't just edit it and expect your edit to stick; worse, by editing it without showing the appearance of being an independent editor, you raise the spectre of sockpuppetry accusations.   Go get an account, look up WP:Sock puppetry, go look up WP:MEAT, go look up WP:NPOV, go look up WP:OR, and go look up WP:RS.   Read these articles carefully.   Then go look at User talk:Abhayakara and Sockpuppet_investigations/Abhayakara/Archive. Abhayakara (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Abhayakara,

Previous disputes about the content of this article have no bearing on the fact that dates on the current page are wrong. The right dates, given in my edits, are available from multiple sources, including the Diamond Mountain retreat's own website. I am an independent editor, and have worked as a magazine fact-checker. It does not make sense to me that I need to do tons of research on the accusations and counter-accusations made by previous contributors to this page in order to be qualified to correct factually inaccurate data. There's something bizarre about that. A wrong date can stand because I am not sufficiently educated about some insider thing known as "sockpuppetry"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.62.95 (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just make a username and password, so that it's possible to be accountable for your edits. Nothing could be easier -- no personal information, no nothing apart from a username and password.  As for the issue you're arguing: the way to make things right is to find a reliable source that provides the right information.  Present that here, make your case, and if others are convinced the article will be changed accordingly.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

1) Retreat started December 2010: http://diamondmountain.org/an-open-letter-from-geshe-michael 1a) McNally as its spiritual director and also participant: http://retreat4peace.org/about/lineage (end of page) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ixnay99 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

2) Stabbing incident revealed Feb 4 2012 (ibid) plus, youtube videos of the other talks given that weekend, plus http://diamondmountain.org/node/33

3) date of actual stabbing: http://www.scribd.com/doc/90220087/A-Shift-in-the-Matrix, page 2 of actual text

4) Date of couple leaving retreat: http://diamondmountain.org/an-open-letter-from-geshe-michael, also the NY times article, but I believe they also got the date from the official letter, which they cite

5) Date of ian's death, april 22 2012, -- every news story that has been written about this event http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/us/mysterious-buddhist-retreat-in-the-desert-ends-in-a-grisly-death-639159/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ixnay99 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

To be clear here, I think your edits are correct, and thank you for documenting them thoroughly. I just want to avoid a situation where someone accuses me of being you, because we happen to agree on this point. I pointed to past investigations solely for the purpose of warning you of that possibility. AFAIK, the person mentioned in the previous investigation is a student of one of Geshe Michael's students, who lives in Israel. I am sure an IP trace would have confirmed that, but none was done, and the investigation was closed without resolving the issue. Thanks for setting up an account! Abhayakara (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, BTW, be sure to sign your edits to the talk page. You can do this by ending what you write with four tildes. Abhayakara (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

ok with the above sources, I'd like whatever approving bodies to reconsider my edits, which replace the paragraph currently beginning "In January 2012" with:

McNally was appointed director of a three-year meditation retreat that began December 2010 at Diamond Mountain. She and her husband, Thorson, participated in the retreat and had their own cabin. In a "Great Retreat Teaching" on February 4, 2012, Christie McNally revealed an incident in which she had stabbed Thorson in February, 2011. Following meetings by the Diamond Mountain Board and outside legal counsel, the Board voted to remove McNally from any leadership roles and to ask the couple to leave the campus for one year.

Ixnay99 (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Again: too much detail. We don't need to know about their cabin. We don't need to know "she revealed" the stabbing. We don't need to know about legal counsel. You add nothing of substance here. These facts are secondary. And some are not in our tertiary sources. Look, we could flesh all of this out in its gory details (by the way, your edits not so subtly distance Roach from events.) We already risk having that section too long. It needs to be terse and to the point, a NPOV summary of TERTIARY sources - that would be NYT, ABC, etc. They do our work - we don't have to put these pieces together. Done. No to these edits. I will check dates, and make sure they are in line with NYT etc. I will make whatever correction is needed in text as it is. But these edits you propose are no go.Tao2911 (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * PS Thorson was RECOVERED on the 22nd. He had been dead at least a day.Tao2911 (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

1) I'm interested in precision. Thence the distinction between when the stabbing took place and when it was revealed to the board. Without this distinction, we perpetuate the confusion that has appeared on blogs, etc, where it is assumed that the stabbing must have shortly preceded the expulsion. No, Christie writes that the incident took place "three months into the retreat."


 * fixed that dates, so that's done.Tao2911 (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

2) I added the legal counsel thing because currently the article is really vague about how they came to be expelled and by whom. It uses the passive voice and does not say who asked them to leave.


 * doesn't matter. They were asked to leave - next line says board was involved. Enough. There are sources that are easily accessible if people want to know more. This is not a news story. Its an encyclopedic summary.Tao2911 (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

3) The problem with tertiary sources is that once one of them gets a fact wrong, the subsequent reports incorporate the same mistake. The primary sources were used as the basis for a number of facts in the Times article, so it seems weird to prioritize the latter.


 * if it's a choice between Michael Roach's, much less McNally's, version of events and the New York Times, wikipedia editors are going to favor the Times EVERY TIME. If the Times makes a mistake, then they should be asked to correct it. We can then use that. That is THEIR job. Not ours. Again, you're new here, so read your source guidelines.Tao2911 (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

4) Are you the owner of this page? Like when you say "no to these edits" are you the decider?


 * I am a veteran editor who has worked a bunch on this page. But I am happy to hear GOOD suggestions. You made some. They were incorporated.Tao2911 (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

5) I think in your "not so subtly" comment you are implying I am a supporter or whitewasher of the biography subject, somehow invested in distancing him from events? I'm not, and also in rereading my contribution I can't figure out where you got that idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ixnay99 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

6) According to Christie in her emergency call, Ian was "unresponsive." What's your source that he was actually in fact dead for a full day prior?  Ixnay99 (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * What difference does it make? NYTimes and others just say April, avoiding the question. We know he was found on the 22nd, dead. He could have been dead a week, we don't know and it doesn't matter. Most importantly, we don't need to add days to months and years in the confusing series of dates already listed. Simplify, condense, summarize.Tao2911 (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Tao, I asked in response to your absolute assertion, above, "PS Thorson was RECOVERED on the 22nd. He had been dead at least a day." It turns out you have no way of knowing that and then you chastise me that "it doesn't matter." It mattered enough for you to "correct" me on the point, on the basis of absolutely nothing!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ixnay99 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, I asked you why it matters. I've read accounts that the coroner's report said he was dead for "days". But it doesn't matter here. Unless you have an actual argument to the contrary. (!!!)Tao2911 (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

regarding any further expansion of 'controversy' section
So Abhayakara added a line about Roach's marriage, his excuse that it was just so McNally would inherit his stuff. I want to say that I think the section is tight and highly NPOV considering the incendiary nature of the material. A guy is dead, and many are arguing that it is directly due to his involvement with Roach. So - we don't want to get into that, or many other topics (there are over 4000 comments on threads about this topic on ONE other site, and there are many others). Every line in the entry has 10 lines ready to be added around it, both pro and con. Abha. clearly and always will try to sneak a little positive spin in wherever possible. That's what this edit smacks of to me. But more importantly, it doesn't matter to the material. Roach said that, but we have sourced accounts saying that most of what he has had to say about that relationship is completely specious anyway. Are we going to add that, for balance? We already know, and state, that he lied about being married for over a decade as it is. We are to put his excuses for why now? In the Oprah video he says he lived in a Tibetan monastery in India for 20 years. That is quite simply a lie as well. He clearly isn't a good source about his own motivations or biography. Anyway, once again, let's keep it succinct, condensed, and minimize this slippery slope of unwarranted detail.Tao2911 (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Roach said that, but we have sourced accounts saying that most of what he has had to say about that relationship is completely specious anyway. Name one reliable source.


 * We already know, and state, that he lied about being married for over a decade as it is. Then you should be able to produce a reliable source that says "Roach said in [insert date prior to 2012, when the article you cite was written] that he and McNally were not married."   This would be unlikely, given that they went around wearing wedding rings the entire time that they were "out" about their relationship.   I don't have a source that says that, but you don't have a source that says they lied about being married, either.


 * In the Oprah video he says he lived in a Tibetan monastery in India for 20 years. This is a primary source.  What he says is that he met the Dalai Lama in India, and lived in a monastery for 20 years.   This includes the time in India and the time at Rashi Gempil Ling in New Jersey.   I can see how you could take what he said the way you took it, but that doesn't mean he was lying.   Who knows, maybe he deliberately said it in such a way that you'd think he lived in India for 20 years.   But you don't have a reliable source that says he did.


 * He clearly isn't a good source about his own motivations or biography. This is drawing a conclusion by interpreting a primary source.  If you think this is true, go write a book about it.   Don't put it in a wikipedia article.


 * A guy is dead, and many are arguing that it is directly due to his involvement with Roach. It's clearly true that if he had never met Roach, he would not have died in the particular way he did.   But for all we know he would have died making some similar mistake.   We can't second-guess the past.   You are supposing here that if someone is dead, someone else must be to blame.   This is not a valid supposition.   Yes, Ian's mom blames Geshe Michael.   Do you blame her?   Would you claim that she is a reliable source?


 * What your diatribe here illustrates is the risk of trusting unreliable sources.  The reason you are so certain that I am whitewashing and you have NPOV is because you've been, as you admitted, reading comment threads on various online articles and taking what's said there as reliable.   It's not. Abhayakara (talk) 02:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * in fine retaliatory mode, Abhayakara is back to removing all mention of his marriage to McNally, etc. Usually people's marriages, divorces, etc are included in their bios - especially in light of these circumstances. Any other editors care to step in here, and take some action? I'm stepping away for a bit. This guy is a menace.Tao2911 (talk) 02:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have repeatedly said that the section about Ian is not notable.  I raised this on WP:BLPN and someone came by and agreed with me.   Then you put it back.   This is not retaliation.   I don't even understand how someone could imagine that it was retaliation.   I do not believe this belongs in the article, and so I took it out.   If you want an article about Ian Thorson or Christie McNally, please write one.  I think they are both notable, and you can float your theories about who's to blame for Ian's death there. Abhayakara (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, everybody.

Checking the page today, I see that the last paragraph of the controversy section has been shortened. It seems to me we are now omitting context, and the narrative makes no sense. We've got to mention the retreat itself before saying the couple was asked to leave the retreat, because it reads now:

"Roach and McNally divorced in September, 2010; McNally married one of Roach's senior students, Ian Thorson, one month later.[20] Due a pattern of suspected mutual abuse including an incident in which McNally stabbed Thorson, they were both told to leave the retreat in February, 2012.[24]"

I would like to add a sentence in the middle of the 2 existing sentences that clarifies what retreat and when:

"Roach and McNally divorced in September, 2010; McNally married one of Roach's senior students, Ian Thorson, one month later.[20] McNally was appointed director of a three-year meditation retreat that began December 2010 at Diamond Mountain. Due a pattern of suspected mutual abuse including an incident in which McNally stabbed Thorson, they were both told to leave the retreat in February, 2012.[24]"

Source is the Diamond Mountain website (all pages that describe the great retreat0 and also retreatforpeace.org, the retreat-specific website also maintained by Diamond Mountain. There are also pre-retreat interviews on the web with McNally in which she talks about when the retreat starts and what she hopes to accomplish there.

Reason for adding is that if we are mentioning the incident at all, we need enough context so the reader doesn't go "what?" Ixnay99 (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, again, everybody.

This crash-course in wikipedia editing is riveting. The sentence I proposed this morning was added, but then removed again. For the same reasons as given in my 13:43 post, directly above, I again ask if we can add a connecting/contextualizing sentence, to wit:

"Roach and McNally divorced in September, 2010; McNally married one of Roach's senior students, Ian Thorson, one month later.[20] McNally was appointed director of a three-year meditation retreat that began December 2010 at Diamond Mountain. Due a pattern of suspected mutual abuse including an incident in which McNally stabbed Thorson, they were both told to leave the retreat in February, 2012.[24]" Ixnay99 (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)