Talk:Network of Buddhist Organisations

[Untitled]
The article with this name has a notice saying that an automated process indicates possible infringement of a website's copyright. An earlier version of this article - The Network of Buddhist Organisations UK - did quote its aims and it is true that these do appear on the NBO website. However, statement of aims may be taken as belonging to the public domain and in fact the same wording is quoted on another, completely independent (Christian) website - which was my source.

In order to avoid having to argue with brainless machines (and absent editors), I rewrote the article without quoting the aims but got the same notice, this time without any justification. Editors are said (not entirely truthfully) to check such tagged articles 'within 24 hours' but there has been no action now within a week. I feel pardonably aggrieved at this lack of response.

88.106.13.210 (talk) 10:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We currently have a 7 days backlog, on account of being volunteers and not numerous enough to tackle it faster. While the aggravation is understandable, there is little we can do to speed up the process.
 * That being said, I have reviewed the article and cleared the bot notice. Happy editing. MLauba (talk) 11:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Copright Infringement
Rather than start an editorial war by deleting the recent additions to the article on this subject, I would like to draw the attention of editors to an infringement of copyright in the Controversy and Internal Conflict sections which are taken practically word for word from the following site: http://nbowatch.terapad.com/ It may well be true that the author in both cases is the same; however, I wish to invoke the Wikipedia rule that such quotation without attribution should be deleted by the editorial team. I wonder too whether seeming evidence and a maze of quotation of sources which are in fact largely generated by a single (very busy) person is admissable within the Wikipedia guidelines?

Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 11:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Please provide evidence of your assertions. "quotation without attribution should be deleted by the editorial team" Please indicate which non attributed quotations you refer to. If the content is copyright protected and the author is the same person, then he or she is completely within their rights to quote. Best wishes94.192.139.167 (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC) You can flag this up for assessment by wiki eds by simply following the relevant procedures94.192.139.167 (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC) I have examined the page you refer to and, while the content is similar, the phrasing is certainly distinct.94.192.139.167 (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC) It should be borne in mind that, if these authors are the same (which could be interpreted as an ad hominem attack, not permissible in wiki world), there is a significant possibility that any information removed from this site may well appear elsewhere PLUS references to reasons behind its removal94.192.139.167 (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

provable assertions
"The NBO voluntary Code of Conduct was signed by all NBO members in 2009 apart from the NKT." Evidence? "after considerable discussion with the membership" When? "members agreed with a motion to dissolve and incorporate the NBO as a charity." Charity or charitable limited company? "the membership also voted on the signing of the Code of Conduct as a membership prerequisite" How can it be voluntary in this case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.139.167 (talk) 09:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Having supported the NBO for many years I do not agree with your very selctive and factually incorrect article. It reads like anti-NBO (and anti-NKT) propaganda. You also make lots of errors.

For example, a motion to discuss the code of conduct was included on the agenda for the 2009 AGM, and it was extensively discussed. It was voluntary for 2009 - 2010 or why would it have needed to be discussed again and agreed at the EGM in March 2010? So it was not imposed as you state but discussed at two AGM's open to all members.

It is now a requirement for those who want to be full NBO members, but not for NBO Supporters. As far as I can see, NBO Supporters have the same rights as NBO members, apart from the right to vote where a consensus cannot be arrived at.

You also leave out the very important first part of the code of conduct which states the aims of the NBO. I include the whole text as I saw it on my renewal:

We wish to renew our membership of the Network of Buddhist Organisations (UK) for the coming year. We agree to promote the aims of the Network of Buddhist Organisations (UK) aims which are: a) To promote fellowship and dialogue between Buddhist Organisations. b) To facilitate cooperation in matters of common interest. c) To work in harmony with Buddhist and other like minded organisations throughout the world. In order to maintain harmony and promote Buddhist teachings in the UK, as a Buddhist organisation and member of the NBO we undertake the following: a) To observe the ethical principles as exemplified by the Five Precepts in all our activities. b) To undertake that our members will not defame each other’s organisations or teachers in public or through the media. c) That every effort will be made to resolve any disagreements that might arise within our organisations, or with other organisations or groups, through our internal processes or through private discussion and mediation. Why support an organisation with clear aims of promoting fellowshop and dialogue and then act badly towards fellow Buddhists?

The NBO has adopted a charitable constitution from the Charity Commission website. It is currently regsitered as a not-for-profit limited by guarantee charity and says it will apply for registration with the charity commission later this year. This makes it more accountable and not less as ar as I can see.

--Ahimsa07 (talk) 11:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears that the contributor who has stirred up this dispute has been accused of vandalism elsewhere and has little knowledge of (or respect for) Wiki standards. I have added comment in bold in the body of the article itself, pointing out where he is in contravention of them.

88.106.47.13 (talk) 11:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Fabricated, Contentious and unreliable Sources
This article is entirely written from a hostile and biased perspective by an individual who is a well-known and strident critic of a number of UK Buddhist groups. The major references he provides are all from web sources that he himself has written, even though they are anonymous.

Hence the article text that relies on these fabricated and contentious sources (the whole controversy and subsequent section) is just unsubstantiated prejudice.Nbosecretary (talk) 09:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I appeal for the intervention of an editor who has had to deal with 94.192.139.167 's harrassment in other articles on earlier occasions. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Can I just remind you that Wikipedia is (hopefully) a factual resource. It is not a place for advertising, but rather for providing the general public with factual information about individual topics. To classify the publication of information which, although perhaps uncomfortable, is true as 'harassment' is somewhat inflammatory. Once again, I would remind you that this page is under observation by several interested parties. If you wish to call in editors, there are specific procedures to follow. However, attacks on the person do not constitute a valid basis for altering content.If it is the case that truth eventually prevails, I am sure everything will work out fine94.192.139.167 (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. MLauba (Talk) 11:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, MLauba. I notice the restored article, originally intended only a stub, is now tagged as needing citations for verification. I gather that a more detailed article is being worked up but, since the organisation in question is in process of change (as you will have noticed), it is necessary to wait until the new arrangements are finalised. There is also hesitation, given the malicious nature of the additions made and the questionable nature of the 'evidence' cited by the contributor /94.192.139.167. I gather he has been barred previously from Wikipedia for vandalism and stirring up edit wars, but I guess that needs addressing by an editor with a different speciality from your own. 88.106.47.13 (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

One can have no idea of exactly how many people/groups/NGOs have been looking at this page in anticipation for the last few weeks, not only to learn aabout the NBO but more so to see their modus operandi when it comes to dealing with any public criticism based on fact. This response says more than ten thousand critical pages on the internet. Bless you. Do you need a pistol for the other foot?94.192.139.167 (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

== Dispute ==

Given the fact that this article has now cycled back substantially to the condition it was in when MLauba returned it to a stub and is still under continuous update by the contributor /94.192.139.167 citing questionable evidence, and my substantiated edits are continuously removed, I suggest that it is 'stubbed' again. The article is currently of poor quality and written from a selective and highly biased perspective.

It may even be most appropriate to remove the entire entry if this dispute cannot be resolved. It reflects poorly on Wikipedia. Ahimsa07 (talk) 11:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement based on unreliable source and original research
The key source to the internet campaign referred to in the following statement is unreliable and hence I have removed it. As has been stated elsewhere in this discussion the source is anonymous and considered to be original research by 94.192.139.167. The subsequent statement implies that parliamentary questions were raised as a result of this campaign, but no reference is given to support this implied causal link.

Between 2006 and 2008, an internet campaign alleged that the NBO was dominated by three controversial[4] New Religious Movements:the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order, the New Kadampa Tradition, and Soka Gakkai, and questioned the NBO's representative status.[5].

Ahimsa07 (talk) 13:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

representative status
I have removed the reference to the NBOs representative nature as it is not a representative body. See the NBO hompage "Our approach is to consult fully with our membership, and in our response we always make it clear that the view expressed is ‘a consensus of our membership’, but that it should not be taken as a view representing all possible Buddhist opinion." If the phrase was 'seen to represent' please explain by whom. 94.192.139.167 (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

According to Bluck there are 7 major UK Buddhist organisations to which the majority of Buddhists belong. 5 of these are either NBO trustees or full members. This makes the NBO the most representative UK Buddhist umbrella organisation. However, the NBO always attempts to make it clear that it does not and cannot represent all possible Buddhist views.

Many of the 600 plus groups Bluck refers to are subgroups within these 7 major organisations, so your (mis)interpretation of Bluck's statistics in the earlier article is yet another example of mendacity and bias.

Ahimsa07 (talk) 10:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

"Single person" attacks
I have removed the unsourced allegations that 'attacks' on the NBO originate from a single person. Generally, whether an organization is under attack from an individual or a group of individuals, this has little bearing on the nature of the debate. What is important is the content of that debate. To reduce the credibility of arguments by claiming they originate from one person is IMHO to diminish ones own credibility. Rather a focus on issues is required. it should also be born in mind that ad hominem attack on critics is a well known cult tactic for diverting criticism (See for instance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_controversies#.22Attack_the_Attacker.22_policy) Unless you have clear evidence, already available in the public domain, and other than self referential sources such as the NBO homepage, it is better not to do this as it amounts to defamation, a practice which is clearly against wiki procedures and indeed, illegal. Repeated inclusion of such defammatory ad hominem attacks can ultimately result in editors being barred from Wikipedia94.192.139.167 (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It is very important for readers to know that wiki entries are properly and reliably sourced and for them to have all the evidence thay need to assess the veracity of contributions and the motives of contributors. It is far too easy for one person with an axe to grind to manipulate the internet to their own advantage and to single-handedly create the illusion of a larger critical movement. Since you claim to be interested in the truth, you can answer a simple question: 'Are you the anonymous author of the main sources you supply for the 'controversy' and 'internal conflict section'? Yes or no?

Ahimsa07 (talk) 10:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

removal of critical information from page and talk page
Please, it is very important that all comments removed are removed for a valid reason and that reason is stated rather than simply removing things and not alluding to them. Moreover, sections on the talk page which have pointed to proper wiki procedures vis a vis ad hominem attacks, following proper procedures and the like have been removed. This may be a simple mistake on your part but could be interpreted as vandalism. There are several tutorials available giving clear information on what and what is not considered cricket (which i am sure you are fond of!) on wikipedia. Please familiarise yourself with these and follow the proper channels. It is a steep learning curve but is useful for ones mind and ones work to follow the rules here.94.192.139.167 (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

ok, so this is the hostile author posing as a neutral editor. For someone supposedly interested in truth, he seems to like deception Ahimsa07 (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Abuse of Bluck's Statistics
I have removed the misleading statistics quoted in the earlier article. According to Bluck there are 7 major UK Buddhist organisations to which the majority of Buddhists belong. 5 of these are either NBO trustees or full members. Many of the 600 plus groups Bluck refers to are subgroups within these 7 major organisations, so your (mis)interpretation of Bluck's statistics in the earlier article is yet another example of mendacity and bias.

The NBO has a deliberate policy of including only two organisational representatives from each member even if these are major national groupings which comprise dozens or hundreds of smaller sub-groups; groups which all form a part of Bluck's overall figure of 600 plus. Hence when the NKT was an NBO member they had two reps, even though they have hundreds of local groups across the UK

The fact that the NBO includes 5 members from the top 7 organisations identified by Bluck makes the NBO the most representative UK Buddhist umbrella organisation.

Ahimsa07 (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Siince the greater majority of UK Buddhists are Asian, not white convert, it is not possible for NBO member groups to be the majority, in light of its significant lack of Asian members94.192.139.167 (talk) 06:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You are making an unsubstantiated assertion. A number of NBO members are mostly composed of, or have many, Asian Buddhists within their organisations, sometimes a very great number of Sri Lankan, Thai, Burmese, Nepalese and others. Ahimsa07 (talk) 09:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Bluck's research makes this assertion. See http://www.globalbuddhism.org/5/bluck04.htm "So we may conclude that the UK 2001 Census data indicates that in 2001 there were slightly more than 150,000 Buddhists in Britain, of whom almost 60,000 were white, about 35,000 were of Chinese origin, nearly 15,000 were Asian, about 5,000 were of mixed ethnicity, and fewer than 2,000 were black. A further 35,000 said that they were from "Other Ethnic Groups." This may reflect differing perceptions of the term "Asian," where sub-categories were given for Indian, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi, but not for other specific countries, which were lumped together as "Other Asian."

Moreover, your assertion that the NBO has a significant Asian membership is contradicted here‘I am especially interested in meeting with the many Buddhist groups of Asian origin that may not be particularly well represented on national forums such as the NBO.’ (NBO development workers blog - http://devworkernbo.typepad.com/nbo_development/2006/11/index.html)

Well, the reference you give is from 2006 and maybe the work done then resulted in more representation. But even the comment you quote is qualified and says 'may not be particularly well represented', so even then this means that there were representatives from Asian groups.

The material you quote from Bluck looks unrelated to any argument you make. You should also be aware that Blucks research data is mostly over 10 years old and the last census was in 2001 - so it is also out of date. Ahimsa07 (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you therefore confirm how many groups of Asian membership joined as a result of the activities of your development work efforts? AFAICS from the NBO site it was 2? Could you please also provide alternative and more up to date information on the UK Buddhist demograph, if it exists? The article can then be adjusted accordingly. Best wishes94.192.139.167 (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I notice several welcome modifications by you in anticipation of the scrutiny you have requested. All mention of Bluck's book has disappeared, for example, thus leaving your assertion of NBO's low representation undocumented. It might be a good idea to do the adjusting you recommend yourself, therefore. Ahimsa claims that Bluck's figures suggest a very different picture from what you allege. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Following proper procedure
Please can you refrain from writing responses to edits into the body of the article-changes can be discussed on the talk page. Central guidelines on wiki request that all contribs assume good faith and curtail ad hominem attacks. I feel sure this is because you are not experienced in wiki procedure and is not an act of vandalism on your part. Best wishes94.192.139.167 (talk) 08:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from simply rolling back to earlier edits without full explanation. As you know this contravenes wiki guidelines and could be interpreted as vandalism. I have accordingly returned the article to its prior state with good references and a more NPOV, although more work is needed. Very best wishes Ahimsa07 (talk) 09:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

All edits have been explained on talk page and/or edit history. I note another editor has reverted your changes. PS Did you know Ahimsa was a Jain/Hindu term and is not of Buddhist origin? Interesting eh? Anyway, can we please be nice and stick to procedures? these pages are here for all to see and therefore seemingly aggressive editing without explanation only undermines your position. We must work together, not against one another to produce an article balanced in content and which befits the general high standards one finds in Wikipedia94.192.139.167 (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I notice that you haven't answered the question about whether you are or aren't the initiator of the websites you cite as evidence. You boast above about the 'we' who are keeping an eye on anyone who happens to say anything that doesn't fit your prejudices, which might be interpreted as trying to intimidate. Now answer the question above honestly and begin to earn the respect for which you appeal. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Dear Wiki Colleague

Please read the Wikipedia guidance on assuming good faith and ad hominem attacks94.192.139.167 (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Please answer the question concerning http://nbowatch.terapad.com/ and http://www.freewebs.com/mfghc and demonstrate your own good faith. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

PQs/request for scrutiny
The names of the specific groups mentioned in the PQs is highly relevant and I believe they should be included-it also links to other important wiki pages. their removal could be construed as a deception by cynics. I have also requested the page be examined for its neutrality, as you can see from the lower banner on the main page. So dont worry, it is getting looked at by completely disinterested parties who hold thoroughly neutral positions-Lets hope that means we get a true representation of all the important facts.94.192.139.167 (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I would once again ask you all (sock puppetry or dedicated team?) to assume good faith, refrain from personal attacks, and familiarize yourself/ves with Wiki etiquette. It is considered inappropriate to remove text from the main page without stated reasons. Removing text from the discussion page is also considered completely inappropriate and appears highly deceptive. If all editors focus on issues rather than continuously attempting to 'shoot messengers', we could wind up with a good article, and one which demonstrates the complexities of the NBO's history and the difficulties it has faced, both of which are important religio-sociological phenomena. the alternative is that the article simply becomes an advert, as it was in its stub form. PLEASE try to focus on information, not personalities. Once again, I have requested assistance from wiki eds on this page.Please assume good faith and refrain from making ad hominem attacks. Wikipedia is a place for information concerning all aspects of issues, not simply one view. With respect94.192.139.167 (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC) PS The Bluck reference was removed because it was incorrect; the Waterhouse statement comes rather from Kay (page number provided)94.192.139.167 (talk) 08:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

To ascribe sock puppetry to those who dare to answer you back hardly 'assumes good faith' on your part. Nor is it a personal attack to ask you repeatedly about your involvement with two websites, one of which you plagiarised, on which you based your original allegations. It is relevant evidence of the lack of neutrality into which you have called an investigation. I notice too that you have not removed your allegation about NBO's representative status, for which you give no evidence at all. I will ask you in addition how you can possibly justify quotation from an email not publicly available (your note 12) as evidence? Since Mariano Marcigaglia is not a member of the Buddhist Society's Council (and was not approached for permission to use his message), quoting his private opinion has no weight and is further evidence of your bad faith and lack of neutrality. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 09:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

The notice above was added as an indirect ad hominem attack by 94.192.139.167, who has frequently posed as an administrator on this page. He is in fact an editor (contributor) with a record of vandalism and harrassment, many complaints against his conduct and suspensions made by administrators as a result: refs -
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:94.192.139.167;
 * http://www.filepie.us/?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive98#94.192.139.167_reported_by_Emptymountains_.28Result:_semi.29;
 * http://www.filepie.us/?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive98 ::http://encyclopedia.sprinko.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive108 (item 37).

I report this for the benefit of others who may be taken in by this user's impersonation. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 12:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Attempts to discredit editors by reference to edit histories is only valid within the context of individual articles; an editor may behave irrationally in realtion to one topic but perfectly reasonably in the case of another. (People DO learn from experience!) Your argument is therefore impotent, since all proper procedures on the part of the editor mentioned have been followed within the context of the NBO article. Bearing this in mind, the statement above,identifying the fact than the user is a member of the NBO is a potential conflict of interest as an " indirect ad hominem attack" is itself a direct ad hominem attack. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

"Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument."

Please bear this in mind since the issue here is the nature of the NBO, not the personal histories of contributors. Kind regards94.192.139.167 (talk) 11:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

No, the issue is the trustworthiness of the sites you have added as External Links and what you are really attempting to do in your edits, on which your past conduct might have a bearing. I take this further in the Parliamentary Questions section below. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

original research
Even a cursory read shows that this article fails on all major wiki guidelines. I will raise just one point to start with. I have removed the statement:

''The acceptance of the code would have the effect of silencing the WSS at a stroke. Moreover, public criticism of any NBO member by individuals or groups already associated with the NBO would be stifled.''

And the subsequent sentence since it just an opinion with no supporting source. [unsigned - 86.181.238.30]

Please explain which guidelines this contradicts?94.192.139.167 (talk) 07:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, please explain what this contradicts? The Draconian nature of the Code of Conduct, which does not allow membership until individual groups sign it, is a central issue in the recent development of the NBO.It clearly restricts freedom of speech in the public arena, as indeed the NKT surmised. The reasons why individual organizations have refused to sign it should therefore be clear. From there it is possible to make judgments as to who holds the moral high ground in the debate, the NKT, the Buddhist Society et al or the NBO itself. To 'bury' it is to hide information from the public and not to allow the reader to decide for themselves. Peace be upon you, fellow(!)94.192.139.167 (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that you describe the code of conduct as 'draconian' since it is just the standard Buddhist five precepts with an emphasisis on right speech. (Perhaps if ypu regard the five precepts as draconian this is why you have so much trouble in following them.) Please give evidence for other organisations who have refused to sign the code. The statement that 86.181.238.30 removed is an assumption - original research - and not supported by any credible source or reference. Reading the code of conduct makes it clear that it is 'public defamation' that is unacceptable between NBO members, not honest public crticism. Perhaps you need to learn the difference between criticism and defamation. Ahimsa07 (talk) 13:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Parliamentary questions
Can I ask 94.192.139.167 whether he was the prime instigator of the parliamentary questions? Yes or no?

No94.192.139.167 (talk) 07:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. Do you mean that the question may not be asked?
 * 2. Do you assert that you had nothing to do with getting the MPs involved to ask the questions? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Please can you refrain from attempting to ascertain personal details. As well as being a totally inappropriate forum for the practice, this is completely out of kilt with procedures here on Wikipedia.See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Outing_(essay)

"Because of its open nature, Wikipedia is subject to a number of syndromes or problems that can lead to discrediting the project as a whole. Insertion of questionable or false or unverified information is the worst of these. Of all such information, that which accuses people of unpopular status... tends to be the worst. The use of such information is entirely out of the control of editors and publishers of Wikipedia, and could if used against the individuals reported on, end the project....Wikipedia discourages outing: the practice of claiming that people are working with, have the same friends as, the same attributes as, or "are" other people with whom they have not openly claimed an association. This practice threatens freedom of association." Best wishes94.192.139.167 (talk) 11:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I really wish you would drop that condescending tone. I am as aware of the policy on outing as I am of your true identity. The 'procedures here on Wikipedia' include providing objective evidence rather than manufacturing it oneself and what has been asked of you is an assurance that you have not been doing this. So far as I know, there is nothing on the two web sites in question that gives any clue to your identity; nor will the MPs approached to ask questions release confidential information about their source. With regard to your past record, which you say has no bearing on this dispute, let me remind you and everyone else that it is connected to your sustained attack on the NKT entry. You have now tried to turn what was formerly a stub article on NBO into a vehicle of attack on NKT, particularly in the earliest versions, and that too is a procedure against the spirit of Wikipedia. Your wholly negative criticism of NBO has been a form of ad hominem attack in that you subscribe to the fallacy that no-one connected with NKT (and other NRMs) can possibly be sincere in their attempt to be open to dialogue. It is your conduct on the discussion page here and the raw adversarial spirit which your style of editing has shown throughout your history on Wikipedia that I wish to highlight. What I object to in addition is the hypocrisy of your appeals to arrive at some sort of truth together at the same time as accusing those who put a different point of view from yours of sock puppetry and self-interest. The truth is not arrived at in this way. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_controversies#.22Attack_the_Attacker.22_policy Please refrain from personal attacks and focus on facts Please also sign your comments using the appropriate signature methods. I would refer you once again to WP policy on personal attacks, outing, ad hominems, conflict of interest and unjustified edits. As I have said previously, these, if adhered to, produce an article neutral in tone and factual. Bickering like this on the talk page wastes everyones time and achieves nothing.

Please feel free to request mediation on the article (See the wiki page on 'Request for mediation'. In this way, you can be assured that the piece will be scrutinized by neutral parties. A balanced article could be produced as a result of such intervention and I have no objections to your making this request 94.192.139.167 (talk)14:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I was under the impression that you had already asked in an administrator. If neither side can be regarded as neutral, and I gather from JamesBWatson that this is his feeling, then I would have no objection to the article disappearing. As to your quotation of the Scientology section above, I have noticed you do that every time your conduct is called into question. It does not seem to have convinced a single administrator who has taken action against you. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I have already called in scrutiny over the neutrality of the article and for examination re conflict of interest. requests for mediation are a distinct phenomenon. I would repeat my willingness to have the article scrutinised within such parameters, at your instigation.Finally, and once again, please refrain from making personal attacks: articles should address issues rather than personalities.Not quite sure why you assume JBW felt as you surmise??Either way, this article is well worthy of external ajudication and I would therefore second any such request were you to make it. Hopefully, objective truth will then prevail, something I think we would both be in favour of. Best wishes94.192.139.167 (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, the article is now considerably improved. It still requires more details about what the NBO have actually done over 17 years, but is much more neutral than it was. Hence I have removed the dispute banner. Please give grounds if you wish to replace this, very best wishes Ahimsa07 (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Only NBO related Parliamentary Questions are relevent
In an article about the NBO, only material directly related to the NBO is relevant. If we ignore this obvious point, then any gossip about, or problems experienced by, any NBO member could be included in the article, which would be ridiculous since the article would cease to refer primarily to the NBO and potentially could expand greatly. I notice that only some of the parliamenary questions mention the NBO, those that ask whether the government has assessed whether the NBO is representative of Buddhism and what factors were taken into account. Accordingaly I have edited the controversy section to only refer to the parliamentary questions wqhich are relevent. These are also 'questions' and not 'allegations'.

Since this section now only refers to parliamentary questions, its old title was misleading and has been altered.

Ahimsa07 (talk) 09:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have been watching the activity on this page for the past week. This has come up before. I would like to share what I found previously:

I looked up all the PQ numbers given in the reference, and it seems they've all been answered: 147208 & 9 - "The Department considered whether these allegations had any relevance when set against the Fund's stringent criteria and guidelines. The decision was made that the criteria was satisfied and the award of funding was made"; 152364 - "It is up to schools and local authorities to decide upon resources and teaching methods and this would include checking the credentials of any organisation they chose to work with."; 152368 - "The Department has offered no grants to: (a) Friends of the Western Buddhist Order, (b) new Kadampa Tradition and (c) Soka Gakkai International."; 156701 - "Communities and Local Government has received correspondence from a member of the public regarding the alleged cultish behaviour... As far as we are aware, no other representation has been received."; 157746 - "I refer to the earlier answer given on 9 October 2007, Official Report, column 555W."; 157747 - "I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 10 October 2007, Official Report, column 667W." It is quite clear to me that the allegations of one member of the public have indeed been "answered," no?

I am glad to see that the article now includes some indication of Parliament's responses. It would be helpful to know the PQ numbers and have them in the ciations, however. Emptymountains (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know where to get the NBO related PQ's from, to refer to in the article? Ahimsa07 (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You'll find the questions and answers in Hansard Online - http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmhansrd.htm. I had a reference to the one referring to 'a (single) member of the public' which seems to have been removed in the flurry of editing. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 00:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to remove your reference, although I do not think it related directly to the NBO. Thanks for Hansard, but it is hard to use. I have ruled out some PQ's which do not relate to the NBO, but have been unable to check the following, which might be relevant to the NBO: PQs 85303, 85934, 86280, 88724, 91730, 101097, 131278,147208,147209,152364, 152608, 156606. 86.133.195.149 (talk) 09:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

A list of most questions appears with their dates under the 2007 report on http://www.nbo.org.uk/Background/nbofiles.htm. The way to locate them online is to go to Hansard, click on the relevant date and look for the question under Communities & Local Govt. Alternatively, you can search for them under the name of the MP who asked the question; only two, John Leech and Mike Hancock, were involved. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Code of Conduct
Having found a good reference for the code of conduct from 2008, I have created a new section and split out the related text.Ahimsa07 (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

All those short sections were becoming a little incoherent. I have given two of them some suitably documented context and combined them. I have also restored an account of the more noteworthy conferences, again suitably documented. Something needs to be written about the development of the website as a resource for all Buddhists but that can come later since it's in urgent need of renovation. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 15:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Network of Buddhist Organisations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050824213345/http://www.nbo.org.uk/whats%20on/poster.pdf to http://www.nbo.org.uk/whats%20on/poster.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101010000408/http://dharmaarts.ning.com/ to http://dharmaarts.ning.com/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)