Talk:Triratna Buddhist Community/Archive 2

The previous dispute went on to up this page to 43k so I purged the page. Please go to history sction if you wish to find out what were previously discussed. FWBOarticle 10:10, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I didn't know about archive thingy. Sorry, I'm a newb. Here is the previous discussion. FWBOarticle

I separated this page into two. One dealing with "Anti FWBO links and views" which started edit war, the other deal with the article itself.FWBOarticle 10:10, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Anti FWBO links and view

 * The Guardian article - "The Dark Side of Enlightenment", October 27, 1997


 * The article is now named and dated in the text, this link is not to the original and I'm unhappy about keeping it as a link. If people really want to look it up, they can.


 * Someone reinstall the link so I reverted it. The page might be violating copyright and linking directly to such page is not recommended (though not necessarily prohibited). FWBOarticle 10:45, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * FWBO-Files

This should have a comment to the effect that it is anonymous, contains much that is inaccurate and apocryphal to say the least - this need not be slanted to favour the FWBO at all, but should simply acknowledge the provinance of the information. I should also like to see it closely associated with the FWBO response - not that I put much store by it, but you are the one going one about representing point of view.
 * FWBO is beyond libel. Much of S's claim about his exploit in the East is "apocryphal" as well and "inaccurate" depending on your POV. As I said, it is your POV against their.  I have inserted "Anti FWBO site" as an description of the link which I would consider to be an accurate attribution of the nature of the site.  If you want FWBO's response, then I would suggest to include it in "FWBO Sites" where it is rightfully belongs.

Amongst the many claims that are made in this regard are the number of young people who have committed suicide as a result of their association with the FWBO. Since "medical specialists" have apparently testified to this then lets know who they are. Can you see how this is not just another critique as I was trying to point out yesterday? This is something way beyond saying that Sangharakshita doesn't really teach Buddhism at all, to saying that the FWBO kills people. Now I don't know about you, but I'd say that a claim like that could do with some substantial backing up before it was made publically. So lets see some sort of acknowledgement of the nature of this document - lets see some sort of analysis of the provinance, the veracity, of this document. Again this need not be a favourable interpretation of the FWBO, just a presentation of the facts.


 * FWBOarticleThe site state that "medical experts have stated that a number of suicides have occurred as a direct result of involvement with the FWBO and its teachings ?!" At least, it appeared to be so in case of Matthew as can be seen in the Guardian article. The site does not claim medical expert testifed that FWBO kills people. If the site is libel, FWBO can sue the site and shut it down.

After reading Wikepedia's external link policy, I have decided to resubmit FWBO-Files. I can certainly unerstand that linking to a site such as Sharereactor or Supernova which has links to tons of pirated material would certainly damage the reputation of Wikipedia. However, I do not believe that linking to a site with only one possible copyright violation (a newspaper article) would damage Wikipedia's reputation or get Wikipedia in legal trouble. If such strict rule were to be enforced, it would become impossible to make a link to a large site. On the other hand I will delete "Campus link to Buddhist groups shamed by 'sinister allegations'".User:FWBOarticle


 * Actually you seem to have missed Mahabala's point in adding these links, which is that without any kind of commentary on them they don't so much as present a point of view on the FWBO as mudslinging. I read that Ken Jones article and it's pretty obvious that he's making stuff up. Jones characterises the typical FWBO person as an "angry young man" which is not the case. Mostly they seem to be older men and women, more women than men as far as I can tell, and they don't seem that angry. Jones also harshly criticises the FWBO on it's "anti family stance" but he doesn't even attempt to put this in the context of the Buddhist teachings where celibacy is seen as the ideal! A third example is the way Jones characterises women in the FWBO. I understand that women have felt marginalised at times, but Sangharakshita was the first person to ordain women on an equal footing to men. It seems unfair to simply make a link to that article without any sort of comment - and I think this was Mahabala's point: that just making a bunch of external links doesn't add much, and the ones you are adding seem to confuse the issue. Much the same can be said of the other links. Can you not actually write something which evaluates the information? Nobody 12:07, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I don't think it is appropriate to "contextualise" such article in defence of FWBO. If you want I can easily counter your argument. "Angry Young Men" is description of attitude not demographic.  As of S being the first to do gender equal ordination, FWBO's ordination isn't ordination of monks/nuns so it is a pointless claim. FWBO's single sex activity or encouraging celibacy to non monks/nuns can be seen as "odd" if not "anti family". I understand you don't like this article but that is just your POV.
 * As of general anti cult sites, these organisation offer further information and help if you directly contact them. That is useful information in itself. I may agree to delete Scottish one only if you agree to leave Steven Alan Hassan and Cult Information Centre site. Oh, in Soka Gakkai entry, Alan Hassan is described as "controversial". Now, this appears to be overall/average opinon of Alan Hassan therefore, I do not mind adding entry link to Steven Hassan for NPOV. I do not see this in case of Cult Information Centre so I would like to leave it as it is.
 * And "FWBO cult of not" appears to have been a quite popular topic. Just because you don't like to talk about it is no reason to censor it. It is up to the reader to decide. I can certainly agree to add [FWBO's Response to Criticism]. It is quite obvious that both FWBOFiles and exFWBO is beyond libel so it is matter of POV in the end.  As I quoted, the aim of this site "is not to write articles from a single objective point of view ... but rather, to fairly present all views on an issue, attributed to their adherents in a neutral way." FWBOarticle 05:03, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * ex-FWBO Part of ex-cult Resource Centre

Information on cult sites about the FWBO can be traced, I have done this, to Mark Dunlop. Mark has waged his campaign with some vigour, prompting the Guardian article for instance, and is widely networked with cult-watch organisations. These organisations tend to share information, and to accept without critique or any attempt to verify it, anything which is said about an organisation being a cult. They are often associated with fundamentalist Christian groups. So to me this "view point" is problematic. Without any comment on cult-watch organisations, on Mark Dunlop and his madness, and without any discussion of the veracity of the info, then this is just mud slinging. And posting it as a bare link is akin to vandalism. And fortunately it is very easy to deal revert vandalism...


 * FWBOarticleFirstly I do not mind adding "By Mark Dunlop" in this link if you can give me something to back it up. Secondly, you need show me if ex-cult Resource Centre is indeed a part of "Fundamental Christian groups". Anyway, if you can show me that this is indeed a chritian affliated organisation, I'm happy to add this information.   Information such as the failiure of FWBO to condem S and senior order members' sexual exploit with their young students or number of misrepresentation which FWBO made in the past do not need to come from a sigle source.  Lastly, are you willing to also add that Mark Dunlop's psychological problem come from his experience with S and FWBO. "By Mark Dunlop - Former member who has experienced sever psychological problem due to his experience with FWBO and it's founder".  Not only this looks bad on FWBO, I don't fancy going into too much detail just for the sake of detail.


 * MANY BODIES, ONE MIND: MOVEMENTS IN BRITISH BUDDHISM by Ken Jones in Buddhist Peace Fellowship

I've re-read this, and although Ken sounds like an arsehole who really doesn't know what he talking about, I am more inclined to agree that he is simply giving his opinion. He's wrong, about the FWBO, but there's no law against that.


 * Dangers in Devotion: Buddhist Cults and the Tasks of a Guru by John Crook in Western Chan Fellowship


 * Steven Alan Hassan's Freedom of Mind Centre - by Steve Hassan a controvercial anti cult activist

I haven't read this one for a while. I seem to remember it being another ill-informed attack - why don't these people just come along to a centre - god knows there's enough of them! Given that Sangharakshita is no longer the head of the movement, and the so-called "leaders" of the movement have given up most of the administrative posts they held, leaving the FWBO as a distributed, and headless network, I wonder how relevant this critique of Sangharakshita is. Could be of historical interest I suppose... so leave it in with some pointer back to the stuff on the devolution of "authority" in the FWBO - not that anyone in the movement actually acknowledges authority, the faithless bunch of hippies and renegades!


 * FWBOarticleFirstly, my POV is that current FWBO is not a full brown cult. However, the past FWBO can be regarded as one.  Misinformation (S's name, his status of being monk and extent of his training in the East), Rather dubious financial practice (member's dole, housing benefit and volunteer labour connected to it's busniess activities), and most members living in a commune.  But the failiure of FWBO to publically condem S and senior members' sexual experimentation or to name names is a ongoing failiure and will be regarded by the public and these sites as a sign of leader worship and dysfunctional nature of the organisation.

I've pruned the external links as many linked to the same information and some just appeared to be links to commercial sites. You might want to look at other controversial religious articles such as Scientology to see their linking practice. My perspective is that this article needs a lot of work. Secretlondon 01:56, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * That doesn't explain why you deleted FWBOFiles. Also, FWBO people are not as "enthusiastic" as people who support Scietology. There is no requirement to follow example in Scientology which I would consider it to be very restrictive example.  In Soka Gakkai entry for example, Steve Hassan's site is listed.  I also consider Cult Information Centre to be more important than Hassan's site as FWBO is primarly British based organisation.  CIC provide further information upon request.  There is no requirement that the site have to be internet based information sounce.  If you can suggest alternative title to "Views Critical To FWBO" I might change it though. FWBOarticle 04:29, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Cult Information Centre


 * Scottish Cult Information & Support

Just forget these ones. This is Mark Dunlop pure and simple. They haven't got a clue, thrive on mudraking and hearsay. Fuckem. Fucking Christian fundamentalists who hate anything that isn't their own brand of gospel. Sigh. Funny old world isn't it? :-)
 * I have deleted Scotish Cult Information & Support as the site doesn't appear to be stable. As of Cult Information Centre, (as I stated in the above) some of problems about FWBO no longer have to come from Mark Dunlop.  If CIC is chritian affiliated, I will mention it. Something like "Chritian affiliated Anti cult site".

Oh! The Cult Information Centre: Dont know much about it, but a lot of their 'patrons' seem to have have 'Reverend' before their name or belong to things such as Bible College. See for yourself http://www.cultinformation.org.uk/home.html Nondualist 14:58, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, and other people such as MP, actress, psychiatrist and founder of the Samaritans. But I do concede that near half of them appear to have some christian affiliation, not to mention the lack of representation from non christian faith. To be honest, I can't really think of an accurate description. quasi-Christian affiliated?  Feel free to change it. FWBOarticle

Half is an understatement. Founder of the Samaritans has the title "prebendary" which is a church honour. Mothers Union is a christian charity, and so on. I think its best to omit it altogether, as it has good reason to be biased against Buddhism. I am sure there are sufficient non Christian anti-cult groups in the UK. If you dont find any of them criticising FWBO, I dont think there are any grounds to include fundamentalist sites which do, just for the sake of criticism. Nondualist 00:16, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Besides, why are the 5 anti-FWBO links repeated twice? Nondualist


 * Because someone kept deleting the entire "critical views link". And there weren't much point in correcting inconsistency when things get deleted every days. FWBOarticle

Main Article
Let me just repost a couple of your comments here, because I do believe we are getting somewhere. This is clearly not just another view, this is your view. And yes actually I do believe that this discussion is relevant!

And about your offer for me to perticipate in contributing to the article. Firstly, my section is a contribution. There is no obligation for anyone to perticipate in other sections. Secondly, I understand that lot of past and present problems of FWBO are discussed within the organisation. However I highly doubt that you are willing to acknowlege these problems in Wikepedia when even your own organisation is yet to come to term with it. Some of the bad things I read about FWBO is not just S and senior order menbers' sexual exploits. What about S's name falsely translated as "Protector of Sangha", him pretending to be a monk in front of indians, hyping his orthodox buddhist training in the east when he didn't really get anywhere. What about allegation about S's idea that homosexual relationship to be superior to hetorosexual one, or about alleged misoginy against female members, and all those polemic S and FWBO directed against other Buddhist groups (and Chritianity). And are you willing to discuss the ongoing failiure of FWBO's to publically condem S and senior order members' sexual exploit not to mention it's failure to name names. FWBOarticle 00:01, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * You are quite right about many of these things. S's name I think is a very minor point. I think it can be taken to mean "protector of the Sangha", but so far as I'm aware no one has ever insisted on that, and it's primary meaning is "protected *by* the Sangha". But these compound Sanskrit names are open to interpretation. S is a poet, so expect a little poetry from time to time.

As for S's retaining his identity as a monk in India, yep that is a problematic issue. It was a deliberate deception. I think it was plain wrong to do so, but then again I do have some sympathy with why he might have chosen such a deception. Anything I say is going to sound like a rationalisation I suppose.

The homo/hetero thing is a bit of a non issue. Actually S says that the highest form of sexuality is celebacy. I'm not even sure it was him that suggested that homo was superior, although there were a number of people who advanced the idea. In any case anyone making such a clain these days would be laughed of the stage. There are a lot of gay men in the FWBO - traditional Buddhism is a bit anti, viz the Dalai Lama's comments a few years back. And yep there was some mysogeny as well. Lots of women felt marginalised, some still do, although record numbers are joining the order at present, so something must be going right.

I don't think anyone is willing to "denounce" Sangharakshita because they don't see him as having acted in a way that requires such a drastic step. Most of the people I know have an abiding gratitude to the old man. It's not a black and white issue, and I can see that you might see it as black. I don't necessarily see it as white, but against black I suppose I look pretty pale.

So yes there are problems. But these are things that can be addressed in the article. Gotta dash at the mo, but will be back. I think there's another paragraph in what you wrote yesterday which is the germ of a new addition to the article - after that it will make more sense to link to a couple of cult-watch sites. Regards mah&#257;b&#257;la 08:20, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, firstly, I'm not interested in debating these issue. Almost everything which can be said are in Newsgroup. And I don't really expect FWBO to be capable to condem S or name names of senior members. Just telling you that the public may have different POV from you.  Anyone with access to an internet (i.e. people who read Wikipedia) can find FWBOfile whether it is up here or not.  And your article is likely to alarm people about FWBO than promote it because your attitude toward these issues is apparent in the article. I recomend rewrite.  FWBOarticle 09:39, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi FWBOarticle. Well of course my attitude is evident in what I write. Have a look at all my articles and you'll see that is true in every one. I write about what I know. No I don't think that everything that can be said is in the newsgroups - that is a very distorted environment in which I have mostly felt under attack, and have been influenced by that. I think it is definitely relevant to discuss the accuracy of the information that is provided. I do not seek to promote the FWBO in this article - I seek to provide information, accurate information. That is why I included the criticisms section in the first place. I am also using this article as a way to explore my own thinking on the FWBO. I'm glad you have finally decided to be a bit more open about your own views, it makes it much easier to have a dialogue. mah&#257;b&#257;la 12:19, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You write: Firstly, my POV is that current FWBO is not a full brown cult. However, the past FWBO can be regarded as one. Misinformation (S's name, his status of being monk and extent of his training in the East), Rather dubious financial practice (member's dole, housing benefit and volunteer labour connected to it's busniess activities), and most members living in a commune. But the failiure of FWBO to publically condem S and senior members' sexual experimentation or to name names is a ongoing failiure and will be regarded by the public and these sites as a sign of leader worship and dysfunctional nature of the organisation.


 * OK. Here is the germ of what you wish to add to the article. You might want to check some of those facts because I think they are inaccurate - especially the financial ones which have been tidied up considerably in the last ten years. But this is your view point: that the FWBO has a cultish aspect to it. These issues are quite valid ones that need to be addressed. So expand on this, and post it in the article. How hard can that be?

You write: But the failiure of FWBO to publically condem S and senior members' sexual experimentation or to name names is a ongoing failiure and will be regarded by the public and these sites as a sign of leader worship and dysfunctional nature of the organisation.

Well I guess we have to agree to differ. I can see how making some sort of public denouncement would play the the zeitgeist in the west: we're very hot on denouncements and condemnation just now ain't we. And demnouncing the denouncers even. But that's not something I'd do to a friend who has been nothing but kind and geneorus to me. I remain open to dialogue, and would be interested to know why you choose to believe what's on the internet and whether you have any personal experience of the FWBO at all. My email is on my website, drop me a line. mah&#257;b&#257;la 12:19, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Apology
Mahaabaala - FWBOarticle threatening to "call in help from various sources" and I just don't want to get involved in that kind of unpleasentness!

That statement was made by me in response to

"Hay, you just can't win tonight can you? Still you're very persistent :-) Nobody 19:33, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)" Mr Nobody, after his intial posting, has so far never perticipated in the discussion. All he does is to delete my link. It even appear that his sole purpose in this Wikepedia is to terminate anti FWBO sites.

At that point both of you are keep deleting my sites which I didn't appreciate. Given that it was two against one, it was fair from my point of view to inclease number on my side. Now that you are happy to work out the compromise, I have responded to his gesture accordingly. And so far I have not directed any hostility toward you though I can't say the same to Mr. Nobody.

If you are offended by my comment, I will apologise however, the statement was only intended to Mr Nobody. I obviously do not want to get involved in the type of unpleasantness which Mr Nobody is causing.

And to be honest, Mr Nobody seems to be very new member. From what I can read from his comment as well as his percistence, it appear that he is a member of FWBO as well. I wonder who got him as an extra help. (^_^)

Oh, one more. I didn't know one could archive old page. I thought we have to edit the page when the text size get bigger. I won't do purge again. FWBOarticle

POV problems
I know very little about this organization (I came to this page by accident), but there seems to be quite a bit of assumption about motives and other POV laced throughout the article. The following is just one example of many (in which I've highlighted the questionable statement in boldface):


 * "The FWBO post Sangharakshita
 * In the 1990s Sangharakshita began handing over spiritual and administrative responsibility for the FWBO and WBO to a group of senior men and women disciples. This transfer was completed by 2000. Since then Sangharakshita's health has declined, but thanks to his foresight the movement continues to thrive..."

Does anyone else see the difficulties with this sort of thing in an encyclopaedia? Fire Star 17:23, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * The article is written by a FWBO member as a promotional piece for the organisation. It took me more than a page of discussion, and edit/delete war to just insert external links critical of FWBO. If you want to edit it, be prepared to deal with the members of this organisation.FWBOarticle 00:03, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I was afraid of that. From reading the talk page, I can see what you mean. Oh well, I'll do what I can. Fire Star 01:20, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I did a bit of editing. I tried to leave the format and information in place, but I wanted to objectify the language somewhat. I hope that it is inoffensive enough to FWBO followers yet "drier" and less off-putting to the casual reader. We'll see... Fire Star 14:42, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

NPOV
I've removed the NPOV sticker, as there has been no discussion of the article on this talk page for a while. The article seems factual and well balanced, at least to me. If anyone objects, please state why before putting it back so that we may work on it. Fire Star 02:49, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Anti-FWBO sites
I removed the link to Yashomitra's Shabda letter as it is not relevant to the article. It is one's person's account of an incident that happened 20 years ago since when everyone else has moved on. The article is in any case accessible via an obvious link at the anti-FWBO site. Shantavira 09:31, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Why is it not relevant? It's history!!! If that person was scarred by an event, then it's a little hard for them to "move on" isn't it?

Shantavira's comment above seems a little disingenuous. It is actually 'one's person's account of an incident that happened 20 years ago', plus his comments on his experience in the FWBO up to about five years ago, including his attempts to come to terms with his experience and with the 'conspiracy of silence' within the FWBO, as he describes it.

I have added a comment at the beginning of the Wikipedia article on the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order saying that the article's neutrality is disputed, and pointing out that the reasons why its neutrality is disputed can be found at the end, in the short section 9.3 'Critical Views of the FWBO'. I have also slightly expanded that section and restored some of the missing links.

My reason for doing this is that I feel that people using Wikipedia to find out about the FWBO should have proper access to both sides of the argument, and not just to the FWBO side, as appears to be the case at present. If anyone from the FWBO deletes or significantly alters these additions, I shall appeal to Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. Mark Dunlop 27 Nov 2005 (Unsigned from 158.152.135.239)


 * I find it interesting that there seems to be a few people (one, most actively) that are extremly opposed to the FWBO but that the FWBO article in Wikipedia is never the less now starting with a pointer to a critical POV statement. I find no actual pro-FWBO statements in the article, so since the article itself (apart from the criticism) does not contain any POV I have removed the introductury part inserted by him.  I will also remove it in the future, should it appear again (unless properly called for).  I'm also inclined to remove the rest of his edit. Having read Mark's edit from the 17th of November, I find it hard to take him seriously as an encyclopedia editor.   Kind regards, Andkaha(talk) 21:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Andkaha's claim that the article 'does not contain any POV' is highly debatable, and seems an unbalanced view itself. The whole article seems like a pro-FWBO piece. I would draw your attention to, for example, the comment by ' FWBOarticle' in the 'POV problems' section above:

'The article is written by a FWBO member as a promotional piece for the organisation. It took me more than a page of discussion, and edit/delete war to just insert external links critical of FWBO. If you want to edit it, be prepared to deal with the members of this organisation. FWBOarticle 00:03, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)'


 * What part of the FWBO article do you think is promotional?

(please note that I am not 'FWBOarticle', though I agree with their comment above). I think that pretty much all of the article is promotional, and one-sided. To start with the first line: ' Friends of the Western Buddhist Order (FWBO) is a Buddhist movement ...'.

I think that in fact the FWBO is a pseudo-Buddhist movement. They use a lot of Buddhist words obviously, but in my experience (I was a member for about 15 years), they twist them to suit their own purposes. For example, referring to the Buddhist concept of 'kalyana mitrata' or 'spiritual friendship', FWBO member Subhuti wrote that:

'It does seem that many of the most successful Kalyana Mitras have an erotic interest in their mitras. ... Some, of course, are predisposed to this attraction, others have deliberately chosen to change their sexual preferences in order to use sex as a medium of kalyana mitrata - and to stay clear of the dangers of male-female relationships without giving up sex.' (Subhuti, in Shabda, September 1986, p125).

Another (IMO more genuine) Buddhist, Rev. Daishin Morgan, of Throssel Hole Priory in Northumberland, UK, speaking in BBC East's 'Going for Refuge' TV programme (part of the 'Matter of Fact' series), broadcast on 12 Nov 1992, made the following comment on Subhuti's above statement:

'To me this is totally contrary to the Buddhist precepts, its totally contrary to the Buddhist scriptures, and its absolutely contrary to any sort of good practice. It to me is a form of manipulation.'

(see http://www.ex-cult.org/fwbo/ShabShort.htm and http://www.ex-cult.org/fwbo/SubQuote.htm  )

Sangharakshita, the (claimed) founder of the FWBO, has written of his conviction that 'The less the FWBO is involved with 'Buddhist groups' and with individuals affiliated to existing Buddhist traditions the better' (in 'Travel Letters', page 173, pub Windhorse 1985, ISBN 0 904766 17 9) In my opinion, this sort of attitude on S's part is wholly inconsonant with any claim to be 'Buddhist'.

The FWBO Files does quite a good job of deconstructing FWBO 'Buddhism'.

So 'Buddhist' or 'totally contrary' to Buddhism, or somewhere in-between, its very debatable. And that's just the first line ...

Can you suggest changes that would make it less so,

I can, but it would probably become a very lengthy article, and might generate a lengthy edit/delete war as well. I take the view that the short introduction I submitted, and which you deleted, combined with the existing article, would better serve the aim of a readable and useful (and more balanced) encyclopedia article.

without turning to the other end of the spectra of views about the movement?

I think the full spectrum of views should be referenced or accommodated, and then readers can make up their own minds. Or to put it another way, one needs to be aware of both extremes, in order to have any hope of finding a middle way.

When I contacted the Wikipedia helpdesk, , about the deletion of my previous edit, 'User: Morven' kindly replied to say that:

'To flag an article's neutrality as disputed, you could add the text 'NPOV' to the beginning of the article, and show on the article's talk page why you think it is lacking.

'Wikipedia articles should be written to the standard we call 'Neutral Point Of View', which means that the article itself should not read as if Wikipedia takes any position in regards to any controversial or disputed points. Rather, it should characterise the beliefs, opinions and statements of different points of view, and leave the determination to the reader.


 * And I wonder what part of the current article is disputed,

Pretty much all of it (see above, and also just below your following comment)

except for the critique that you added. I truly see no pro-FWBO statements that sets the FWBO before any other movement in any way.

I see a number of such statements.

For example, lines 5 -7 of the current article say: 'He came to the opinion that, despite considerable interest in the Buddhist teachings (Dharma), Buddhism in Britain was formalistic and sectarian. He then set out to start a new Buddhist movement which became neither lay nor monastic.' - which seems like a put down of other Buddhist organisations which existed then and continue to exist today (ie. saying that they are 'formalistic and sectarian').

Not long after, it says: 'Having rejected traditional Buddhist organizations, both lay and monastic, Sangharakshita founded a new type of order, where one's choice of lifestyle is less important than one's commitment to Buddhist practice.' That seems like another put down, implying that in old, non-FWBO orders, 'lifestyle' is more important than commitment to Buddhist practice. I could go on ...

Reading the current edition of the article, I count five links (one of them occuring twice) that link to sites containing highly critical views of the FWBO, which are as many as the FWBO links (if I include the Karuna Trust link).

OK, so it is five links each, but if you count the number of lines of text, it seems roughly 50:1 in favour of the (pro-FWBO) article. '... Mention of criticisms in the article's lead section is also appropriate.'


 * Really? I'd like to question that, especially when the article has a criticism section longer than that of the articles for most other movements.

I think the 'criticism section' you refer to must be section 8, 'Criticism of the FWBO'. This appears to have been written from a pro-FWBO viewpoint, in such a way as to minimise the criticisms (as I said in my intro, which you deleted). So I would consider this 'criticism section' more a part of the main (pro-FWBO) article, and not really a fair representation of the actual criticisms of the FWBO. I can give details of why I think this is the case if you wish, but I won't on this occasion (other than to say there appear to be a number of put-downs), as I have already written quite a lot.

I feel that it is unjustified for you to have removed the introductory part of my edit (and to threaten to remove it again, should it reappear), because it was intended to briefly 'characterise the beliefs, opinions and statements of different points of view', to point out that the article's neutrality is disputed (which is a matter of fact, not of opinion), and finally to indicate where details of the point of view contrary to that of the main article could be found, in section 9.3 'Critical Views of the FWBO'.


 * I believe that your point of view was perfectly reflected by the critique section that already existed, e.g. in the Revision as of 00:52, November 20, 2005, before you expanded on it with the summaries of the critical sites.

I profoundly disagree with you, and think that section 8, 'Criticism of the FWBO' rather misrepresents my POV, and that of a number of other critics. Because of the put-downs, it seems to have an 'anti-anti-FWBO' bias. IOW, it seems like FWBO spin to me. I could be wrong. I would be interested to know the provenance of this section - ie. who actually wrote it, (assuming it is not anonymous), and what their affiliations if any might be.

Therefore I request that you restore the edits you have deleted, and also that in future you refrain from ad-hominem comments like 'I find it hard to take him seriously as an encyclopedia editor.' With thanks, 158.152.135.239 20:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC) Mark Dunlop. 28 Nov 2005.


 * I do apologise profoundly for that un-called for comment.

Thank you, apology accepted. I am fairly new to Wikipedia, and wouldn't claim to be a particularly skilled editor, but am open to learning, and am trying to work towards achieving a more neutral POV for the article overall.

I will not restore the introductory critique,

Would you consider working towards an agreed introductory critique of some form? Or do you have an alternative proposal? As things stand at the moment, it seems to me that the whole article is basically pro-FWBO, except for the final section 9.3 'Critical Views of the FWBO'.

I tend to think that it would be difficult, or at least very time consuming, to achieve agreed edits for the article as a whole. It might be better and simpler, bearing in mind the needs of users new to the subject of 'the FWBO', to simply state something to the effect that there appear to be broadly two opposed POVs, which are difficult to reconcile, and to point to where those two different POV's can be found. But I am open to other suggestions.

but I will restore the NPOV marker. Andkaha(talk) 22:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Cheers. Mark Dunlop 158.152.135.239 19:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * In addition; I wonder if it's possible to shorten the criticism sections a fair bit since, as the last one (the one Mark added)

That is not true, I did not add it. I slightly expanded an existing section, and restored one of the missing links.

itelf states, the two cited sites are largely mirrors of each other.

But not entirely, there are some important differances.

Also, the two sections contain redundant information.

Such as?

I think that the final section should mention, just like the header of one of the two sites does, that the criticism in the section is based on experiences of a number of people during their involvment with people at some FWBO centers in the UK (this is what is in the first criticism section).

Which criticism section are you refering to with your comment in brackets?

So, to conclude for today: There are now two sections of criticism of the FWBO, and I feel that these should be merged and properly edited.

I agree with that.

I'm happy to come up with a proposal if noone else feels inclined.

Kind regards, Andkaha(talk) 23:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I would propose deleting the first criticism section, 'section 8 Criticism of the FWBO' (for the reasons outlined above, that it appears to be written from a pro-FWBO viewpoint, and contains put-downs) and then leaving the existing 'section 9.3 Critical Views of the FWBO' more or less as it is, and adding a mention of it in the article's lead section, just after the NPOV flag. 158.152.135.239 19:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC) Mark dunlop

Yashomitra's Shabda letter
Hi, FWBOarticle here. I'm back. I will restore Yashomitra's letter. The outing of the letter was huge embarassment to FWBO. I personally count it as only next to the publication of Guardian article. I presume that Shantavira is an another FWBO member. To delete the link under the pretence of this letter being "irrelevant" and insignificant appear to be a blatant attempt at censoring information which is embarassing to organisation. Really, all I did was to add external links to sites critical to the organisaition with explicit attribution to the nature of the sites. I can't believe that (some) members of this organisation feel compel to censor even that. Another fine example of someone digging one's grave. :D <>