Talk:Triratna Buddhist Community/Archive 3

This article, which itself attempts to portray itself as neutral, is clearly written by an FWBO member.mama==The POV Argument== What we have in this article is a strong polarisation. One side, it could be said are trying to show the FWBO in a good light, and one in a bad light. I would like to see some attempt at least at a Neutral Point of View. I know the Wikipedia has a special definition of this, that FWBOArticle has studied at some length. But FWBOarticle inists on including things which are demonstrably false, such as the India visa claim. Is this really in the spirit of the pov policy? And since we know it to be false, then why not just say so?

I once again come back to the thing that what we are trying to create is some neutral information about the Buddhist movement known as the FWBO. This means presenting a variety of arguments and trying to contextualise them all. If need be the arguments need to be put side by side, and if no credible analysis is given then at least the reader can decide. I do get pissed off when I see FWBOarticle using the Wikipedia as a weapon against the FWBO, and hiding behind the letter of the Wiki policy. I shouldn't react but I do. If demonstrably false information is to be added to this article then what is the point other than to attack the FWBO, and how can the article be said to be in neutral in any meaningful sense?

Libel law is often cited in defence of repeating some of the libels which have been published, but why not look at it the other way. If the FWBO is guilty as charged then why not simply go to the police and lay a complaint against them? Why does the attack have to be oblique - through free and unmoderated forums - and anonymous? If mainstream British Buddhism are critical of the FWBO then why don't they go public - Vishavapani made some of their concerns public, but that was in an FWBO publication written by a member of the Order! If mainstream British Buddhists are concerned then why not appeal to them to take action. Why indeed, not ask why so many of them are so friendly with the FWBO? Why is this campaign being waged in this way and not more openly, and not through legal channels? If Sangharakshita was guilty of breaches of the vinaya, then why has the Sangha never even so much as censured him? Is this not interesting? Sometimes silence speaks louder than words.

Lama Shenpen Hookham recently published a book with the FWBO printing house; the estate of Dr Conze granted permission to reprint one of his books; the estate of Ayya Khema also authorised the FWBO to publish a pothumous book. The following well known Buddhist teachers have written positive reviews of FWBO publications: Dr. Edward Conze, Ven Bhikkhu Bodhi, David Loy, Stephen Bachelor, Norman Fisher, Christopher Titmus; or have more fully endorsed them by writing forwards and such: Jack Kornfield, Sharon Salzberg, Joseph Goldstein. Christmas Humphries praises both Sangharakshita and the FWBO at some length in his autobiography. It seems to me that mainstream western Buddhist opinion, British and American, is rather more receptive to the FWBO than you wish it to appear. Since this is all sourced to print publications, then I think we should add it to the article. These are real people, respected Buddhists, with good reputations, and are happy to be associated with the FWBO. I think this list is very interesting when put along side the names of people who are willing to publish criticisms of the FWBO.

I wrote the original section about criticism of the the FWBO - and tried to give a balanced account of it. Perhaps I failed, but I was trying! The question remains - where is the balance point? FWBOarticles has a mission, it seems, to simply include damaging statements about the FWBO in this article. No coherent attempt is being made to represent a point of view at all. mah&amp;#257;b&amp;#257;la 21:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "since we know it to be false". Who is "we"? I, for one, don't know it to be false or true. Nor "we" are demadning S to "demonstrate" the allegation to be false by going to india. You seems to miss the point of NPOV. NPOV in wikipedia does not mean truth. It merely demand that POV/allegation/fact have proper attribution of source. If someone like David Irving believe that Holocause did not occur, then we source such claim to David Irving. It is clearly stated that personanongarta thing is an allegation from this particular website, which is subject to lible law. Whether you like these allegation/views to exist or not is irrelevant. If you can find the reference that S has visited india since the allegation has been made then feel free to add such reference. Moreover, whether FWBO is popular or not according to someone's POV is not concern of this site unless such claim can be sourced.  Feel free to start "Praise" section, where you can add as much statements in support of FWBO from non FWBO people. Of course, these praise have to be properly sourced though.


 * P.S. Using vulgar language such as "pissed off" is a violation of wikipedia policy. FWBOarticle

Archive Problems
I somehow managed to misplace previous talk page. I can't find it. I appreciate if someone can help me. FWBOarticle
 * Please..... FWBOarticle
 * I'm working on it. DES (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have restored what I can. it looks like discussions, if any, from 7 December 2005 up to 26 Janurary 2006 may have been lost. See User talk:FWBOarticle for more details. DES (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of the FWBO
The previous edit was written by a member of FWBO and was criticised for being apologist writing. Hope people like my edit. For FWBO members who might object to this edit, I should emphasise that all allegations/opinions/quotes are properly attributed so it cannot be called "biased" edit from NPOV policy of wikipedia. FWBOarticle


 * I question the edit. The text that you replaced the old text with is still only a copy-and-paste job from the FWBO files site.  The views expressed there is as neutral as anything written by a FWBO order member, and most of it, if not all, is just words-against-words with the well known respons from FWBO  to the allegations and critique put forward by whoever wrote the FWBO files. Andkaha(talk) 16:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Not quite so. Not a word has been used which is written by the author(s) of FWBO filles. What I used was sources which were "listed" in FWBOfiles. Not the same thing at all. Therefore, I refuse to discuss the validity of debate between FWBO and FWBOfiles which has nothing to do in here. FWBOarticle

Could you still please cite the sources? Andkaha(talk) 08:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you are confusing the meaning of the word "source". From wikipedia attribution point of view, FWBOfile site is not the source. All quotes are sourced/attributed to the person who wrote it or newspaper/magazine which originally published it. I did not use any writing which was authored by someone there (except visa part which I will source). I do not wish to engage in the debate about the validity of that website. Suffice to say that unlike u.s., u.k. has strong libel law, so any factually false statement about person cannot appear in website or anywhere. Entire Sangharakshita page can be rewritten by merging well known "the FWBO Files", less well known "response from FWBO" and slightly less well known "response to the response from FWBO". As you said, it is all "words-against-words".  I should also point out that criticism section is the only place where any statements are sourced. So your request not only miss the point but somewhat biased in favour of the current promotional nature of the page. FWBOarticle


 * Not wanting to debate the validity of the material that you add seems a bit odd to me. The reason I wanted you to refer to the source was to make the critical claims verifiable.  Because of the nature of the criticism, I think it's important that an interested reader of the article is able see where the information comes from.  For example, the resignation letter from the 88 mitras, in its most original form, is available on the FWBO Files site, then why not mention this?  (BTW, why is this even in this article?  Shouldn't this be in the Sangharakshita article, if anywhere, since it deals less with FWBO and more with Sangharakshita?). Andkaha(talk) 11:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you know what the NPOV policy is? Can you make distinction between validity of attribution and validity of opinion? In wikipedia, the former is relevant while the later is not. You are asking to debate the validity of opinion which is utterly pointless in wikipedia.  Still, it appear that you somewhat intend to discredit each quotes by linking it to FWBOfile site.  Do you realise how bizzare such attempt is?  FWBOfile does not own Guardian newspaper. FWBOfile has nothing to do with the writing of resignation letter. And the bizzarest of all, Shabda is a FWBO publication. Are you trying to imply that Shabda or Sangharakshita himself has an anti-FWBO bias because they are quoted in FWBOfile? By insisting FWBOfile attribution, you are proving the point that why NPOV is so valid.  FWBOarticle
 * As of "why is this even in this article?" question. hmmm, it may has something to do with the fact that the guy is the founder of the organisation. ;D


 * Yes, you're right. There is obviously something I'm missing or something that I fail to properly understand. When one can add information to an ecyclopedia which one doesn't want to discuss the validity of, then something is obviously wrong with my head. Andkaha(talk) 15:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Say I'm a NeoNazi. If I insert an edit in "Holocaust", "Very few Jew died in Holocaust" this isn't kosher.  On the other hand, If I insert an edit "Daid Irving says very few Jew died in Holocaust", it is entirely kosher. And let say the later quote happen to appear in Holocaust memorial museum website as an example of Holocaust denial. What you are trying to do is "Very few Jew died in Holocaust" (Holocaust memorial museum, David Irving), as if to imply that Holocaust organisation actually endorse such statement. The wikipedia do not care about the validity of opinion, but it care deeply about the validity of attribution. That is why this entire article except criticism section is "biased" in the sence of NPOV.  I don't intend to debate the evilness of Jew or FWBO with a NeoNazi or a FWBO member, because such exercise is futile. FWBOarticle


 * In response to the question "why is this even in the article?": I respect if your viewpoint is that the public standing of a founder of an organisation has nothing to do with the public standing of the organisation itself. However, this is neither a mainstream viewpoint nor an NPOV one. Nonetheless I concur that some of the information here belongs in the Sangharakshita article as well. Peace. Metta Bubble 01:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If you go to esangha or usenet, you can see that the criticism of the organisation is about S and "perceived" inability of FWBO to face up to the past. I clarify that point in the section. Plus, the guy has and had such ideological influence over the organisation, many think it is hard to separate one with the other. On the other hand, it appear that the oranisation is trying to create perception of moving-on from the past but many think that without owning up they can't move on. It will be interesting to see what happen after S dies. To be honest, most New Religious Movement seems to be going through the same trend.  Some will undoubtedly survive while others won't.  In my opinion, FWBO is on the borderline.FWBOarticle


 * I've removed the line "Indian government no longer grant entry visa to Sangharakshita[1]." as this is purely speculation, the reference [1] being simply the www.fwbo-files.com, which does not have any reference on the page itself to the line "Indian government no longer grant entry visa to Sangharakshita". Even when you trawl the webpage for where it is mentioned, it has no proof for the allegation. In any case, I feel that as this is an external link and should not be in the main body of the text, but should be a true reference at the bottom, as the [1] would indicate. sbbs
 * The rule of reference is observed. The readers of wikipedia can make up their own mind about whether fwbofile site is credible or not. I should also point out that almost all the claims made in the rest of the page has no reference let alone "proof" of such claim. If the reason for your deletion is a lack of "proof", you would have wiped half of the page. This isn't the place where we argue the validity of claim in FWBO site of FWBOfile site. FWBO can easily sue FWBOfile for libel and take the Indian government statement down if it is false. FWBOarticle


 * So it seems to me that what you're saying is that it's ok to put up an allegation like this without any proof, apart from being on an anonymous site? Surely for the Wikipedia to work it must have resources which are more tracable than this?  So I disagree with your inclusion of this remark (which doesn't even make sense in English anyway...).
 * Well, your assertion has more credibility if you object to the rest of section which has zero reference let alone proof. Majority of E.U website are subject to libel law. Your allegation that the statement is not credible is pretty off the mark. In the case of websites, simple email asking for removal is usually enough if the statement is untrue. But this is not the point.  The allegation is clearly attributed.  It is now up to each reader's to make their mind up.  It is stated as allegation so what is the problem? You can't object to allegation for being allegation in wikipedia.FWBOarticle
 * Firstly, you and anyone else who's in any way internet savvy should already know that for the FWBO (or any other religious movement) to try to shut a website down for libel (be it for founded or unfounded criticism) will only result in inflamed counter-opinion to the religious movement. The argument that just because the website hasn't been shut down for libel means that what's on it is not untrue doesn't hold water.  Secondly, to say '[a] simply email asking for removal is usually enough if the statement is untrue' is, quite simply, laughlably naive too...  A simple reading of the files should give you an idea of the kind of ill-will the author bears towards the fwbo.


 * Lastly, with respect to allegations, you are correct in a sense - it is stated as an allegation. But only after many edits - originally you inserted it as a statement.  Also, it is an allegation based on a single line on a webpage with no references.  Reading the FWBO response to this, and the countering anti-fwbo response (in which they claim the expulsion was 'the basis of secret negotiations' and that 'the Indian authorities remained unaware' of the expulsion), it looks ridiculous for this to be included on the page.  I might as well include a line in President Bush's wikipedia entry saying that it's alleged that he eats babies at night, roasted over a skewer, and source my own, anonymous site. sbbs
 * Ah, I guess you don't know much about libel law. I'm merely pointing out that the allegation regarding the visa status can be removed.  Why you thought that FWBO must launch total war against that website is beyond me. Is this Freudian slip? (^^) I'm guessing that you are trying to muddle the issue between the validity of FWBOfile and the statement about visa status. In either case, attribution is made so the readers can make their own mind up.  You are entitled to place counter claim with proper attribution if you want. If you bother to read the past discussion, you will see that I'm imprevious to the line of argument which you and countless others have employed. FWBOarticle

revert
Reference and fair use is not a copyright violation. Allegation that "At most 6 to 8 people are involved" has no citation whatsoever. View expressed by Mark Dunlop and Vortex (whoever s/he is) is sooooo original research that it doesn't belong in the article, whether you want to insert their view in support or in objection to it. FWBOarticle


 * Reference to private correspondence published against the express wishes of the author is hardly fair use.


 * All I did was list the authors of the main sources of criticism most of which occurs on, or is at least mounted on, the fwbo-files website. I am neither in favour or against it, but am filling out the picture of what you have refered to as "mainstream British Buddhism". I think it is important to show that while you portray the criticism as being massive and widespread, that it is in fact localised with a few people, few of whom are currently Buddhists as far as we know. It is consistent with the sources listed at the bottom of the page. mah&amp;#257;b&amp;#257;la 21:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Copyright law doesn't work like that. You can make reference whether the copyright holder like it or not. If you don't think so, please take it up with admin. This site takes copyright very seriously.


 * "All I did was list the authors of the main sources of criticism". No you didn't. The source of the criticism section are, guardian, indian members of FWBO who resigned and Yashomitra's and Sangharakshita's writing were published by FWBO. Where is Mark Dunlop mentioned? Who is this German guy? FWBOarticle

If you want to insert something, please at least quote it from FWBO website or their publication which are not only open to public examination but also under scrutiny of British libel law. FWBOarticle


 * I've re-read what I added and agree that it was not all well written. However a lot of it was OK so I have reverted back to my text and modified it and quote from Verdex and Usenet only. If only British libel law were affordable to implement! BTW FWBOarticle - I have been reading your writing and it seems to me that you make the sort of consistent errors of grammar that I'd expect from a non-native speaker. German, I'd say. Am I close? Do you think Verdex is still interested in this, or was he telling the truth when he asked the FWBO for £80,000 for the website, and said that he only cared about the money now. I wonder if your's has become a lone crusade these days, or whether you still feel confident to call in your 'friends' as you threatened to do that last time we met in these talk pages? mah&amp;#257;b&amp;#257;la 21:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Usenet is not acceptable source of information in wikipedia. Who is this German guy, anyway? Is he active in Usenet as well. He can write whatever he want in Usenet but his writing or criticism about him doesn't belong in wikipedia. There are too much rubbish in Usenet. FWBOarticle

Fair Use
There appear to be a confusion of the term "Fair use". The word "fair", in this intance, does not refer to the wish of the copyright holder. It refer to the "purpose" of usage of copyrighted material It is, for example, totally o.k. to quote statement or "part of" writing made by someone else whether that person like it or not. It is, of course, not o.k. to quote entire chapter of copyrighted material. Otherwise, how can academic papers or newspaer get to use quote from books? FWBOarticle

Edit War
It is quite futile to ignore wikipedia policies. Please explain edit in discussion page. Failiure to do so, while engaging in edit/revert war, amount to vandalism. Vapour

Editing
I have changed some of the criticisms of S and the FWBO to make them more accurate. Soem of them are bundled together and read poorly. Lets get our criticsms correct and accurate. I want to see more attention to detail and would like to see other contributers sourcing their quotes. At present their are quotes made on the FWBO files for instance which have no reference, but are quoted on wiki as though they were 'facts'. This is simply not good enough, and is against wiki good practice guidlines. I would like this page to make the criticisms clearer and hope that Vapour doesnt keep closing down the debate by hitting the 'revert button'.Betamax Bandit Which ones????
 * "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Wikipedia required edit to be sourced/referenced, in this instance "FWBO files", which I have repeatedly pointed out, is subject to U.K. lible law which is quite strict. Argument that reference/source of edit itself must have reference (reference of reference of sources) is not found in wikipedia policies.


 * I should also point out that the most content of this page except criticism section has no reference whatsoever to begin with, which clearly violate wikipedia policy. FWBO (promotional) view is presented as fact without even reference to FWBO website or publication. And most content in FWBO website also has no references (i.e. lack of reference of reference of source). So your inaccurate invokation of wikipedia policy is selectively applied only to censour view unfavourable to FWBO. This is not kosher.


 * Lastly, one can not "closed down" the debate, which is impossible in the discussion page. Enagagin in edit/revert while failing to present/respond argument in discussion page, on the other hand, is "against wiki good practice guidelines". Vapour

False Wearing of Robes Quote
Just thinking - the quote from the mitras who resigned seems unnecessary to me and is of a highly emotive content. It seems to me enough to state what happened, without adding material which seems to be put there simply to inflame opinion. I'm going to make the change - it seems appropriate - let me know what you think. sbbs


 * Irrelevant argument. Where in wikipedia policies or guidelines does it say that one can not quote emotive statment? And who is to decide what is or what is not inflamatory, which is solely depepnd on one's POV. Every criticism of FWBO are possibly inflamatory to FWBO people. And please remember that this quote which is "ciriticism" of FWBO (or S) is presented in "Criticism" section. Attempt to censor such criticism is not kosher.

Im happy with this. It is important that the criticism does not get so editied that it becomes meaningless. It is a valid point. Sangharakshita did wear robes to india on these two visits. At that time when he was living in England he was not celebate. Wearing yellow robes signifies celebacy (at least in the East) so there has to be a big question mark over this issue. Sangharakshita would probably claim that he was celebate while actually wearing the robes in India, and there is nothing wrong with this practice as it is quite normal for Buddhists to observe periods of celebacy from time to time. But the issue here is his intention. It is not over the top to claim that he was being deceptive, and I think it is very understandable that people interpret this episode in this way. Betamax Bandit


 * And are you arguing that this letter does not exist. Agan I should remaind you that if such is the case, FWBOfile which quote the letter as fact is commiting actionable civil offence under U.K. lible law. Where on wikipedia policies does it say that quote/reference should be deleted because it is emotive? Vapour

You both missed my main point, which I should have highlighted more - I think the quote is unnecessary. I stated all the relevant information about Sangharakshita's wearing of robes during this time in my edit. I added the comment about the inflamatory nature of it also as a second arguement, which in retrospect I should have seperated out. Including the quote from the mitras means the article is saying the same thing twice. It seems an unnecessary quote.

I am not arguing that the letter did not exist, nor am I saying that Sangharakshita did not wear robes while not being celibate etc., though you seem to have jumped to that conclusion. sbbs


 * S wearing robes without informing his status as monk is what it started this incident. Equally important is the information regarding how these mitras felt and the fact that they consider such act as a fraud. I did not copy-paste the entire letter. I merely quoted a part of the letter which accurately convey the POV of these mitras. The quote make it clear that, these indian members consider that S were dishonest and willfully committed fraud. And the information regarding existence of such POV as well as who hold such view is an relevant information. If FWBO and S side hold alternative POV that S was not dishonest, then it is perfectly kosher to include such POV in edit with "proper POV and source attribution". If FWBO issue statement regarding this incident, feel free to include it in this article. However, please do not include edit which is merely one's personal take on this incident, such as "(IMO) S wasn't dishonest".


 * Wikipedia is an online encycropedia and for this reason, unlike paper encycropedia, it does not need to conserve space. Only threshold of inclusion is NPOV. Quote from this particular letter certainly pass this threshold.  Vapour


 * Again, Vapour, you are not taking in what I said and are jumping to conclusions! My point was that I felt the quote was unnecessary (from an editing POV).  As I've said above (please do *read* my posts before replying!) I don't deny S wore robes in the way described while doing drugs.  And neither do I condone his doing so; I think it was a mistake in all likelihood.


 * While I agree with your point in your last paragraph, I do think there's a general emphasis on tidyness and tight editing in Wikipedia. That was my point. I'm not going to make a big deal of it, I'm happy to let it go. But I am unhappy with my posts being misread...


 * Looking at it again, I think vapour has a point. This incident with the Indian Mitras did actually happen, and the letter appearing on the FWBO-files just made it more widely known, so lets keep this quote. Betamax Bandit

Use of Drugs issue
I changed this part to seperate it from the guardian article - as it wasnt mentioned in that critique. It is a valid criticism as Sangharakshita actually documents these episodes on his website. It is incorrect to put this together with the wearing of robes quote from the indian mitra's as they happend at different times and in different places.

However, Sangharakshita did wear robes in the 1960's at the time he took LSD etc which was also a time when he became sexually active. But the impression I get from reading about his life at this time and the accounts of others who new him back then was that he made no secret about his behaviour. Looking at photo's of the man show him more like some 60's hippy guru; Long hair, lots of rings, beads, robes, woollen sweaters etc and it looks as though his 'disciples' were from the same world. So there is no valid criticism of him as someone trying to decieve anyone within his circle.

But - he was still a Theravadin monk and even the fact that he let his hair grow long is prohibited - let alone smoking joints with hippies in London! To my knowledge he has never resigned as a Theravadin monk, so there is a question mark about this and the use of the title 'Maha-Sthavira' which applies to Theravadin monks of more than 10 years ordination.

Betamax Bandit


 * ahh, you do know that a sexually active theravada monk is an oxymoron, don't you? It's not about question of whether he did drug or not. Drug is illegal but some do not consider drug taking immoral. But if S presented himself as monk to ouside world while fully knowing that the basis of his ordination is no longer valid, that would be a problem. He was active speaker not just to his close diciple but wider British Buddhist circle, wasn't he?
 * For example, Martin Luther King committed adultry. Now, of course, someone without Chritian moral view might argue that this can't be a valid criticism of him. Still, would you argree that this would be a relevant information in the criticism section. FWBO's view, as far as I know, is that this was a period of "experimentation". Feel free to include FWBO perspective with proper attribution. Vapour

Sangharakshita
This article says that criticism of FWBO focuses on Sangharakshita. But the article on Sangharakshita contains no mention of criticism. Is this an oversight? Lumos3 09:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not copy paste from this page and expand the article about S. I thought it merely duplicate edit war so I couldn't be bothered. But now things are calm. So feel free to do so. Vapour

This is a difficult area. On one hand it is obvious that the criticisms bout the FWBO are in fact criticisms about S, plus a reference to Subhuti (but this too is in the contect of S's teachings. Givent that there is a wiki page devoted to S this material should be cut and pasted on to it and not just copied and pasted, with a link from the FWBO page to the S page. Its bad practice to duplicate any data on on wiki and bad web design - which is why web designers use 'links'.

On the other hand. If we simply remove these critisisms to the S page the FWBO page becomes very imbalanced and skewed and would present them in too good a light. However, we could cut and paste the cricisms of S and at the same time develop the the criticism section on FWBO page and bring this up to date - there is plenty of new material that we could add to this section.

Not sure what to do? Betamax Bandit


 * Wikipedia endorse content forking when the size of the article goes beyond the recommended size. This has not happened so the cut is not justified even from webdesign POV.  Criticism about FWBO is about S's "alleged" misconducts and the percieved inability of FWBO to condem these misconducts.  There is no justification to cut the material from here because S being the founder, the relevance of S to the organisation is obvious. Plus, forking out the large part of criticism is considered as a POV forking. Not kosher in wikipedia. Vapour

Can we duplicate all of the critcism section and put onto the S page? Maybe we should select some sections as being more appropriate for the S page and some for the FWBO page? Could you explain to me more what content forking means - I dont understand the term. I now understand better, from what you say, that the criticism of the FWBO is that they have not condemed S. I think the article needs to make this point clearer. One problem with the criticsm section is that it is made up of several cut and paste's, so it doesnt read very well. I would like us to make the criticisms clearer so that it is immediately obvious to someone looking at this stuff for the first time. Betamax Bandit


 * Firstly, this is an online encycropedia without size limitation. Hence, there is nothing wrong with having exactly the same content in the part of two article if the content are relevant to both article. However, it is recommended that each article stay at somewhat readable size. If an article reach something like 50k, then it is strongly recommended that such article is cleaned up. One way to do that is to fork/shift content out to different page, leaving only summary in the origina article.  What is not kosher is POV(biased) content forking. Typical example is to create a new article call "Criticism of Death Penalty" from Death Penalty article, then shift only critics view out from the original.  That is why shifting the content from "criticism of FWBO" is so dodgey even if there are counter view in the critcism section. It is o.k. to create new "critcism" article if the content has grown bing enough to justify it's own page. But that is not the case here. Vapour

I would still like to see a clear seperation between criticism of S and the organisation. At present the criticism section is illogical! I am happy for all of the content to remain in the main article (I agree with Vapour about not shifting the S criticism away from this page) but think we should have a criticsm of S section and a criticism of the FWBO section. It think that the valid criticisms of the FWBO are lost and have no impact. It is like having an article on microsoft, with a criticism section detailing how much Bill Gates spends on diamonds every year and saying nothing about the organisation Microsoft. The criticisms of Bill Gates are valid but an oppertunity to point out the shortcomings of the organisation are missed.

I have re-read the Guardian article again and is does not "cite allegation of sexual manipulation of younger male order members by Sangharakshita" That is what Yashomitra documents in his letter (which is a valid doc). The Guaridian article documents many things and we could draw more criticsms of the FWBO from that. It cites one account of S relation with mark Dunlop, but it is very careful not to use the words 'sexual manipulation', it just gives the story and we can make up our own minds as to what actually happened!

Most of the gaurdian story is about the fwbo centre where senior Buddhsits "believe that Sangharakshita's interpretation of Buddhism can be used to licence sexual and psychological abuse". The rest of the article is about FWBO dogie views about women / sex / family etc. Any thoughts? Betamax Bandit

Re: Drug taking. I am going to look into the vinaya rules on whether or not taking drugs leads to immediate expulsion from the order and will report back if I can find anything. I understand that a Bikkhu can re-enter the Bikkhu the monastic sangha a total of seven times, after which an expulsion becomes permanant.

NPOV
Hi, I have made some changes to sections that were unnecessarily POV and removed the tag. I'm aware that my changes are not perfect, so further improvements (but not just reverts) would be welcome. 80.189.2.155 18:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This sounds POV

False Wearing of Robes Another allegation is that Sangharakshita wore the robes of a celibate Buddhist monk while on tour in India in the 1980's, and that he did so with the intention of deceiving Indian members of the TBMSG into believing that he was still a celibate monk. This episode led to a number of mitras (friends) denoucing him by and rejecting the TBMSG en masse in 1999. A letter signed by the 88 Indian mitras, all from the Mumbai (Bombay) area stated:

"...while claiming to be a properly ordained Buddhist monk, a Bhikshu, you showed no respect for the devout feelings Buddhists associated with the robe by indulging in sexual misconduct, experimenting with drugs and teaching the 'neutrality' of sexual activities. In our opinion, this final act of yours was nothing more than an attempt to cover up your misbehaviour as a monk while still holding onto the power and prestige which the yellow robe along with the epithets Bhikshu and Mahasthavir held in the eyes of the common people. Thus you have cheated us. Why didn't you tell us right from the beginning that you weren't a monk? Why didn't you feel ashamed appearing before us in the yellow robe between 1979 and 1993? How can this falsehood be considered spiritual, nay, even common human behaviour? Yet you and your disciples talk of being a spiritual movement, a misnomer which amounts to a denigration of the truly spiritual." [6] Further to this allegation made by FWBO-Files, the anti-FWBO website, is that the Indian government no longer grants Sanghrakshita an entry visa.

What does FWBO respondAFireUponDeep 07:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The first part, yes, possibly. The rest is a quote from an anti-FWBO web page.  Is it POV?  Is it real?  I'm not sure it's up to the FWBO to respond to an Wikipedia article (the official response to the "FWBO-files" is at http://response.fwbo.org/ex-fwbo.html), but it is up to the reader to edit the article to the format that they seem fit for an encyclopedia entry. The informed reader is also responsible for making sure that the information contained within the encyclopedia is factual and correct.  So, what do you say? --Andkaha(talk) 08:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The 'Neutrality of article is disputed' header has been removed. This is surely wrong. The article seems written from a strongly pro-FWBO viewpoint, presumably by an FWBO member or members. It is a matter of dispute (extending over several decades) whether the FWBO is a genuine Buddhist organisation or a deceptive pseudo-Buddhist one. The existence of this dispute is a matter of fact, not of opinion, and therefore the 'Neutrality of article is disputed' warning should be restored.

In the section: Criticism of the FWBO/Yashomitra's Experience http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_the_Western_Buddhist_Order#Yashomitra.27s_Experience no link is given to Yashomitra's actual article (though it does give a link to Wiki page about Shabda). Yashomitra's article can be found at http://www.fwbo-files.com/yashomitra.htm or http://www.ex-cult.org/fwbo/Yashomitra.htm

The section 'Critical views of the FWBO' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_the_Western_Buddhist_Order#Critical_views_of_the_FWBO gives a link to 'ex-FWBO - Part of ex-cult Resource Centre.' The link provided is to http://www.ex-cult.org/fwbo/index.html which is to an older version dating from about 1997. It might be better to provide a link to http://www.ex-cult.org/fwbo/index.htm (ie /index.htm rather than /index.html) which is a larger site dating from about 2004

It also says that this site 'Largely repeats the content of fwbo-files.com.' which is a bit dis-informative, in that this site includes 20+ pages which are not available at www.fwbo-files.com (such as extracts from the FWBO magazine 'Shabda' compiled by a number of order members, and also extracts from other FWBO publications). It might be better to say something like 'Both sites provide information critical of the FWBO, and duplicate each other to some extent, though both sites also provide information not available on the other site.'

As regards the allegation made on fwbo-files.com, an anti-FWBO website, that the Indian government no longer grants Sangharakshita an entry visa, my understanding is that this information comes from Shekar (don't know his surname), an Indian former member of the FWBO who lives in the UK. Shekar said that he is a friend of a senior official at the Indian High Commission (= Embassy) in London, and that this official told him that Sangharakshita would not be granted an entry visa to visit India. The reason being that the Indian Government was worried about the possibility of riots if Sangharakshita did visit India, given the high prestige given to a (genuine) Buddhist monk in India, and the strong feelings of disgust aroused in India by those like Sangharakshita who falsely wear monk's robes (as illustrated for example by the letter from the 88 Indian order members and mitras).

If no-one has any objections, I will restore the not neutral POV tag and put in the links as above. 158.152.135.239 19:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * With regards to the paragraph above about Shekar, is this verifiable? Is there anywhere that backs this claim up? It is mentioned in the FWBO-files page, again is doesn't seem to be verified there either. 83.147.140.45 13:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Almost all contents aside from Guardian article doesn't fit Wikipedia requirement of verifiability. It's impossible to find information about FWBO from wikipedia definition of reliable source.  Afterall, FWBO is a small buddhist organisation centred mainly in u.k. where Buddhism is a minority of minority in overall population. If we object content from anti FWBO site for being unverified by outside source (i.e. media), then we can reject contents coming from FWBO for not being NPOV, unverified and unsourced from independent source. Afterall, this article was written by an order member for the purpose of promoting FWBO with most content pulled from FWBO site, which is, by definition, fall outside of NPOV. For example, hardly any information regarding life of S can be verified from outside source. I would say anti FWBO site is as verified and reliable as FWBO site. At this point, I'm content if any POV and/or information are properly attributed to the source. Vapour

Verifiability
Should we raise the standard of verifiability? This means that majority of contents from both FWBO and anti FWBO will be deleted. Of course, Guardian articles, Yashomitra's Shabda article is verifiable info. Plus, self referencial info from FWBO is fine provided that it's not a soapboxing. Vapour

Well, that seems to have provoked a zen-like silence from the FWBO supporters. I guess they don't like the idea of deleting most of the existing page except the extracts from (and links to) the Guardian article and Yashomitra's Shabda article.

At present, a good 3/4 of the FWBO article is pro-FWBO and presumably written by FWBO members or sourced from their own websites, and therefore unverified and not sourced from an independent source. Would it be fairer if the pro-FWBO part (sections 1-7) was restricted to about the same number of lines as the anti-FWBO part (section 8, Criticisms of the FWBO), and the final two sections, S.9 External Links (8 pro-FWBO links, 6 neutral-ish, and 3 critical) and S.10 References (1 reference to a book by Sangharakshita published by FWBO) were left unchanged (with a possible option to increase the number of critical links to equal the number of pro-FWBO links)? That wouldn't necessarily raise the standard of verifiability, but it would be a bit more balanced. EmmDee 00:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Despite of (or because of) large pro FWBO portion of this article,any reader who read criticism section is more likely to be alarmed than impressed. To be fair, FWBO members who participated in edit dispute has been fairly reasonable. Sure, they initially objected to the content in criticism. But once the policies of wikipedia has been explained to them, they left the criticism section alone. Main idea of verifiability is to set the threshold of inclusion for wikipedia. If not mentioned in any third party source with editorial oversight (e.g. newsmedia and academia), then it's not worthy being reported in wikipedia. Self refernetial information is accpeted for mandane fact such as address of organisation or establishment date. However, using one's own website as source for promotion is soapboxing and not allowed. Otherwise, any advocacy organisation or person can use their own website (FWBO and FWBOFile) for soapboxing in wikipediat. Two wrong doesn't make a right. Countering unverified pro FWBO edit with unverified anti FWBO edit isn't good idea. It's much better to delete both pro and anti unverified POV and facts. So original Guardian article as well as FWBO's subsequent response published in Guardian is probably the only verifiable information regarding FWBO. The fact of matter is that Buddhism is a (tiny) minority religion in u.k. So unless someone like Dalai Lama pay a visit or money/sex scandal takes place, no buddhist organisation would be reported in verifiable sources. Vapour

Oh, I forgot about Student Direct, the biggest student newspaper in U.K. based on Manchester universities. They once reported about FWBO. Is there any u.k. buddhist magazine unaffiliated with any particular buddhist organisation? Vapour

On the one hand, if Wikipedia has a standard of verifiability, as a threshold for inclusion, then the standard should be applied reasonably consistently, otherwise there is little point in having a standard at all. On the other hand, the FWBO is a relatively small group within, as you say, a (tiny) minority religion in u.k. So there is very little independent verifiable information regarding FWBO, its just a small fish in a small pond. So perhaps the Wikipedia standard should be applied less rigorously in such a case. I don't know.

If the standard of verifiability were to be raised above its present fairly low level for the FWBO article, what should be included? The Guardian article and the Student Direct article, obviously yes. The two letters written by readers of the Guardian article (one pro, one anti), published a few days later in The Guardian? I haven't seen the FWBO's subsequent response published in the Guardian. There was also BBC East's 'Going for Refuge' TV programme about the FWBO (part of their 'Matter of Fact' series), broadcast on 12 Nov 1992, which included critical information about the FWBO, but this is not easily accessible by the average reader of Wikipedia.

What about Yashomitra's Shabda article? That is critical of the FWBO, but was originally published in the FWBO's Shabda magazine, ie. independently of the anti-FWBO sites. Does that count?

I do not know of any u.k. buddhist magazine unaffiliated with any particular buddhist organisation.

Presumably also it would be ok to include links to the FWBO's own (pro-FWBO) sites, and to the anti-FWBO sites, together with the existing 'External links' section. As it stands, most of the article seems like FWBO soapboxing to me. Also:
 * Ah, the whole point of verification is to set the threshold of inclusion. What is the point of lowering the standard when the standard is low? I'm more inclied to delete any unverified materials. FWBO is a small organisation, therefore, it is not worthy to be included in wikipedia. Any material sourced from both FWBO and FWBO-file site pretty much amount to self promotion and hence not encycropedic. Vapour

I'm inclined to agree with you. There is no point in having a verification standard if it is not applied. Therefore I would propose deleting all of the present article (both pro and anti) down to the 'External links' section, and replacing it with: 'The Friends of the Western Buddhist Order (or FWBO) is a controversial organisation (see Talk page), about which there is very little independently verifiable information. It is not the role of Wikipedia to attempt to adjudicate controversial topics, nor to provide a platform for the various protagonists. Therefore this article restricts itself to providing links to a range of external sites which provide information about the FWBO from different perspectives.


 * I do not agree with you. By those criteria, a great number of articles in the Wikipedia would be going through the same process of reduction into a list of external links.  In what sense is the FWBO a controversial orgainsation that sets it apart from any other orgainsation in such a way that we can't have a Wikipedia article about it? --Andkaha(talk) 09:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Primarily because there is very little verifiable information about it.(and see the rest of this 'Verifiability' section). FWBO proponents seem unwilling to accept that the principle of verifiability should apply to their contributions.


 * Additionally, it is controversial because FWBO proponents are prone to make surreptitious edits to the criticism section without explanation, and to make ad-hominem attacks on critics of the FWBO, such as suggesting they are mad, etc (see Talk archive 1). The FWBO also seeks to censor information about itself, by blocking critical web sites in the UK. They are able to do this because under UK libel law (or strictly, the law in England and Wales), the Internet Service Provider (ISP) is held jointly liable as publisher, together with the author/s, for any allegedly defamatory material on their site. So the FWBO only has to get their solicitor to write to the ISP alleging there is defamatory material on their site. The ISP risks becoming involved in a costly legal case over a matter which they know nothing about and have no interest in. So the ISP has little choice but to play safe and block the site. Thus the FWBO can block a site, without taking the risk of facing a real judge or jury in an actual libel trial. The FWBO has done this on at least one occassion, as can be verified through contacting the legal department of Demon Internet.


 * There is also at least one case where the FWBO has written to the employer of a person who has criticised them, seeking to cast aspersions on the person's character and suggesting they are not a suitable person to be employed.


 * I don't know what to say to this. I know less about libel law than you. I don't think that the FWBO isn't a single entity that can act as a sort of unit, as one single individual or company. This is as far as I understand, but with your knowledge of juristic matters, you might have researched it a bit further? --Andkaha(talk) 19:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If the'FWBO isn't a single entity that can act as a sort of unit', how can it issue an 'official response' to the Guardian article? EmmDee 08:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * These are all reasons why there is relatively little verifiable information about the FWBO. People are reluctant to speak publically because they know that the FWBO is likely to try and nobble them by whatever means it can. This situation probably does not apply to the great majority of articles in Wikipedia. EmmDee 23:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Your painting a picture of the FWBO that I simply do not recognize. There's no way I can contradict you other than by saying I don't have the same experences of the movement as you seem to have had (I assume, since I can see that you are very dedicated to your cause). --Andkaha(talk) 19:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If you read the Student Direct article you will see that it says: 'Both commentators asked not to be named for fear of reprisals.' (paragraph 11). Admittedly they do not specify whether they feared reprisals from the FWBO or from the NKT, or both. Demon Internet will be able to confirm that on 11 June 1998 they made webpages critical of the FWBO put up by hostname pallas3.demon.co.uk unavailable following an allegation (so far unsubstantiated) that the pages contained defamatory material. EmmDee 17:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It is now some time since Vapour originally raised the question of verifiability (at the beginining of this section). Since then, FWBO supporters do not seem to have responded to this point. The Wikipedia page on verfiability says: 'This policy in a nutshell: 'Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. 'Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. 'The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.' and: 'Burden of evidence ... 'The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.'

The pro-FWBO section (ie the part down to the Criticism section) appears to cite no sources at all, let alone reliable ones. Presumably the actual source of the text is FWBO spokesperson/s. This is not a valid source according to Wikipedia guidelines.


 * Would you consider FWBO authors to be reliable? I could add multiple references to published works. --Andkaha(talk) 19:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * FWBO authors would be first party sources (in an article about the FWBO), and therefore wouldn't meet the Wikipedia guidelines, which are (in a nutshell) that articles should rely primarily on 'reliable, third-party sources'. EmmDee 18:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There is one possible exception, where the article says: 'Order members undertake to observe a set of ten precepts (ethical training rules). These are different from monastic vows, but the set is mentioned in the Pali Canon (e.g. MN 41:8-14) .'

The cited Majjhima Nikaya source does indeed mention ten precepts, but does not support the claim that FWBO Order members undertake to observe a set of ten precepts, nor the implied claim that they actually follow these precepts. It does not mention the FWBO at all. Using the Majjhima Nikaya as a cited source here is like saying (to give a hypothetical example) 'FWBO members are noted for their sartorial elegance (e.g. Vogue magazine) Vogue magazine does indeed deal with sartorial matters, but it does not mention the FWBO at all (AFAIK) Likewise with the reference to Reginald Ray's Buddhist Saints in India, which AFAIK does not mention the FWBO at all.


 * I could cite "The Ten Pillars of Buddhism" by Sangharakshita as a source for this fact. It is a commentary on the ten ethical training rules that are practiced by WBO members.  As to what degree the rules are followed by the individual members, you're guess is as good as mine. --Andkaha(talk) 19:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A book by the leader/founder of the FWBO is a first party source (more below). Guesses, even if sourced, don't count. EmmDee 18:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Therefore, according to the Wikipedia criteria cited above, the article down to the Criticism section should be deleted. The Criticism section does at least cite its sources, though whether these sources are reliable (with the exception of the Guardian article) is perhaps debatable.


 * Well, at least the book by FWBO authors are published works, redily available to the general public. --Andkaha(talk) 19:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, in an article about the FWBO, book(s) by FWBO authors would be a first party source. I'm not suggesting that references shouldn't be made to them at all, only that the article shouldn't rely on them; it should rely predominantly on 'reliable, third-party sources'. EmmDee 18:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Given the paucity of reliable sources, there is a strong case for deleting the entire article, at least down to the 'External links section: 'If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.' EmmDee 17:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

'External links ...'

Just add the Student Direct article link http://www.tibet.ca/en/wtnarchive/1997/12/7_2.html to the 'Critical views of the FWBO' section of the external links. EmmDee 00:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

EmmDee, can you use ":" so that I can also add my comment? At this point, if I insert my comment after Andkaha's comment, it cut into the flow of this debate. By the way, Majjhima Nikaya is a verifiable source while what FWBO think about it is not. Moreover, as I understand it, all S's work is published by FWBO related organisation. This will not pass verifiability criteria. Otherwise, any organisation rich enough to have own publishing department can soapbox wikipedia. Moreover, to be consistent, I do not think Yashomitra's Experience pass verifiability. Vapour
 * Can you explain about ":" ? Where do I put it? I agree that it is better to maintain the flow of debate. I agree that Yashomitra's Experience does not pass verifiability. However, AFAICS neither does any of the (pro-FWBO) article up to the criticism section. I would not agree to deleting Yashomitra's Experience unless unverifiable (pro-FWBO) part is also deleted. The same standards should be applied to all parts of the article, in order to be consistent. But deleting the first 2/3 of the article seems a bit drastic, so not sure what to do at this point. I am not volunteering to rewrite the first 2/3 of the article to Wikipedia standard of verifiability. But the current article is highly unsatisfactory IMO. What to do? EmmDee 17:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I added ":" at the front of your comment. I added "::" at the front of mine. See, now it's clear which comment is responding to which other comment.
 * As of what to do question, it is quite easy. Just add Fact to any content which doesn't have verifiable source. The policy of this site clearly state that the burden of proof (i.e. finding verifiable sources) then rest on anyone who want to keep that content in the article. That is one reason why I created "Reference" section where all verifiable sources can be listed. I'm really not sure about the Journal of Buddhist Ethics, though. The quality of articles in that site is certainly not up to the standard of accredited academic journal. And more worryingly from policy perspective, we can't be sure what sort of publishing organisation it is. So nuetrality and accuracy of information in that site is not verifiable at all. If that site can be accepted as verifiable, IMO, other links such as the one by Ken Jones in Buddhist Peace Fellowship and another one by John Crook in Western Chan Fellowship should be included as well. But this is again repeating the problem of lowering the verifiability standard. I would prefer to be conservative given the dispute relating to this article. Vapour
 * Thanks for the info about ":" I will try and follow that in future. As regards putting in Fact tags, that would be a start, but not entirely satisfactory in the longer term. Partly because there would need to be quite a few of them (which would break up the article and make it harder to read), and partly because the Wikipedia page on Verifiabilty  says:


 *  'Be careful not to err too far on the side of not upsetting editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Jimmy Wales has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. ...' 


 * I will try re-writing the first sentence of the article to conform to Wikipedia guidelines, see how that goes. I agree about being conservative on verifiability given the dispute relating to this article. EmmDee 21:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Editing without prior discussion
Vapour says above: 'once the policies of wikipedia has been explained to them, [the FWBO] left the criticism section alone.'

This no longer seems to be the case, they seem to have changed some of the criticism section, without first explaining their changes on the Talk page. For example, 'To read more about how the FWBO-Files distorts the truth go to [7]' (which seems clearly POV) has been added at the end of the criticism section. At the time of writing this, at the end of the article, it says 'This page was last modified 09:12, 5 December 2006' whereas at the end of the Talk page, it says 'This page was last modified 07:22, 6 November 2006.' That seems a bit naughty to me. I would propose simply deleting that change.

There seem to be other furtive changes to the criticism section, but that will do for now. EmmDee 16:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Opps, sorry. I didn't see your comment. A statement like "'To read more about how the FWBO-Files distorts the truth go to..." is such an blatant example of NPOV violation that I simply deleted as a vandalism. Moreover, statement like that tend to alarm rather than reassure people. Vapour

By the way, editing without "explanation" is a violation of policies/guidelines. Editing withour prior discussion is not. Otherwise, editing would simply stop if no one bother to respond. Vapour

I take your point. I was just thinking that, in the case of a controversial topic, it may be sensible to both provide an explanation, and also to allow a period of time for others to respond (to agree or disagree) before making any changes (except in cases of blatant POV). To do otherwise might be to invite an edit war. EmmDee 00:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section
I have expanded the part about Subhuti's 1986 comments (in the first part of the 'Criticism of the FWBO' section) to give more background and context to his comments.

Wonder what has happened to the new section about Verdex, which was here a few days ago. I wouldn't have thought it was OK to just delete parts of the Talk page, perhaps I am wrong. EmmDee 18:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, it seems the FWBO is threatening to sue Verdex for hosting http://www.fwbo-files.com/ They must have removed the Wikipedia section on Verdex for legal reasons. There is still http://www.ex-cult.org/fwbo/index.htm which I think the FWBO will find a harder nut to crack.

'News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress. All the rest is advertising'  - Lord Northcliffe (famous UK newspaper proprietor) EmmDee 21:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually to set the record straight I am negotiating with the publisher of the website on my own behalf to remove the website because it defamed me personally, and will sue if we cannot agree to settle out of court. The reason that sections of his website have disappeared already is that Herr Schnake acknowledged that he had defamed me. The removal of the front page of his website was his choice. By the way the website is hosted that was Martina Blanck, I removed the section on publisher of the website here, not for legal reasons, but because part of our agreement is that he will be allowed to fade into obscurity, and I am working to facillitate that by removing anything that I have written about him on the internet. mahaabaala 16:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If indeed you have such an agreement with the above named person, then it would appear that you have just breached it, by writing the above on the internet. EmmDee 22:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Mark, once he has signed the deal I will never mention him again. Until then I thought it worth responding to your unfounded accusation. mahaabaala 13:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is some news that someone wanted to suppress: the author of the FWBO Files is Gary Beesley, a religious education teacher in the UK. Is that the sound of pigeons coming home to roost? mahaabaala 16:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is more like FWBOfile is the prime example of "pigeons coming home to roost" or "the law of karma working itself out" which ever you want to call it. :D I gather that even many FWBO and WBO members are not so proud of what went on before. Saying "it was a mistake" or "it was regrettable" is better than nothing. But not following that with "sorry" is quite regrettable too. And any flaming you do here would be a taint on your non-eternal soul. (^_^) Vapour

Reference Section
I created this section to list all verifiable sources. "External links" section have different standard. Vapour 11:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about Journal of Buddhist Ethics. It's not accredited academic source. Moreover, It's an online publication so I'm not sure how reliable this source can be. I appreciate input about the background of this site. Vapour

The founding editors are Dr. Damian Keown and Dr. Charles Prebish both well known and respected scholars in their field with many publications to their names - both eminently qualified to edit a journal. The editorial board includes Reginald Ray, Robert Thurman, Paul Williams, Lance Cousins, Richard Gombrich, Sue Hamilton and a number of other distinguished scholars. Their editorial policy states that "Research articles as well as discussions and critical notes submitted to the journal are subject to blind peer review." Clearly the claim that this is "not (an) accredited academic source" is just lazy nonsense! Realibility of the JBE is not an issue. mahaabaala 17:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 'lazy nonsense' seems like an ad-hominem comment. You don't know that Vapour is lazy, he/she might just be busy. If the JBE is an accredited academic source, by whom is it accredited? I am not sure that being accredited by its own editorial board, however distinguished, is enough to make it an accredited academic source, it could just be a sort of club for slightly eccentric academics who find difficulty getting their work published elsewhere. I personally have no view either way, I am just asking. EmmDee 22:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Mark, your pettycoats are showing. You're not as stupid as all that. mahaabaala 13:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Mahaabaala: "The editorial board includes Reginald Ray, Robert Thurman, Paul Williams, Lance Cousins [isn't he dead?], Richard Gombrich, Sue Hamilton and a number of other distinguished scholars"
 * I hope Lance is not dead! I met him only a few weeks ago at a lecture by professor Gombrich and we had a brief chat. He has several times now helped me unravel tricky Pali passages on Buddha-L. Perhaps you were thinking of someone else? Paul Williams has become a Catholic (again), but that's not quite the same as being dead. Gombrich was very impressive, and quite witty. mahaabaala 16:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

EmmDee: "it could just be a sort of club for slightly eccentric academics who find difficulty getting their work published elsewhere. I personally have no view either way."

EmmDee, these are all distinguished and respected Buddhist academics and in no way "eccentrics who can't get their stuff published elsewhere."

I don't know what you mean by an "accredited journal." There's no such thing. No one accredits "Science" or "Nature." Respectable journals are respectable because the editorial board and peer-review process are widely respected. There's no question that the JBE falls into this category.

Tathaataa 18:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 'accredited academic source' - I don't know what this means either. It was a term first used by Vapour and then by mahabaalaa. I assumed it meant something like 'Published under the auspices of a known academic institution, eg. Harvard, Oxford, etc.'


 * 'slightly eccentric academics' - I had in mind two instances. First, Nobel laureate Linus Pauling, whose 'work on vitamin C in his later years generated controversy'. (3rd para)


 * And second, the organisation CESNUR, which is an organisation of scholars and academics working in the field of new religious movements, and which is somewhat controversial.


 * The simple fact that academics are involved doesn't necessarily mean that a source is reliable, by a 'conservative' standard. However I am happy to accept that the JBE is probably reliable (I was only asking), though I don't necessarily accept it is on a par with "Science" or "Nature". But the point originally raised by Vapour (near the bottom of the 'verifiability' section) was: at what level exactly should the 'verifiability standard' for this article be set ? If the JBE is reliable, what about  Ken Jones/Buddhist Peace Fellowship and John Crook/Western Chan Fellowship? It is not a completely easy question to answer IMO. EmmDee 21:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The Academics involved are some of the leading scholars of their generation. Buddhist academic journals will most likely never be on a par with Science or Nature for a number of reasons. Buddhism is very much a minority past-time in the west, and funding for research on it, especially on Buddhist Ethics is almost non-existent. Cambridge, for instance, no longer teaches Pali, and will not teach Sanskrit after 2007. There are a handful of journals associated with "official" bodies such as the Pali text Society - but then who are the Pali text Society? And who has access to those journals anyay? The best we can hope for from these sources is blind peer review by the leading academics of our time, and by this standard the JBE comes highly recommended. The quality of the articles is generally very high, but of course that is just my opinion and that counts for nothing on Wikipedia. mahaabaala 16:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Having read a few of their articles and reviews, I too think the quality of the JBE is very high. 'Science' and 'Nature' deal primarily with verifiable science, and so it is possible to make an objective evaluation of how 'reliable' they are. The JBE is not so easy to assess in that way, but my subjective opinion is that it is a valuable resource. EmmDee 08:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Mahaabaala: "You're not as stupid as all that" -- that's an ad hominem attack. You're saying that EmmCee is stupid, but not as stupid as his comment. That's not a good way to conduct a discussion.

Tathaataa 18:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Mark and I know each other from a few years of arguing on usenet. I was saddened not that surprised to see that he has transferred his anti-FWBO campaign onto Wikipedia. Ours has never been a very happy relationship. Anyway sorry for implying that you are stupid, Mark. My intention was more to suggest that you were playing dumb, when I know that you aren't. mahaabaala 16:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW Shabda is no an accredited journal either - so if you diasallow JBE then you'd better disallow the quotes from it. mahaabaala 16:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

My use of word "accredited" seems to be the source of confusion. I hereby declare that this was a confusing use of term. There clearly is such thing as "accredited university" in the u.s.. On the other hand, "accredited journal" is less common term as can be seen by googling the term. Let me make it simple. I would at least expect this particular "journal" to be in the citation index which, any self respecting academics would see it as a minimum requirement. In this case, Arts and Humanities Citation Index (AHCI) must be the benchmark. At this point, I don't have an access to AHCI but, given their award page, I seriously doubt this is the case. It is specifically stated in the policy document that Wikipedia would reject contribution even from a Nobel Prize Winner if their writing is not published in a verifiable source. So, personal blog or website which is put together by likeminded "essentrics" does not qualify, no matter how eminent these likeminded people are. Publication in online journal with no acknowledgement from accademic community or mass media will not let you cross the threshold of verifiability. If you want to argue for relaxing the verifiability standard, then it is only fair that Yashomitra's article in Shabda should be included as well. But if that is allowed, then any article from Shbda should be allowed, leading to the problem of slipperly slope. When there is dispute, it is always better to adhere strictly to the policy. We should stick to traditional media and academic journal. As of Pali Text Society, it did bother me a lot because their standard was never clear to me. Even for PTS, I expect validation/citation from from other academic journal in citation index. When I read Japanese translation of Pali Sutta, footnote usually refer to corresponding Sanskrit and German and French translation. But it rarely mention English one and when it mentioned, it is done so because it is often a mistranslation. In Japan, all major Universities have Indiac Philosophy Department. It appear that Germany and possibly France have something simimar. Unfortunately, this isn't the case for English speaking world. Vapour

Avoid self references
Please edit this article to avoid the following self-reference (see WP:ASR): "The FWBO claim in Wikipedia that: 'It should though be noted that in the course of the discussion this internal document [Subhuti's paper] engendered, a consensus was reached within the Order that sexual activity in the context of a kalyana mitrata relationship was in fact deeply inadvisable. For the last 20 years of the FWBO's history, this kind of behaviour has been strongly discouraged, and the vast majority look upon the experiments of the 1970's and 80's as a mistake.' However, the FWBO has not provided any evidence or citation to support this claim." Thanks. Recury 19:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There are other problems with this section apart from the fact the statement is self-referential. The statement also quotes part of the article which has been removed:

''The FWBO claim in Wikipedia that: 'It should though be noted that in the course of the discussion this internal document [Subhuti's paper] engendered, a consensus was reached within the Order that sexual activity in the context of a kalyana mitrata relationship was in fact deeply inadvisable. For the last 20 years of the FWBO's history, this kind of behaviour has been strongly discouraged, and the vast majority look upon the experiments of the 1970's and 80's as a mistake.'''

The part quoted does not exist in the article. You can't quote something and also delete it, if that is indeed what has happened.


 * I didn't exactly quote and delete it. The original text of the paragraph in question was unsourced prior to 29 Dec 2006. I  prefixed it with 'The FWBO claim in Wikipedia that:', put the original text of the paragraph within quote marks, added ' [Subhuti's paper]' within the original text, and added a final sentence: 'However, the FWBO has not provided any evidence or citation to support this claim.' to the paragraph.


 * I guess I should have prefixed the original text of the paragraph in question with 'An FWBO spokesperson states', and not mentioned Wikipedia at all. Admittedly I didn't know for sure that the source of the original text was an FWBO spokesperson, but it seemed a reasonable surmise. EmmDee 09:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Have re-written the begining of this paragraph to read: An FWBO spokesperson states ..., hope that is OK. EmmDee 05:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Somebody has now reverted this change. EmmDee 01:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd argue for keeping the original, even if it's edited. And it needs editing: was there a "vast majority" or a "consensus"? The two things are not universally considered to be the same thing, since a consensus is often taken to mean 100% unanimity, which clearly doesn't exist given Jayamati's comments.

Tathaataa 15:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A consensus can exist where people disagree in principle, but agree to go along with the rest of the body making the decision - they may go along while still expressing a view which is not in accord with the consensus. I take unanimity to be 100% agreement.

Jayamati's comments are in a different context and may not apply to the consensus that was reached - need to check the "publication" dates. Jayamati may well have altered his view from the one which was published without his permission. The thing about an unpublished journal like Shabda is that it allows people to express views, test them against the prevailing feeling amongst the group and see if that view needs to be modified. Since Jayamati's opinion is taken completely out of context we cannot really say what he thought at the time, nor what he thinks at this moment. His statements, if he made them, were intended not to be a dogmatic statement but a contribution to an ongoing exploration of the role of sex in kalyana mitra relationships. The way they are presented on the internet is not consistent with the context. Is a quote from Shabda "verifiable" under the Wikipedia definition? mahaabaala 16:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This kind of problem would not have existed if we only sticked to verifiable sources. Vapour

Shabda quotes
I have started this new section because I think Shabda is a special case, which may or may not qualify as a 'reliable, third party source', according to Wikipedia guidelines.

As I understand it, Shabda is a monthly in-house magazine published by the FWBO/WBO, and distributed to all order members. The circulation is about 1,400 (the number of OMs). OMs submit various letters, reports, papers, and articles for publication. Circulation is normally restricted to OMs, but sometimes OMs circulate articles more widely when they feel this is appropriate.

One example is Subhuti's 1986 paper, part of which was quoted in the Guardian article, and also in the 1992 BBC (East) TV programme, where it was read out by Maurice Walshe (former Chairman of The English Sangha Trust, and translator of the Digha Nikaya), and then commented on by Rev. Daishin Morgan. I think this makes it a valid source according to Wikipedia guidelines.

Another example is two seperate selections of extracts from Shabda, compiled by two OMs for open circulation. These are extracts from letters and articles prompted by the 1997 Guardian article, and by the ensuing discussion within the WBO. Jayamati's 1998 letter is from this source. These compilations are available on the internet at and  and. I think these compiliations are reliable, not sure if they are strictly third party.

I have changed my view about Yashomitra's Shabda article (which I believe he prefixed as 'open to all'). I now think it is a reliable, third party source. It is an honest, truthful, and sincere account by a man who was involved with the FWBO for a number of years, including being chairman of one of their centres, and can therefore be said to be as reliable a source as any. He is no longer a member of the FWBO (or WBO), and said in the article, which was published in March 2003, that: 'I have been mostly inactive within the FWBO and WBO for the past five years.' In that sense, he has been for some time a third party source. AFAIK, he has not contributed either to the article or to the talk pages, and so can't be said to be soapboxing, either pro or anti.

The objective must be to produce a good quality, informative, and balanced article about the FWBO. In some cases, quotes from Shabda articles may help in attaining this objective.

The danger is that the FWBO could use Shabda for soapboxing - a WBO member could publish an article in Shabda with a view to getting it quoted in Wikipedia subsequently. A way to avoid this might be to disallow any Shabda article published after July 2003, which seems to be when the Wikipedia article on the FWBO first appeared, according to the History page. EmmDee 09:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, Yashomitra being a third party is a bit of strech. You have to remember that not being pro-FWBO does not automatically mean one is a third party. Moreover, how is it possible for someone to know that he is "an honest, truthful, and sincere" even if this is the case. So Yashomitra by himself cannot give his own verifiability. I have been saying this too many times but if we stick to mass media and accademic journal, things would be soooooo much simpler. Vapour


 * Leaving aside for now the question of Yashomitra's article and The Journal of Buddhist Ethics, the fact is that most of the article (the first 2/3, down to the Criticism section) AFAICS isn't sourced at all, let alone sourced from mass media and accademic journals. It seems to be purely the personal opinion of whoever wrote it. Its an 'elephant in the room' type of situation, as regards verifiability.


 * I have rewritten the first half of the first sentence of the article ('Friends of the Western Buddhist Order (FWBO) is a Buddhist movement ...') to conform to Wikipedia guidelines, ie. it is now sourced from cited mass media. That former half sentence is now approx 15 paragraphs long, covering the issue of whether the FWBO is a genuine Buddhist movement, or a pseudo-Buddhist one. Well, its a start ... EmmDee 05:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Somebody has reverted or deleted all the changes I made, saying they are 'unwarranted', but without giving any other explanation. That seems like vandalism to me, and completely against Wikipedia guidelines. EmmDee 00:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability (part II)
Have started new verifiability section as earlier one has grown a bit long. The problem remains that most of the FWBO article doesn't have verifiable source. Have started adding [citation needed] tags to unsourced/unverifiable material. EmmDee 15:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Clean Up
Article needs clean up.
 * links to blogs are not allowed
 * more reliable scientific sources should be added (Bluck Robert "British Buddhism" for instance)
 * the article weights the controversies based on anonymous FWBO files to heavy
 * a lot of passages are not referenced
 * the external links after the passages meet not the WP standard for notes and references. As a better example may serve the NKT article which also tries to describe a controversial discussed group.