User talk:Longchenpa/Archive 1

Third Party Review of Harm
Your deleting the discussion here has me requesting a Third Party review of your harmful actions. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I responded on your talk page and asked you to move any discussion of the article to article's discussion page. I'm not going to move this discussion to a personal level. If you wish to discuss the article you are more than welcome to do so there.


 * By the way, you copied a conversation that had nothing to do with you, where myself and Toon were discussing something on his page, to the discussion page. Do not ever do that again. Longchenpa (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I hear you. I'll get involved where I see fit, it's open source here.  I made a relevant point that I've made you aware of WP:Harm just as Toon has.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Go read Toon's Talk page. I rewrote and added sources to information added by another user. Longchenpa (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Blame Shifting
Longchenpa, please your explain "Blame Shifting" on the Jetsunma discussion page. My attention is source attribution to put in context as per Wikipedia polices. We've had a few folks ask for rewrite. Where else am I to start? Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Lonchenmpa, please carry on your discussion on the talk page and not in the comments boxes. The reorganization is intended to consolidate the information, into a organized format, not to minimize it. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't be impatient. I did reply on the talk page. Longchenpa (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Question
I have read your edits and comments on the talk page for the KPC/Jetsumna article, and I was distraught. Can you recommend other places in the DC area to learn more about Buddhism and be involved in a cleaner environment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.105.16 (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know what to tell you. I don't live in that area. Apparently Zenwhat does, so perhaps he'll have some ideas. Longchenpa (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo
Although you didn't openly state it, it seems you suspect that I, too, am some supporter of Jetsunma, like User:ZuluPapa5, trying to white-wash the article in her defense. Your paranoia is certainly justified, but in this case, you're wrong. I mean, look at my edit history and ask yourself, "Why on earth would a Zen Buddhist support this woman?"

I live only a couple of miles from Jetsunma's temple in Poolesville, Maryland. I went there a few times over the years, never as a follower. The first time was a field trip with a community college professor, another time was a meditation class followed by a dharma talk, and I occasionally go to their "peace park" across the street from the temple.

When I first heard one of their nuns give a dharma talk, I got the vibe that they were a cult because they mentioned guru yoga and how the woman wasn't apparently bound by any moral codes because she was "beyond this world," whatever that meant, and that enlightenment was achieved through total obedience to her. When I went home, I looked up information and found The Buddha From Brooklyn. This was years ago, before this article on Wikipedia even existed. I was a bit disgusted that someone like Penor Rinpoche could name someone like Jetsunma a tulku and never retract it after it was obvious she's a fraud, like Ching Hai.

Now, with that said, it's true that The Buddha From Brooklyn is the only comprehensive source on KPC, but my point still stands. The article would look better with a "criticism" or "controversies" heading. Similarly, when Martha Sherill titled her book, she gave it the neutral title, "The Buddha From Brooklyn." Something like, "The evil corrupt Lama-wannabe from Brooklyn," sounds terrible. Also, Sherill claims to be neutral in the book, to the point that even she almost felt drawn in by Jetsunma's charisma. With all the facts in the book, though, this seems to be more like a distortion to sell more copies (i.e., if she came out, hands flailing, "This woman is a blatant fraud!" then none of Jetsunma's apologists would buy the book and her credibility would be diminished). So, at the very least the article should be as neutral as Sherill pretends to be.

So, to keep this information up, to avoid dubious claims that it's an attack page, and so on, it only makes sense to have a main heading -- again, without removing or even summarizing any of the information. To show you what I mean, here's what I'm proposing. 

About the 23 years versus 10 years, though: Your statements on the talkpage are persuasive enough. You're right. It should be 23 years, sorry. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo archive
Please respond at Talk:Jetsunma_Ahkon_Lhamo, but basically, why not just leave the text in the archive and link to it? If it's the same argument, put a link we won't repeat our discussions. If someone keeps making the same arguments again and again, then they are being disruptive but the talk page does not need to be a mess of old and new discussions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I replied. I just missed where the link to archived discussions could be found, and was having to dig through history to find it. Very inconvenient. Longchenpa (talk) 11:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your thanks, but I doubt we'll be successful at maintaining the Jetsunma article. Wikipedia is impermanent, empty, and most people are attached to the articles in various ways. See my userpage and the essays in it. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've read your essays on it. It's a lesson I learned the hard way with the Tibet articles this spring. Oh man. The fury of the Chinese students who flooded wiki, and the amazing discrepancies between what kids are taught about Tibet in the PRC's standard curriculum and what's generally understood in the west to be the truth. Longchenpa (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not just saying Wikipedia isn't time-sensitive. I'm saying people shouldn't worry about whether Wikipedia works, period. Actually, let me clarify that: Most editors don't really care if Wikipedia succeeds, even the ones that think they do. I think that at this point, even Jimbo Wales probably doesn't care. So, at the very least, we should be honest about it. None of us care about whether Wikipedia functions, so let's be honest: John likes to POV-push left-wing politics, Sally is a member of ISKON and is their advocate, Mark is a homosexual and wants to fight homophobia on Wikipedia. Everyone here is a caricature. None of us care about Wikipedia, really!


 * So, despite WP:AGF, I don't think hardly any editors act in good faith. All of them have agendas, but the ones we call "trolls" and "editors in bad faith" are just the more extreme cases. Pretty much all of the good-faith editors who care about Wikipedia have long since been banned or quit out of despair. The more you care about Wikipedia, the more likely this will happen to you. So, practically, all you can do is either have a false hope that Wikipedia will succeed, lie to yourself about your intentions in editing, quit, or just try to edit it because it's enjoyable.


 * I'm an existentialist, so maybe this doesn't make much sense to you, but have you heard the story of Sisyphus? That's how Wikipedia works too. Instead of rolling a rock up a hill over and over, you have to fix articles. So, you can either let this make you go nuts or you can just do it merely for the sake of doing it. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 11:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Bias on Jetsunma
Dear Longchenpa,

I am concerned about your continued effort to turn Talk:Jetsunma_Ahkon_Lhamo in to a tabloid with material that violates WP:BLP. I've noticed your agenda seems to match the arguments on this blog.

http://captainsnark.wordpress.com/2008/04/17/kpc-and-lama-tenpabill-cassidy-smackdown-the-buddha-from-brooklyn-strikes-again/

Do you agree? Are you the blog's author?

Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No. Thanks for the info though. Longchenpa (talk) 04:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me be clear, you claim your agenda doesn't match this blog. If not, do you mind if I ask for a review on this? I am growing particularly concerned, and it seems these folks Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard can better deal with you. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 05:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I did not write this blog, my dear. Longchenpa (talk) 05:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I hear you on that, does it match your agenda toward Begging the question? Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 05:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My agenda is a good article that is in line with the published facts. Why are you so antagonistic towards the other editors? Longchenpa (talk) 05:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I am working to be WP:CIVIL here to prevent WP:BLP violation. Let me remind you of this concern you received from another last February. I am not alone in this concern. see Talk:Jetsunma_Ahkon_Lhamo/Archive_1. If you care to anounce your agenda with regards to POV, that would be helpful. I grow concerned about your Feigned incomprehension, "playing dumb", as per WP:CIVIL.   Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 05:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You just accused me of writing a negative blog about KPC (twice), then accused me of begging the question, and now accuse me of having an agenda, demanding that I "reveal" it -- and in that selfsame conversation you accuse me of a lack of civility? I'm floored. LOLOLOLOLOLOL!


 * I'll repeat what I said to that other user, a discussion that you are misrepresenting here:


 * Yes, her salary is widely known. It appeared in Mirabella magazine whose circulation is 600,000 people, The Buddha From Brooklyn by Random House which has gone through two printings in both hardcover and paperback, and it was in Tricycle magazine (the main Buddhist review) circulation 60,000, and it also appeared in the Washington Post Magazine, circulation 750,000 people.


 * In magazines and newspapers alone this information has been made available 1,410,000 people. Random House is a very large publisher so two printings is no small run.


 * However, if you know her current salary and can cite widely known sources for it, you may add that. It would not be acceptable to delete the 20-year history of her salary from 1980 through 2000.


 * I think I was reasonable. In fact, I'm sure I was. Longchenpa (talk) 06:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Best I can do for your here, is remind you some additional other folks claiming to represent Jetsunma left us this comment in May 2008, see Talk:Jetsunma_Ahkon_Lhamo/Archive_2 asking not to display personal information and libel. By my read of Wiki polices when a person makes this specific request, there are even greater standards that Wiki administrators will apply to remove personal information, you may be heading here (see: Biographies_of_living_persons.  Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As well, Coatrack can be applied to any negative agenda. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, they didn't claim to represent Jetsunma. Do you? Longchenpa (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope, not me. I represent their intention to prevent harm. It appeared to me they said twice "information in this article is not authorized" as if she did not want potential libel here. Then they did some amateur  "vandal" enforcement to prevent harm from info that violates WP:NPF.  Why can't you get the message, it's not wanted and should be removed?Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just because it's not wanted doesn't mean it should be removed. Longchenpa (talk) 23:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you Urgyan Tenpa\Bill Cassidy?
You said on the talkpage for Jetsunma:

If so, please send me an e-mail. I'd be interested in speaking with you. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 12:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL! No. But he posted KPC's records on the internet a few months back. They were taken down, but not before I was able to secure a copy from the google cache. Longchenpa (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Zulu Papa's delusions of grandeur
You have a warning with regards to Three-revert rule see Talk:Jetsunma_Ahkon_Lhamo I am pursuing Wikiquette alerts to prevent an edit war. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I do not have a three revert warning. Are you aware that you are not a moderator on Wikipedia? Longchenpa (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is the second revert warning from me. You're forking the section on  Talk:Jetsunma_Ahkon_Lhamo  with Talk:Jetsunma_Ahkon_Lhamo is disruptive.  Next time you do this I will appeal to the administrators to block you, for time to cool off. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 23:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL! You're not a moderator on Wikipedia. *still laughing* Longchenpa (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The complaint is here Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR


 * Please don't interfere with them like you have with this section title.. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I already found it. I am very amused. What's with "proactively" reporting someone for a 3RR? That would be impossible unless you were deliberately baiting that person. Longchenpa (talk) 00:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, both of you are being provocative. I appreciate that you both want to make the article "fair" (whatever that means, huh?), but I'm sure you can both see that the current situation is benefiting nobody. Personal attacks and accusations are never acceptable! Why don't you both just take a step back and try to put this whole thing in perspective. I know that both of you do present a calm front whenever the issues are raised to outside parties, but perhaps you could try informal mediation to try and get this thing sorted out? -  Toon  05  00:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the only avenues left are either formal or informal mediation. It's clear to me that you'll (both) never reach a resolution acceptable to both of you together, it seems that people who deal with this kind of thing all the time are the ones best equipped to help out. I'm sure it's causing you both some stress, which isn't helpful for anything. I say mediation. -  Toon  05  01:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a tricky situation, as on the one hand Wikipedia has to make sure that it's not giving undue weight to say, someone with an agenda, especially for non-celebrity personalities, but also we have to uphold some sort of integrity... i.e. not censoring published, sourced information just because it casts someone in a negative light. The Request for comment requested by Zulu should allow editors more experienced in BLP disputes to come in and (hopefully) solve it. I say just keep trying to improve the article in the mean time, perhaps focussing on the technical details, phrasing and the less contentious sections. -  Toon  05  14:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Zulu Papa
I guess you have nothing to worry about. The 3RR report is malformed, as none of the edits reported can be regarded as reverts. My suggestion is that you rest your case. The last person who reported me at WP:WQA has been blocked without me answering any of his accusations. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 01:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I do, however, have one thing to say: this edit can be regarded as refactoring a talk page comment, since you changed the title of a thread. You should wait until the dispute is resolved before editing anything, even on your own talk page, that is related to it. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 02:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)