Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:36, 14 June 2012

Biography Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Buddhism Start‑class

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

New edits to controversy section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree that the present version is quite mild and NPOV. I am satisfied with it.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BLP noticeboard thread

• - Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Michael_Roach - there is a report about some disputed content - please join in the discussion there and seek WP:Consensus for the desired addition - thanks - Youreallycan 21:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thorson's death

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

Think through your logic a bit here. You are saying Ian Thorsen died. this death occurred after Ian left the retreat. Geshe Michael is the spiritual director for the retreat. Therefore Ian's death is notable in an article about Geshe Michael. The sources you cite are sources reporting on Ian's death, not stories about Geshe Michael. It makes sense to talk about Geshe Michael when you talk about Ian's death, but the converse is not necessarily true. You would need to establish some kind of misfeasance or malfeasance on Geshe Michael's part before it would make sense for you to report on Ian's death here—that is, it would have to be the case that Ian's death was Geshe Michael's doing. The text you have added to the article doesn't make this case, and neither do the sources you cite. Hence, the text about Ian doesn't belong here. It belongs in the wikipedia article you do on Christie, or on Ian, if you feel that it is notable. That article would of course mention Geshe Michael, and that would be entirely appropriate. Abhayakara (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, it is the sources that make this connection, and the sources themselves are just as much about Roach as they are about Thorson. The sources do not say that Roach is responsible for Thorson's death, and neither does our article here. I assume we're at least done with the misguided notion that there was a coatrack problem, nu? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, an article about Ian's death would rightly mention Geshe Michael, as the source articles do. However, the converse is not true: the mere fact that an article about Ian's death at a retreat center founded by Geshe Michael talks about both Ian and Geshe Michael does not mean that an article about Geshe Michael should talk about Ian. Can you explain why you think this is notable? Abhayakara (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, because multiple reliable sources are discussing it, quite prominently. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a valid reason, because you could also use it to justify adding some text here about the space shuttle because multiple valid sources attest to its historical existence. The mere fact that an article talks about Ian, and talks about Geshe Michael, does not mean that the subject matter of the article as it pertains to Ian is notable in an article about Geshe Michael. In order for it to be notable, Ian's death has to say something about Geshe Michael. So if you think it is notable, you must be able to say what Ian's death says about Geshe Michael. Can you please attempt to do so? Abhayakara (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Divorce

I deleted both editors' entries in this section. Feel free to add them back without comments about each other and references to other venues such as COI and the BLP board. This page must adhere to the policies of a BLP talk page. I apologize in advance if this seems a little harsh. As well, you may wish to go through the rest of the talk page and remove any statements you may have made that do not add to improving the article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Buddhism articles
• Unknown-importance Buddhism articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics