Misplaced Pages

Talk:Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:45, 24 August 2008 editLongchenpa (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,990 edits →Longchenpa, ZuluaPapa5: Cut it out.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:21, 16 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots8,044,277 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 5 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 5 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Biography}}, {{WikiProject Tibetan Buddhism}}, {{WikiProject Buddhism}}, {{WikiProject Women in Religion}}, {{WikiProject Women}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(198 intermediate revisions by 34 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=C|listas=Lhamo, Jetsunma Ahkon|1=
{{Calm talk}}
{{WikiProject Biography}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|collapsed=no
{{WikiProject Tibet|importance=mid}}
|1=
{{WikiProject Buddhism|importance=mid}}
{{WPBiography
{{WikiProject Women in Religion|importance=mid}}
|living=yes
{{WikiProject Women}}
|class=Start
|priority=
|listas=Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo
|nested=yes
}} }}
{{Connected contributor

|User1=Longchenpa|U1-EH=yes|U1-declared=yes|U1-otherlinks={{diff2|309871902|declared here}}|U1-banned=no
{{WikiProject Tibetan Buddhism|class=start|importance=mid|nested=yes}}
|User2=Gyrovague108|U2-EH=yes|U2-declared=yes|U2-otherlinks={{diff2|238631948|declared here}} and {{diff2|238638583|here}}|U2-banned=no
{{WikiProject Buddhism|class=start|importance=mid|nested=yes}}
|User3=Gonpoyeshe|U3-EH=yes|U3-declared=no||U3-banned=no
|User4=Dharmapath108|U4-EH=yes|U4-declared=no||U4-banned=no
|User5=Carbo337|U5-EH=yes|U5-declared=no||U5-banned=no
}} }}
{{Archive box| {{Archive box|
] <br/> ] <br/>
] <br/> ] <br/>
] <br/>
] <br/>
}} }}


== Recognitions ==
I moved the new recognitions material to the recognitions section to be relevant. Also added in a few new sections headers to help the readers. Best, if the intro should follow these guidelines. ]
] (]) 05:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


==Cancer cure claims==
== Self Published Sources in Biographies ==
Need to be removed from this article or written in a neutral tone. As if the ridiculous photo wasn't enough, claiming to cure cancer with prayer is a standard red flag for nonsense and needs to be fixed immediately. ] (]) 20:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


: I'll look at the claims and neutral tone. Apparently there are some new sections that have been added and I haven't been around in a while.
Longchenpa, these policies say self-published sources are allowed in biographies.


: Her photo is fine, if you mean the main one. It's the same or similar to the one used in Associated Press articles about JAL. ] (]) 14:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
*]
* ]
* ]
* ]


I am aghast you didn't learn this last time around.] (]) 15:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC) ::Ridiculous as ]. ] (]) 02:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
:This talkpage isn't meant for arguments strictly between you and Longchenpa. If you have something to say to him, send him a message on his own talkpage. Now, with that said, what sources did he use that are self-published? <font size="4">]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;]</font>&nbsp;(]) 22:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


== Rinchen Terdzod Section ==
:: You are right, I did that not too long ago, and it ended up back on Talk page, (see COPIED above). Longchenpa has challenged Palyul Productions as a source, claiming they are Jetsunma's self-publishing wing. They exclusively record and produce Jetsunma's teachings. However unlike a blog, they have a editorial process and they are an official organization. I rate them as a reliable source, because they have the most frequently available information. I'll agree their editorial process could be better. There's no reason to exclude Palyul Productions as Longchenpa would like. Case by case analysis must be applied with regards to ]. (BY THE WAY, the historical Longchenpa would welcome Palyul Productions as a source. Perhaps a new enlightened version will emerge now.)] (]) 01:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I changed the wording to indicate that contrary to the prior text, there were other Westerners who were recognized and enthroned. In particular Vajracharya Ven. Peling Tulku Rinpoche, was enthroned by HH Penor Rinpoche in 2001 as the mind emanation of Padma Lingpa and the activity emanation of Karma Lingpa. He was the highest tulku ever recognized in a western birth.
:::We're talking about Palyul Productions, which seems a bit suspect. However, I'm not too sure, so could you show me the specific source we're talking about? Is it a webpage or a written source? If it's a webpage, please link to it. We may be able to add the information, provided that we mention who we're quoting. Simply citing them as a regular source would be misleading. Even if it's not technically self-published, their strong ties to her make them unreliable. <font size="4">]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;]</font>&nbsp;(]) 06:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


Source: http://palyulcanada.org/wp/teachers/ven-peling-tulku-rinpoche
::: This issues are Palyul Production's editorial process and ], which for the recent Palyul Production's sourced material I've added is not "unduly self-serving" because is avoids ] and does not harm third parties. The parties are all in line with Tibetan Buddhism as first and second parties. It's highly notable and not ] to me. As far as Palyul Production's editorial process, at least they have one, but it could be better considering they have no paid staff. I agree the info added must be properly attributed to the quoted sources. ] (]) 15:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


] (]) 21:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
:::: No, I've never used self-published material. I've relied on Random House and mainstream publications.
:::: Palyul Productions is Alyce's self-publishing wing. She tells Palyul Productions what to publish, she hires, fires, and appoints people to work at Palyul Productions and has complete control of the organization. ] (]) 17:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


:: Not sure about the claim of anyone being the highest western tulku recognized--how does one determine such a thing?--but most of the articles about Jetsunma refer to her as the "first western woman to be recognized as a tulku."
::::: Does this mean you won't allow Palyul Productions on a case by case basis? ] (]) 20:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
::I like the link and the article about Ven. Peling Tulku Rinpoche. It's sad that he's gone. When did he pass away? The article doesn't seem to say.
:: We should include the cycles of teachings and empowerments Jetsunma's received; it's important and we haven't covered it. Preliminary list... the Kama in 1988 from HH Penor Rinpoche, Rinchen Terzod, the Nyingthig Yabshi and Ratna Lingpa cycle in 1990 from Yangthang Rinpoche, Chod from Ngakpa Yeshe Dorje in 1992(?), the various termas from HH Khenchen Jigmed Phuntsog in 1993, the Nam Cho from HH Penor Rinpoche in 1995, not sure about what came after that. The Chimed Tsogthig was in there somewhere. ] (]) 06:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


=== Archive === == New source ==
for inclusion. ] (]) 13:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


:: Eh. I'd rather not include it. It's depressing, for one. Also, it's a current event and we don't how important it's going to be to the article. It might be important. Might turn out to be a passing blip. In the meantime I don't want to elevate some crackpot. ] (]) 06:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
This can go to the Archive too. It seems my ] efforts have fallen on deft ears. ] (]) 05:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


::: It will take some other published sources to make it wiki significant and relevant. ] (]) 01:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
== ] enforcement relief ==


:::: , , . It definitely passes the notability test and should therefore be included. - ] (]) 07:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
The ] aspects of this Article are subject to ] enforcement, which by my read says negative information must be substantiated by Primary and Secondary sources to be included. There is not sufficient notability when negative information comes from a single primary source. Thankfully, relief is on the way for any agenda to include irrelevant negative information by publishing on Wiki.] (]) 16:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
:Hmm. I'm not sure if this applies here, but I don't know. It hinges on a crucial question: When we say "public figure," do we mean within the relevant topic at hand, in terms of the international world, or in terms of the average Misplaced Pages reader? Jetsunma is a Lama and a Tulku. In terms of Tibetan Buddhism, that's a public figure. And she's been in the media like a dozen times over the past several years, so I would say she is an obscure public figure, but not a private figure like you or me. <font size="4">]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;]</font>&nbsp;(]) 22:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


::::: I looked at including it, but the case itself is The United States of America vs. William L. Cassidy. What it impacts is the ] law. The ] article definitely should be updated with this new decision. ] (]) 15:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
:: Yes, there are ways to degree public figures however, it's best to side with caution that ] applies. The key word in the policy is "relatively unknown" which is about the same as when you say "obscure public figure", so by your own reasoning it applies. Contrast with the "well-known" alternative ]. We could split hairs, but I really believe most folks would say Jetsunma is unknown to them, that's a simple test. She was relatively unknown to me even after the publicity. I don't want to waste time on this.] (]) 01:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


== Stalking case ==
:: In reviewing ] I have greater certainty that ] applies, Jetsunma does not meet the public figure definition. She's not a politician or celebrity and for the most part 501(c)3 restrictions keep her our of the public influence arena. ] (]) 02:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2075332/Do-world-favor-kill-One-8-000-horrifying-death-threats-ruled-free-speech--author-posted-online.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
:::If she could sue Misplaced Pages, then she could sue every book, newspaper, and magazine article about her. But she can't. Obviously, if she's been in the Washington Post several times, she ''is'' a public figure in legal terms. To settle this, though, you could easily e-mail Mike Godwin, Misplaced Pages's lawyer, and ask him what he thinks. See his userpage at ] or email him at mgodwin]wikimedia.org. <font size="4">]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;]</font>&nbsp;(]) 06:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


] (]) 14:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
::: I am convinced this issue will survive third party review. You can ask for one on this section. However, you're making an argument that has nothing to do with what the policy says. I call that grasping attachment. Is it your intent to have a court case? ... that would be a dereliction of editorial responsibility. ] (]) 14:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


Jude Order to dismiss
:::: You keep asking for third party reviews on the '''same issue.''' I think you're wasting everyone's time. This has been resolved. You just don't like the answer. ] (]) 19:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/cassidy-order-121511.pdf


::::: Sorry, it's not resolved, we have a RFC next in line. You welcomed this a short time ago. I believe ZenWhat has admitted to the Wiki Administrators that ] should apply. Why can't you?] (]) 02:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC) ] (]) 21:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


:: I looked it over. The case is The United States of America vs. William L. Cassidy. I agree it's notable and should be added to the ] article:
{{Quotation|
:: http://en.wikipedia.org/Cyberstalking ] (]) 14:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
"... we should still be cautious and apply WP:NPF to the article, in order to avoid a libel case. Let me state that again: Even though Jetsunma is a public figure, we should still apply WP:NPF to the article." Zenwhat
}}


== Add empowerments and teachings she's received ==
As I mentioned above, we should include the empowerments and teachings she's received. It's traditional, and other than the Rinchen Terzod, we haven't covered it. I have a preliminary list (above), though it's missing what she received in India in 1987 & 1996, and everything from '97-09. Not sure if it needs a new section or if we can include the info in some of the other sections. ] (]) 06:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


:: Considering ] say's a fairly high threshold is applied (see ref * via lectlaw). I don't find arguments convincing that a few press publications meet the threshold. Once again ] applies.] (]) 15:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC) : Where are these published? ] (]) 01:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
::::Zulu, I '''''am''''' the third party. This debate was originally between you and Longchenpa. Please, stop Wikilawyering (literally). There is more than a few publications. There was an entire biography on her, rofl.


:: Buddha From Brooklyn, as well as other sources. ] (]) 15:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
::::If you are an advocate for Jetsunma and consider this article defamatory, write Misplaced Pages's lawyer and they can do an "office action" to fix this article if you actually have a case. You don't have a case, though, so you're just trying to argue the issue to death and edit war. That's not allowed here. <font size="4">]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;]</font>&nbsp;(]) 17:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


== Recent BLP issues ==
:::: I appreciate your views and involvement, '''precisely''' what's important is that the Wiki policy ] is adhered to through reasonable talk discussion. My intention is to prevent this article from being defamatory. I and you, should have no interest in escalating this to court, frankly neither of us have standing to take to court, we don't have a case in court. If you going to say ] applies to this subject in the context of Wiki policies, I'll continue to disagree with you and seek relief. My first intention was to talk this over, not to edit war. I haven't begun to enforce ]. When I do, my first step will be to add citation references to where negative material requires duly collaborated sources. There may be "more than a few publications" and a biography and advertising however, there's not a sufficiently high threshold to meet ] even when you consider the subject must have "''thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved''" to even be considered a "limited public figure". ] intends to included notable information and exclude ] editing, for the wiki readers benefit. I am sorry, if you don't like the policy, but it's there for the common good.] (]) 19:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I removed the recent string of edits which have disrupted the article with ] issues. There may be new sources to add controversial material, however they must be from reliable secondary sources and presented in a neutral tone to meet Misplaced Pages standards for inclusion. ] (]) 20:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


Zenwhat, your proposal to contact Wiki's lawyer would have been non-productive see:]. Furthermore, is not our duty to promote legal threats ] ] (]) 19:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC) :: Apparently people need to be educated about appropriate sources. In a particularly circular example (which proves the point) one of the references used was an archived version of this Wiki article. ] (]) 18:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


The article states that "her Misplaced Pages page is kept scrubbed free of references to controversy and mentions of the word "cult," with all edits critical of Jetsunma being removed usually within a few hours of posting." This is obviously incorrect, since the page contains many critical statements. Indeed, given that the quoted sentence appears on the referenced page, it's self-contradictory.] (]) 19:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
=== Wiki Precedent Review ===
:The ] issues have been hashed out thoroughly. People don't understand that Misplaced Pages isn't the place for personal opinions. ] (]) 08:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


===Secondary Sources in BLP ===
I've reviewed ] for wiki precedent on how to proceed with ] enforcement. The discussions seem to support me in source requirements and public figure definition. ] (]) 20:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Apprecaite the contribution however, secondary sources may be required for this to maintain ] and remain in the article. ] (]) 01:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


== Alternate name ==
Is anyone adverse to me seeking ] "Request for Comment" on ] applicability? I don't want to unless it's not clear to folks that is applies. ] (]) 21:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey,


I would just like to ask the mods to please make a search for "Catharine Burroughs" to link directly to her page. I couldn't remember this woman's real name or dharma name, just "Catharine Burroughs," and it took me like 10 minutes to find her page. (And yes, I know that this page is the first thing that pops up when you search using that name...) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
=== Citation Qualifying ===
::Hmm. It's a thought. But I'm not sure what that would require. The times I've seen it have been when two pages were combined into one. ] (]) 05:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


== Kapala image ==
In reviewing ], I realized that much of material that can be considered offensive has not been properly qualified as to who said it, who is the subject and who is the object. I am considering that defamatory material, is specifically attributed to Jetsunma by a single primary source. There is controversial material in this article, that has not been specifically attributed to Jetsunma, and really reflects the policies of the organizations she's started (i.e. KPC administration). Material reflective of the organizations, doesn't seem entirely relevant to this biographical article's notability requirements. I don't want to be rash or to provoke an ], however I see a need to:
The kapala image has been removed somehow. Looking for a new copy of it. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


==Steven Seagal material==
: * better qualify some content as per ] - I'll apply {{clarifyme}} here
It seems that most of the information about Steven Seagal should be deleted from here, or moved to the Steven Seagal article, if it isn't already there; most of it isn't relevant to this particular biography. Any thoughts or suggestions? Thanks. ] (]) 23:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
: * improve citations to support keeping negative info as per ] - I'll apply {{Dubious}} here
: * delete irrelevant and potential defamatory material as per ] - I'll delete this.


:: Discussion of celebrities is definitely off-topic. I've removed it. ] (]) 03:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
As far as material that's relevant to KPC, Let's wait to see what evolves before considering the next step.
:::Thanks for taking care of this, ]. Do you think that one line about Steven Seagal being the only other recognized tulku is relevant to the article? Appreciate your support. Best, ] (]) 03:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
::::Another thought, do we have sources that confirm that Ahkon Lhamo and Steven Seagal are the only other recognized western tulkus? I think there could be others. Thus, deleting all of the material may be the best call after all. Best, ] (]) 17:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
:::::There are numerous other recognized western tulkus, five mentioned in the film <i>Tulku</i> alone. ] (]) 09:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
I would appreciate comments on this approach.] (]) 14:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
: This was settled back in December. If it's from the Buddha From Brooklyn it's well-sourced and not a libel issue. As Curious Blue put it at the time, Wiki assumes that publishers like Random House will have fact-checked and vetted information for libel. Alyce didn't sue Random House. It is disruptive to repeatedly bring up the same settled issues again and again on the talk page. It's a dead horse, Zulu Papa. ] (]) 17:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
:: Sorry, we didn't consider ] and article notability standards back then. 19:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)] (])
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081229225510/http://www.tashicholing.org/gyatrul_rinpoche_bio.htm to http://www.tashicholing.org/gyatrul_rinpoche_bio.htm


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
=== A response from Mike Godwin ===


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
I e-mailed Misplaced Pages's lawyer, Mike Godwin, asking about the legal application of the term "public figure".


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 04:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
He responded:


== External links modified ==
{{Quotation|I don't think there is any serious question that Jetsumna is a public figure. But even if she were a private figure, that doesn't mean that statements about her are libel. So long as they're true statements, they're not libelous. If there are false statements, they may be libel if the editor was negligent (or worse) in including them.}}
Hello fellow Wikipedians,


I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
So, no, ] does not apply here. As for your other comments, Zulu, this is really getting tiresome. I'm going to wait for Longchenpa to return and I'll continue this futile discussion whenever he is back as well. <font size="4">]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;]</font>&nbsp;(]) 15:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120123452/http://www.sacredesignpdx.com/rinpoche_bio.htm to http://www.sacredesignpdx.com/rinpoche_bio.htm


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
: Hi. Zulu Papa is raising an issue that was settled back in December. Alyce is a public figure. Beyond the AP articles, the numerous Washington Post articles, articles in smaller publications such as the Gaithersburg Gazette that aren't listed here, the book about her life from Random House, the interview of her in a second book, and articles in Elle and Mirabella magazine, Alyce acknowledges this herself. This dead horse has been thoroughly beaten. ] (]) 17:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
:: Sorry. it was not settled back then, we never looked at ].] (]) 19:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 02:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
=== Mike has a ] in this application ===


== Dec 2018 NPOV tag added to article ==
I appreciate Mike's response and largely agree with it. You're conclusion, ZenWhat, is hasty (maybe even reckless) and doesn't follow wiki policies. If there were a serious question about ] and ] applying to Jetsunma, Zenwhat ... you could be leading folks astray!!
It looks as if, over time, this article has become non-neutral due to the paucity of well-sourced criticisms and controversies coupled with sourcing issues such lack of RS or possible overuse of primary sourcing. I'll be chipping away at this with the aim of a neutral, encyclopedic article per ]. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 19:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
{{hidden begin|title=Notes on edits made since NPOV tag}}


===Removed - Prison program===
Because Wiki as an organization would be liable, it's in Mike's commercial interests to have ] apply in court because it affords Wiki greater protection. I appreciate Mike's response however, I consider it to be a ] as far as editorial application of ], therefore only relevant from an educational viewpoint, and certainly not unbiased legal advice to editors.


I've removed the section on the prison program as it was sourced only to tara dot org (the subject's own site). The link provided leads to a dead page, and a search for "prison program" results in only that is of no help. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 19:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
When Mike says "''If there are false statements, they may be libel if the editor was negligent (or worse) in including them.''" certainly leaves room that it's the editors that are responsible, and could be responsible for negligent application of ] or ]. So Wiki under Mike's lead, would most likely counter sue an editor for violating ] application and ] guidelines. Anyone reading this should be aware that your contribution to how ] is applied in court could be used by Wiki to sue you. Please take caution.


===Removed - Projects pending===
Now with that said I agree with Mike, I don't think there is any serious question that Jetsumna is a public figure, specifically now because it's not in court and will likely never ever be. I have no interest in a court case application of public figure. There is very little chance of any lawsuit in this process, because we are having this discussion, which will likely lead to a fair ] application to prevent any issues.
"Projects pending" had only one subsection, copied below. A project pending since 1990 does not seem to merit inclusion, but perhaps a mention of the land and how it's being used today could be added elsewhere to this, or more fittingly, to the ] article. However, more recent references are lacking. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 20:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


:''In 1990, Jetsunma announced ambitious plans to build a monastery for 500 monks and nuns on 65 acres of land purchased by KPC. Sixteen monks and nuns were temporarily housed in a retreat center until the monastery could be built. As reported by Mirabella magazine, by 1992, Jetsunma asked that the ordained offer the retreat center to be renovated into a Lama residence.(Blythe, pg 112) The monastery has not yet been built though some ordained live on KPC property. Plans for a future monastery are still pending.''
Mike has an extreme ] and the decision should be deferred to informed editors responsibility. '''Please ask Mike what is an editor's responsibility to prevent libel, that's the issue here with ].''' This is what is most relevant '''now''' within Misplaced Pages.


===Removed - Hosting of important Tibetan Buddhist teachers and teachings===
'''Please side with the greatest caution ZenWhat and apply ].''' Again, it's in everyone's best interest to apply ] to this article. Especially, after we've taken great steps to educate you as to the issues. As per policies, this issue may require a Request for Comment among editors for better resolution.
There was no RS offered for this section:


:Jetsunma has invited and hosted many important Nyingma and Kagyu lamas and offered her centers in Maryland and Arizona as venues for their teachings, including: HH ]; Ven. Gyatrul Rinpoche; HH Khenpo ] & Ani Mumtso; HH Karma Kuchen Rinpoche; Mugsang Tulku; Khentrul Gyangkhang Rinpoche; Khenchen Tsewang Gyatso; Khenchen Pema Sherab; Khenpo Namdrol; HH ] (]); Ven. ] Rinpoche and Ven. Khenpo Tsewang Dongyal Rinpoche; ]; Ven. Yangthang Tulku; HE Taklung Tsetrul Rinpoche; HH Chetsang Rinpoche; Tulku Sangngag, Choji Rinpoche; ]; Ven. Ngagpa Yeshe Dorje; HH ]; Tulku Rigdzin Pema; Bhaka Tulku; Khenpo Tenzin Norgey; and Lama Kuntuzangpo, Baasan Lama, and Lama Baasansuren (]).
Would you have Wiki exposed to libel?

] (]) 22:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

:: This is something not even Alyce would argue. As she put it in the Buddha From Brooklyn, "I have the karma for fame." She's a public figure and has been since she was enthroned as a tulku in 1988 was written about by Associated Press. Since then she's had a book written about her life, a second book with an interview of her, numerous articles about her in the Washington Post, Mirabella magazine. Information about her has been published to over two million people. We've gone over this before with other editors. I welcome an additional third party of this question if you so desire. ] (]) 17:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

::: Yes, and you intend to apply her quote for "defame". In opposition to her intention. ] (]) 20:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

=== Jetsunma not found in "Public Figure" databases ===

I've checked the databases suggested in ] and have not found a listing for Jetsunma. This suggests little evidence that she is a ]. ] applies. ] (]) 23:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

:: I think everyone would agree that Misplaced Pages is a work in progress and its list of Public Figures isn't complete. Look, not even Alyce would contest the fact that she's a public figure. We went over this last December. To quote her again, "I have the karma for fame." ] (]) 17:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

::: I am sorry, I've contact the KPC leadership folks. They disagree and consider this a potentially "serious question". I had to tell them, based upon your talk page comments, folks were making decisions upon your edits. ] (]) 19:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

:::: Thank you. I'd assumed that you were a student and yet you grew irate at my "assumptions." I appreciate the confirmation.

:::: It's irrelevant whether KPC students think she's a public figure or not. Obviously the press thinks she's enough of a public figure to write two books and numerous articles in the Washington Post, Associated Press, Mirabella, Elle magazine, and elsewhere. If I recall, The Buddha From Brooklyn mentioned that Alyce was making a documentary about her own life and sold the story to Hollywood as well-? You can't seek out fame and then only selectively call yourself a public figure when it suits you. ] (]) 23:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

:::: It's entirely relevant to folks that may be also harmed by libel. You ignorance of the standards to be applied is beginning to offend me. ] (]) 01:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

:::: This Public Figure definition http://w2.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-defamation.php#7 should help you see that there's no evidence that Jetsunma "''actively sought, in a given matter of public interest, to influence the resolution of the matter''." To do such, might violate 501(c)3 restrictions on political activities (see ]). These rules specifically excluded her from being a Public Figure. So with this included, it doesn't apply. 02:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)] (])

::::: Second verse, same as the first. Here you go:

::::: This is not private information. It is widely known. It appeared in Mirabella magazine which has a circulation of 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. Not to mention that Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo participated in the <i>Buddha From Brooklyn</i>.

::::: On the one hand, I get tired of the repetition of the same argument that's been settled by third party review. On the other hand, it does save me some time when I've already answered the same question. ] (]) 19:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::: I hear you, let me suggest making points that are supported by relevant standards. Your pointless repetition absent a standard citation is tiring.] (]) 02:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

=== Wiki Requires Conservatism in ] ===

Look, the argument to not apply ] is really quite risky. It's very clear in many cases and notices that Wiki Requires Conservatism in ], see the two at the top of this page. Wiki even has special procedures for Politician's because they are ]s. By my judgment, not applying ] is not conservative. Given that there is a high ] required for ] (possibly ], requiring multiple sources as ] intents). None of us in a position to assert the "truth" because as far as I know we were not witnesses. Anyway, we must go by references. To be conservative about the "truth" ] requires a primary and secondary reference. I am a loss to provide better guidance to you, aside from reaching into ] lawsuits to pull out precedent. ] (]) 19:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

::* Case precedent, ] illustrates that mere ] in applying ] could be cause for concern. Again I urge you to consider the "serious question" here.] (]) 02:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

=== Starting Dubious Material Enforcement ===

I've begun to "be bold" Dubious material enforcement with citations and "black lines". Unadressed negative material without original secondary source ciation will be removed to avoid lible. ] (]) 15:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

: Stop removing entire sections from the Talk page. Also, stop abusing the "dubious" tag for everything you don't like. Random House is not even remotely dubious. ] (]) 00:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Longchenpa, you have excuted 1 revert in two instances to subvert this policy, and risk a ban. see ]. I am self-reverting your reverts. ] (]) 21:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

: LOL! You are not a moderator and you don't set policy on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 00:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


I've been applying the dubious tag with regards to enforcing ] requiring a secondary source to be verified and protect the truth. There may be a better tag as I've notice folks are editing out my dubious concern. Does anyone have a sugestion for how I should tag material that is contencious and requires a secondary source? ] (]) 18:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

=== Published by Random House means it's not dubious ===

Zulu, please don't abuse the "dubious" tag for everything that you don't agree with. The material is from ''The Buddha From Brooklyn.'' The book was published by Random House, and written by a reputable journalist. Hell, it has a blurb by '''Bob Woodward''' on the back and he even helped edit. The reputations of the publisher and editors involved are so far from dubious that it's hard to find anything less dubious. ] (]) 21:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

One again, you may be ] with '''Feigned incomprehension, "playing dumb" ''' The material must be verified with 2 sources, (a secondary source) and the burden of proof is on you, to protect the truth. This was well announced to you here in this section, please don't fork this section's issues it's not civil. I am working on ] enforcement. You can rewrite the material with better qualification or cite a secondary source to keep it. Let's it be deleted. ] (]) 22:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

: I'm going to move this discussion down to the bottom, because it's hard to find it here. ] (]) 00:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

:: I respectfully refuse to engage at the bottom, it belongs here. ] (]) 00:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


Picking up here, the material is dubious becasue folks have complained, and ] requires a primary and secondary source in order to assure better verification against possible libel. Random House alone does not provide adequate protection here. I have no better tag but dubious to apply. ] (]) 22:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


Longchenpa, the Martha Sherril and Will Blythe sources you extensively cite for negative information. They were not authorized by Jetsunma, were they? Has this no bearing on your decision to include them without a back up reference to be sure? ] (]) 03:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

=== Bias and other's concern ===

For a overview on bias and other's concerns with this article see here:

*]

] (]) 14:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

=== Biography Privacy Rights===

As a notice so folks are not reckless in their considerations here, when Privacy Rights apply as to the "Public Disclosure of Private Facts", this deals with the publication of private and embarrassing facts that are not related to matters of public concern. So please, when considering what to include with a single reference, you must ask:
* Did the subject act to make this information a matter of public concern or did someone invade the subject's privacy by publishing the information without consent, in a biography such as we are working on here. ] (])

* "False Light Invasion of Privacy" -- this involves statements that may be literally true and not "private" or necessarily "embarrassing", but may still be a privacy invasion it suggests something false or misleading about the person. ] (]) 13:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

=== Dispute History ===

* Third Party Review -

* ANI Resolved

* Alert -

* 3RR No Violation


=== Archive ===
I've ended the RFC related to this section. Will be best to Archive in continuous block with other sections in this talk. ] (]) 05:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

== Acclaim section ==

Zenwhat, please explain which POV you are excluding by removing the Acclaim section? I was working toward matching ] which has similar Acclaims. ] (]) 19:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed ] and really don't see much about obvious POV pushing. The Recognition and HHPR acclaim quote content are highly significant to this subject's notability. The Crucify quote is controversial, however like many of the other controversies, the subject is not notable for them. see {{cite web |title= deleted content |url= http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jetsunma_Ahkon_Lhamo&diff=229057281&oldid=228938540}}] (]) 20:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

:: We need something meaty for a separate acclaim section. If it's just a review of her CD saying she has a lovely voice, it'll sound like damning her with faint praise. ] (]) 17:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

:: As far as using a blog for the acclaim section, as you yourself pointed out in March, we can't cite blogs on Misplaced Pages. Do you really want to do that anyway? What Lama Tenpa had to say about Alyce in his blog was damning. ] (]) 18:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


:::Blogs aren't reliable. I've heard that Tenpa was a fraud. I don't know for certain, but because they're both blogs, for all we know, both sites are fake. Neither should be used. <font size="4">]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;]</font>&nbsp;(]) 19:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

:::: Neither should be cited because blogs just represent personal opinions. They're not fact-checked, and blogs are by nature highly biased.

:::: Off-topic, I looked into the Lama Tenpa situation. I could find nothing to substantiate Lama Tenpa's recognition. On the other hand, I could find nothing to indicate he'd put up a shingle and announced he was a guru either. There's some personal altercation with a past girlfriend, so he sounds like a pretty ordinary Joe to me, except that he's been married a dozen times.

:::: I spoke with some people who know the situation. The whole thing is classic KPC: Tenpa was running his blog and recommending this teacher and that, and was doing something with Tibetan medicine. Alyce has ongoing health problems (talked about in the Buddha From Brooklyn) and invited him to come to the temple to consult. His qualifications are zero as far as I can tell.

:::: Within five months he and Alyce were engaged (not something mentioned on his blog and not uncommon for Alyce). He was asked to take over as CFO by Alyce after two students were arrested in Texas for driving Alyce's car with drugs in the back (turns out it was a mother and son, a pretty squeaky clean pair). After checking out KPC finances Tenpa pointed out what every other CPA has told Alyce (as published in Mirabella): that she could get in trouble with the IRS. He told her because of his past situation with his girlfriend (the girlfriend had shot him and then set the house on fire to cover up the blood. Against his attorney's advice he refused to press charges because she'd get deported. He ended up going to jail.) he could get into trouble being anywhere near KPC's finances. He called in an investigator and told Alyce to come clean and cut a deal with the IRS. Alyce then ordered the nuns to hold Tenpa hostage. One of the nuns refused and got Tenpa out of there. KPC students then descended on the nun's house demanding that she turn Tenpa over to them. She ordered them off her property. She then got Tenpa and drove him halfway across the country, fleeing KPC. It sounds an awful like like that other nun who ran, see The Buddha From Brooklyn. KPC then started leveling charges against Tenpa that he'd defrauded them, with no evidence that I've seen so far. They've also made claims on one of their many blogs that the nun was crazy, etc., with no evidence for that either, the usual slander against an ex-student. Sounds like revenge to me. ] (]) 23:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

::::: Interesting story, I wish I could believe it. The man works his way in to defraud, with financial implications, seems like an allegation, to be withheld for jury.] (]) 01:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::: I have never met or spoken with Tenpa, although KPC students told me last winter that he was marvelous. When I asked what his credentials were, they didn't have an answer. It seemed it all came from Alyce praising her latest pet. *eyeroll* As far as the details, these are well-known among the "first wave" KPC students. You're a student of hers, so don't bullshit me. ] (]) 19:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
{{hidden end}}


=== Early Life section ===
:::::: Longchenpa, I should advise you that meeting minutes can be considered private, and not to be published. I don't have these, and you consider me a student? I often wonder what your role as a student is, you have been studying this subject for some time longer than me?] (]) 01:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
NPOV needed fixing. The early life section is still too long. ] (])

::::::: I don't know why you wouldn't. They were posted publicly on the internet. As for my stance on KPC, I think it's no secret that I think the evidence very clearly that Alyce Zeoli is as corrupt as they come. There's complexity to the issue, which is what makes the story interesting. ] (]) 19:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::::: '''Corrupt''' is a really serious allegation from someone who should be holding a Neutral Point of View. What publications do you have to support your potential libel here? Seems like you continue to defame on this talk page which is serious breach of wiki standards. ] (]) 02:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::: Let me remind you Longchenpa, this section was intended for Acclaim, lest you corrupt it.] (]) 02:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::: 1) She was arrested for physically assaulting her students.
:::::::::::: 2) She has a salary of $100,000 per year and no one knows what she does with it, given she has no rent or expenses and students pay for her houses (plural).
:::::::::::: 3) She has diverted temple funds intended for statues and monastery buildings for her own personal use.
:::::::::::: 4) She hosted a divorce party where she and her students abused her ex-husband in effigy.
:::::::::::: 5) She has taken one student after another as her consort, publicly vilifying them on the way out the door (Tenpa is merely the latest) and punishing students who say no.

:::::::::::: You can call that what you like. Other than sit on a throne and get recognized, has she done anything good? Every time I've found anything good about her, it's her students who gave all the money or did all the work. I'm noticing that you're having trouble finding stuff not published by Alyce herself (i.e. Palyul Productions) for the Acclaim section. In 1995, Penor Rinpoche said that most of the harm in Dharma right now is being done by tulkus, while most of the good is being done by ordinary sentient beings. ] (]) 04:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


:::::::: Look you're getting out of hand. I apprecaite your agenda. However you are violating ] with some of your discussions and by repeating blog material. I'll have to ask you to withdraw the dubious material. These claims are not fully substantiated as to ] they could be harmful. At best your ] with circular logic to assume there is guilt where there is accusation. Any reference to these claims must meet ] and be citation qualified. You know the source would not like this here, is that not reason enough. I'll remind you that if administrators find concern they can block you. I would like to see you stay on. ] (]) 05:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::::: I agree it's somewhat off-topic, but you and Zenwhat have both participated in the discussion of Tenpa, and you opened the discussion of blogs by using one to support your acclaim section. I note that you called Tenpa a fraud here (he's arguably not a public figure) without acknowledging pertinent facts like he was engaged to Alyce -- which complicates KPC's accusations all over eSangha. Konchog Norbu, a KPC monk and student of Jetsunma, was the person who made the accusations before the thread was frozen by eSangha mods back in March.

::::::::: "I would like to see you stay on." rofl! This would be more convincing if you hadn't threatened in the past (was it February?) to have me banned. ] (]) 05:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


::: Tenpa's defamatory blogging is the most unreliable, not substantiated. By my research Tenpa was a fraud as far as the Ngingma are concerned. He was recently arrested for probation violation on ex-wife assault. It's in the pubic record. ] (]) 19:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

:::: Alyce has shown her usual good judgment in consorts. But knowing that Alyce and Tenpa were engaged changes the issue quite a bit. ] (]) 19:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

::::: Sorry, I can't continue in your ] discussion. ] (]) 02:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::: The point remains the same. You can't use a blog to support your acclaim section. Even if you could, you wouldn't ''want'' to, because you'd open the door to Tenpa's blog. And Captainsnark for that matter. ] (]) 05:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::: The point that negative material must have a secondary source remains the same as well. ] (])


:By the standards of Misplaced Pages, blogging in general is regarded as unreliable. Your own research is irrelevant here. <font size="4">]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;]</font>&nbsp;(]) 21:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

: True about blogging by it's self, I contend it supports that PP published the material. It matches. As far a Tenpa, I was researching for a article on him, and found no sources.] (]) 22:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

:: Palyul Productions is run by Alyce herself. It's her publishing wing. ] (]) 23:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

:: Ok, now please don't be evasive. How do you consider ] to apply?] (]) 01:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

::: Can you try for a new argument? Just to keep this interesting? Because we've down this road before, here let me get the link. ETA: ] (]) 19:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

:::: ] is the standard that applies, I am sorry if you don't like it. I must remind you that continued effort to be evasive would not likely be looked upon favorable among commentators and administrators. ] (]) 02:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

::::: Isn't it your wikilawyering that's being questioned at the moment? ] (]) 05:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

::::: The ] issue was quickly resolved by experienced folks as an over-reaction. You'll see it's a pejorative term. I have not been making "ill-founded legal reasoning" for things like standing, or authority. Just simple reference for Wiki standards for dispute resolution which is OK. You might want to consider retaining a lawyer if you continue to press a POV that may include libel. This off topic talk is not OK for this section.] (]) 15:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::: In other words, it was your wikilawyering that was in question. That's what I read. ] (]) 23:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


'''Suggest removal of off-topic material as ] and ] white space violation.'''. ] (]) 16:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::: Have you decided that you will not use a blog to support your new Acclaim section? Because until then, the discussion should stay. ] (]) 21:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::::: Please understand, negative infomation from blogs, must be removed. I am disapointed you brought it in here off-topic, I would like to strike the dubious material. ] (]) 15:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::::: The discussion is about your attempt to use a blog and self published material as a source. As I said above, "Neither should be cited because blogs just represent personal opinions. They're not fact-checked, and blogs are by nature highly biased." If we're no longer using a blog as a source, then we can archive the discussion. ] (]) 17:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest archiving this discussion and beginning anew on the material itself. Discuss each blog or self-published source separately as the deciding factors are about the source itself, not so much the content. -- ] (]) 17:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


:: Thanks, what should we do with unsourced/poorly sourced negative info from blogs in this talk page? ] (]) 17:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

::: The offtrack material also treads on ] and ]. ] (]) 13:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

=== Archive Proposal ===

If folks will OK removing potentialy harmfull blog and unsourced material, I am OK for archiving this section. ] (]) 18:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

: Don't. Not right now. Let it sit a few days. Once the section gets stale, archive it. Otherwise leave it alone. -- ] (]) 18:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

== Teachers and Terton Acclaim ==

Longchenpa, the Terton and His Holiness teacher's acclaim, long life prayers, I wish to include are published by KPC and Palyul Productions with 1 other blog instance.

* http://www.tara.org/JALmoreinfo.html
* http://www.palyulproductions.org/

I heard you when you could find no good things to say, I assumed your bias (indicated by the long uncivil off topic discussion blinded you to the Tibetan Lama long life prayers. The off topic discussion above violates many and must be removed. ] (]) 22:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

: You cannot use a blog and self published material as evidence. ] (]) 00:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

:: I can't because you have a POV bias against the self-published material. ] (]) 02:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

::: Petty insults and mean-spirited labeling are not conducive to a civil discussion.

::: The reason why blogs can't be used is that they represent one person's opinion. The reason why self-published material can't be used is pretty much the same. ] (]) 04:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

:::: What civil resason do you have for ignoring ]? ] (]) 14:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

::::: Zulu, if you want to add new information (especially using self-published sources), the burden is on you to say why they qualify, not state the policy and accuse everyone else of ignoring the policy. Make your case and stop with the wikilawyering. -- ] (]) 18:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::: Yes, I have made my justification proposal on ]. Once I copied right in front of you and you missed it, while complaining about formating and edit conflicts and something else I must stop. Please look again.] (]) 20:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

=== Ngawang Tenzin wrote Jetsunma Longlife Suplication ===

As far as the other blog for Ngawang Tenzin, well you're right Longchenpa, however the Mandarava material in question is support by the Blog and Palyul Productions publication. It's also highly relevant to this subject and the Madarava relevance can be co-berated by many other publications cited in this article. Can you supply any specific reason to doubt His Holiness Ngawang Tenzin acclaiming Jetsunma? He's taught at KPC a few times. One of his followers was married at KPC.] (]) 19:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

: The blog is a blog and doesn't conform to Wiki standards. Palyul Productions is Alyce's self-publishing wing and can't be used as a source. You'll have to find a source that's not self-published. ] (]) 23:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

:Why do you chose to ignore ] for PP, this is tiring? ] (]) 01:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

:: See now both KPC and PP offer the material for verification in ] see http://www.tara.org/JALmoreinfo.html. ] (]) 03:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

=== Specific language ===
Since a part of ] is about the content from the self-published works, what specifically, Zulu, do you want to add to the article? If it's on the terton acclaim, would something like "KPC adds that His Holiness Kusum Lingpa discovered that Jetsunma as a "direct emanation of White Tara and the manifestation of Mandarava, mystical consort of Padmasambhava" be ok? It recognizes that it is self-published (good enough until we can find a reliable source), is fairly non-controversial, and is just factual. -- ] (]) 18:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

:Thanks for asking, I am intrested in adding properly qualified quotes from the "long life prayers" found here . I started the specific language it was edited out and lead to the Acclaim discussion, until it got derailed with an off tract coatrack. I'll propose specific language again. ] (]) 18:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

::: * For ref copied from below "... I am making a claim that Tenzin wrote the supplication as PP published. I claim it's not harmful to third parties and not "unduly self serving" because it serves him and Jetsunma for the same purpose and harms no one else. I claim it highly relevant to this subject. The passage can be qualified as per Misplaced Pages:CITE#QUALIFY and be included as per Misplaced Pages:SELFPUB. It's not contentious to me. I don't see how the "academic" argument is relevant, any academic would begin research with this self-published souce.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)" ] (]) 18:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

:::: Zulu, stop changing the formatting. It's impossible to respond when you keep changing the text every few minutes. I keep getting edit conflicts every time. Second, you pointed to a single reference and a single link and instead of telling me how you are planning on using '''that''' reference, you've added a bunch more for language you want. I will not respond to these until you deal with these things one at a time. The discussion is specifically focused on the one link you provided me first. There is no "Tenzin" in the article so you are introducing a new section. What is it about and what is its purpose? -- ] (]) 18:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

::::: Listen, I am starting to consider all your "Stop", "Stop", "Stop" to be uncivil. I get edit conflicts from you too. Let me take some time to review this better. ] (]) 20:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


==== For Recognition Section ====

In 2004, H. H. Ngawang Tenzin of the Drukpa Kagyu lineage in Bhutan recognized Jetsunma in a Long Life Supplication. <ref> {{cite web |title = Tenzin, Ngawang, 2004, "The Immortal Swastika, a Long Life Prayer for Jetsunma Ahkon Norbu Lhamo"" (Accessed 7/30/2008) | url=http://americandakinistory.typepad.com/an_american_dakini_story/blog_index.html}}</ref><ref> {{cite web |title = Palyul Productions, "KPC General Prayer Book", LOSAR 2005 |url = http://www.palyulproductions.org/html/practice_texts_-_no_empowermen.html}}</ref>
::''"Mandarava the Dakini, nurtured by Guru Orgyen Pema Jungne''
::''To benefit beings of the degenerate times without Dharma''
::''Manifesting in ordinary human form to tame beings, Precious Jetsunma"''

: What do you intend to use this for? ] (]) 00:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

:: Longchenpa, I won't find a productive discussion with you until you adopt ]. Can you accept this? You seem to have evaded it so far. ] (]) 02:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

==== For Controversy Section ====

H.H. Penor Rinpoche "Crucify" Quote
Jetsunma reported that her guru His Holiness Penor Rinpoche once said: "''Because I have recognized you and I have the right and the responsibility to do so, there will never be any conflict with any Tibetan teacher or practitioner who knows who I am. But," he said, "actually, your own kind, the Westerners, will probably crucify you.''"<ref>What is Buddhism? </ref>

: Did you find a new cite for this quote? Because when this came up you were quoting an interview where Jetsunma quoted Penor Rinpoche. We can't use a third party quote. ] (]) 23:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

:We've had this discussion, I must ask you to cite your policy to be productive. You seem to ignore ]. ] (]) 02:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

==== For Acclaim Section ====

* H.H. Penor Rinpoche - ''"When I first traveled to the United States and I met Jetsunma, and on that occasion I noticed that she had developed in her mind stream a very great development of the Bodhicitta, the awakened mind and that she had taken the vow to work for the welfare of all parent sentient beings according to the meaning of the awakened mind."'' <ref> {{cite web |title=Jetsunma in India 1996 - Part 1 (as translated, accessed 7/30/2008) |url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzL-4K9k-9g}}</ref>

: Can we link to YouTube videos? ] (]) 00:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

:: Yes, this it a World Wide Web citation of a Self Published Source. There's no copyright issue because it's fair use. see:] ] (]) 03:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

::: Hmm. YouTube is a self-uploading site and those clips are uploaded by Jetsunma's center. I'm not sure about this. Let me look into it. ] (]) 18:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

* Musical - "''The latest example of someone getting it right comes in the form of a new CD from Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo, a female Western Dharma teacher from the Nyingma School, called Revolution of Compassion...''” <ref> Sperry, Rod Meade, “Chocolate and Peanut Butter For Your Ears”, Shambala Sun, January 2008 </ref>

: Looks fine to me. ] (]) 00:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

:: Thank you. I'll add it. ] (]) 02:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

=== Justification ===

Following ], here's why the self-published quotes are acceptable:

The material used is relevant to the notability of the subject being discussed;

'''1. it is not ];''' The material is agreeable and not marked by jealous discord.

'''2. it is not unduly self-serving;''' The material serves both the subject and object for the same purpose. It's not "unduly" in the sense of cross purpose conflicts or harm. Nor, is it overly promotional in the ] sense.

'''3. it does not involve claims about third parties; ''' There is no third party cited in the quotes. These are single and two party quotes. The parties are all united in well established Tibetan Buddhist ] student teacher relationships that aim toward ] unity.
'''4. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;''' The claims are directly related to the subject's notability events.

'''5. there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;''' The publications are verifiable to the sources. The quote are reasonable attributed to the authors, who have a distinct connection to the publication sources.

'''6. the article is not based primarily on such sources.''' Nope, it is not.
] (]) 18:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


A week has passed since I posted this Justification, no feedback yet received. Safe to assume the material is relevant to the article. ] (]) 13:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

: It looks like you just reposted Wiki policy again. What quotes do you mean? For what? ] (]) 17:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

:: The quotes in this section. ] (]) 19:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

=== Avoiding Edit War <s>(From L: don't make massive changes and then preemptively call any corrections an "edit war")</s> ===

I reverted Longchempa's removal of the Penor Rinpoche quote. Discussing this in the Edit Summary isn't appropriate, more so when we have taken great efforts here. I appreciate Longchenpa concern about Self Published material, however I am not seeing a specific issue in conflict with the appropriate Wiki Standard. It would be unfortunate if this would turn into an Edit War, with no reason but a bias. ] (]) 02:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

: The Penor Rinpoche quote is sourced through a YouTube video uploaded by Kunzang Palyul Choling. This is not kosher. Find another source. And once again, personal accusations do not contribute to discussion. ] (]) 21:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:: I hear your concern about "kosher", where's your policy to justify removal. I've made my justification with policy to include. ] (]) 01:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

::: It's self-published. If you can use a self-uploading site like YouTube, then we can use blogs, which aren't included because they are self-uploading and self-published. But we can ask Protonk if you like. He seems to know the policy very well. ] (]) 03:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

::: Yes, you can when you follow ] and ]. You are being unreasonable and You leave me no choice but to ask for a third opinion in this dispute. (P.S. I don't appreciate the refactoring of my section title.) ] (]) 04:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

== Questions for Longchenpa ==

Longchenpa, what is the source for:
*"Only Orgyen Kusum Lingpa has confirmed this recognition" and "Other Lamas, including Penor Rinpoche, have remained silent concerning her second recognition"? If there's no specific source for that, then the sentences could be considered weasel words.

: I'll check The Buddha From Brooklyn for a page number. ] (]) 23:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

: That could probably be considered original research and I accept it being deleted. I have a file on KPC 8" thick including various articles written about them, financial records, and in this case meeting minutes from last February discussing how the heck they were going to pay for "Liberation Farms." I'd have to go to Maryland to access the public records on the ownership of the property and it's not worth the trip. ] (]) 23:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

*How is "several years" untrue?

: You yourself acknowledged on my talk page that the criticism of KPC is long-standing. "Several years" is in particular not true. Even if we just go by her arrest and when the scandal of her beating students spread, that was in 1996, twelve years ago. By no standard is twelve years "several." ] (]) 23:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

:: Pardon me but 2 source verification not truth is the correct standard here. ] (]) 03:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


Also, now I see what ZuluPapa5 was trying to add. Palyulproductions.org is obviously not a reliable source on Tibetan Buddhism overall, since they are themselves biased. Similarly, you can't cite a Christian group's website on the overall truth about Christianity. That's soapboxing, Zulu. Cut it out. <font size="4">]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;]</font>&nbsp;(]) 19:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Precision Case-by-case is what I say for Palyulproductions.org. Excluding whole hardly would not be beneficial.] (]) 19:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
::Case-by-case is right. We can cite Palyul productions as a source for the opinions of Jetsunma and Palyul, but not as a reliable academic source on Tibetan Buddhism as a whole, which is the issue at hand here, since you're making a very specific claim about Tibetan Buddhist theology and just using a blog as a reference and "palyulproductions.org" as support. <font size="4">]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;]</font>&nbsp;(]) 21:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

:: I an not following you, I am making a claim that Tenzin wrote the supplication as PP published. I claim it's not harmful to third parties and not "unduly self serving" because it serves him and Jetsunma for the same purpose and harms no one else. I claim it highly relevant to this subject. The passage can be qualified as per ] and be included as per ]. It's not contentious to me. I don't see how the "academic" argument is relevant, any academic would begin research with this self-published souce.] (]) 21:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, so then switch what I just said around: You're using "palyulproductions.org" as a reference and using ''a blog'' as support. You're still using unreliable sources. It doesn't matter which one is the main source if they're both unreliable. Please stop wiki-lawyering. <font size="4">]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;]</font>&nbsp;(]) 00:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

:: I am applying ] sources and requesting that they be qualified. Did you miss that request? Please engage in relation to this standard.

Why are you offended by my rational discussion (i.e Wiki-lawyering)? I don't consider it a personal attack, however it does not seem appropriate, while I am working my best effort to be civil with you, in a standard course of dispute resolution. I must disclose, I've been trained by some of the best in the area. ] (]) 01:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
::Hahahaha. Okay, then. I suppose we should seek mediation!

::Please file a request here: ] <font size="4">]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;]</font>&nbsp;(]) 14:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

:: You're welcome to file yet another request for mediation. At a certain point this is just wasting everyone's time. ] (]) 19:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

::: Mediation is not appropriate at this time, just like whining to the administrators, it's too early. RFC on the sections here on this talk page would be helpful. We should move stuff to the archive before inviting guests.] (]) 02:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

:

] is the best place to ask for help on ] and ]. If these don't help then an RFC on user conduct in evading polices would be beneficial. This is not a waste of my time. Seems like if folks would like to avoid this, then they should abide by the standards. We can wait a few days.] (]) 03:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"yet another request for mediation"? So there has been mediation between you and Longchenpa in the past? <font size="4">]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;]</font>&nbsp;(]) 12:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

=== Dispute Resolution History ===

Formally we have one (1) third part review on one (1) subject, resulting in me disclosing my Conflicts and well, still waiting on Longchenpa. Informally, there have been maybe 1/2 dozen other editors involved in this article. Longchenpa recent three revert violations, started me down a dispute resolution path to clean up the article and prevent a coatrack. Overall, I appreciate Longchenpa contributions, they have been helpful, just seems to be very bias on a negative agenda, that now I realize is a question beg. They article can be citation qualified during rewrite to avoid this. ] (]) 14:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

: What? I don't have a three revert warning. Please don't use the talk page to lobby against other editors. ] (]) 00:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

: What's with all the "warnings" from you on my (]) Talk page? You're not a Misplaced Pages moderator. ] (]) 00:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

:: Anyone is allowed to warn someone else. If the warnings are excessive or clearly an attempt to harass, inform the admins at ] and they'll look into it. Zulu, stop with the personal attacks against Longchenpa. Whatever his views are, discuss the content and the sources you want to use. Don't wikilawyer with vague policy discussions and instead just say "this should be allowed because (a), (b), and (c)." I am going to archive this section soon and warn you Zulu to stop making new sections that simply are a way to attack others. If you disagree, tell me exactly what you would like done with this section and this section alone. -- ] (]) 18:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

:: Pardon me, please see the first pargraph in] about being specific without ] perjurative use. This section was intended to keep track of the disputes as they occur and are resolved. Removing it would not help that intention. It could be updated. ] (]) 18:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

:: Please don't archive any of this section, you will disrupt the Request for Comment. It was started by ZenWhat. ] (]) 18:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

::: This belongs in the request for comment section then. I still don't see its relevance. The fact that there was another 3O is not important. The fact that Longchenpa hasn't revealed his conflicts while you have is a separate matter and isn't relevant now. Go back and ask the third-party about it and if not, make a mention at ] if it is impeding the article work. If you want to comment on his conduct, do a user RFC. Otherwise, I still don't see the need. I'll leave it be however. -- ] (]) 18:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

::: I propose archiving this and added a new Dispute Summary section to]. Would that be Ok? ] (]) 18:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

:::: Added the new updated Dispute Summary, can Archive now if folks want. ] (]) 20:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

== Teaches Compassion and Bodhichitta (again) ==

I apprecaite your concern ZenWhat about "She teaches compassion and ]", these are very specific occupational characteristics for a biography. We chose this subject for her occupation as lama. It can be verified to KPC and Palyul Productions like any other employment issue. They are the primary sources for this information. It's not original research. It was made the most simple language to apeal to Longchenpa. We had an extensive discussion resulting in this language. see ] 01:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)] (])
::It's not a job description, Zulu. It's vague. Saying she "teaches love and peace" doesn't objectively describe anything she actually does. Now, if you were to say, "She teaches Tibetan Buddhism, and the value of love and the doctrine of bodhicitta are aspects of that teaching," that is actually describing a fact. In this case, you are not presenting a fact, just a ridiculous metaphor. <font size="4">]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;]</font>&nbsp;(]) 14:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

:: Zulu Papa, we . That's exactly what I said. It's not a job description. At best it's redundant and useless information. ] (]) 19:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

::: I'll look again, it sure sounds like a job description to me. Do you have a alternative job description proposal. ] (]) 02:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

:::: Yes. "She's an enthroned Nyingma tulku and controversial American Lama of Tibetan Buddhism. She is the first Western woman to be named a reincarnate lama and she serves as Kunzang Palyul Choling's spiritual director" serves just fine. ] (]) 05:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


] item 4 was the best guideline I could find aside from other living Lama article examples. ] (]) 03:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Line 4 reads "what the person did." So, your argument here is that it should stay up, because "It's what she does." Wow. That is brilliant!!! <font size="4">]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;]</font>&nbsp;(]) 12:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, she has to have an occupation, right. We can add some specified x and y adjectives "She teaches x compassion and y ]" as long as they are not ] and are appropriate to reflect her teachings, yes? ] (]) 14:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

: The argument's ludicrous. Her occupation is Lama. End of story. ] (]) 21:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
:: What do you find ludicrous about adding unique specifics as per style guidelines? ] (]) 22:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


=== Let's wait on this issue ===

OK for now, we have more important ] issues to clean-up. Longchenpa, you have changed your mind since the discussion you started here ] I'll wait to address this later. I fear logical Fallacy going down ] and ] for a ] or ] with Zenwhat.] (]) 06:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

== Published by Random House means it's not dubious (Let's stop moving things around on the Talk Page so everyone can follow the order of discussions, eh?) ==

Zulu, please don't abuse the "dubious" tag for everything that you don't agree with. The material is from ''The Buddha From Brooklyn.'' The book was published by Random House, and written by a reputable journalist. Hell, it has a blurb by '''Bob Woodward''' on the back and he even helped edit. The reputations of the publisher and editors involved are so far from dubious that it's hard to find anything less dubious. ] (]) 21:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

: One again, you may be ] with '''Feigned incomprehension, "playing dumb" ''' The material must be verified with 2 sources, (a secondary source) and the burden of proof is on you, to protect the truth. This was well announced to you here in this section, please don't fork this section's issues it's not civil. I am working on ] enforcement. You can rewrite the material with better qualification or cite a secondary source to keep it. Let's it be deleted for libel potential. ] (]) 22:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

:: Random House is a reputable publisher. We have gone over this many times. It is not dubious. You have had a third opinion who said Random House's book was legit. ] (]) 00:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

::: This discussion is only relevant to ] requiring a secondary source to not be dubious. I will not continue this discussion in this section. You started the move with a section fork. ] (]) 00:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

:::: Talk page discussions need to be in date order so that other people can join the discussion and follow it. ] (]) 01:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

*Quick note on ]:
**You shouldn't move discussions around the page - it just confuses everyone. This includes moving comments from user talk pages somewhere else. Simply reply under someone's comment.
**Also, ], particularly correcting spelling or grammar - it's irritating and unnecessary, this isn't going to be published.
**Try not to accuse people of things or call them names - it's never going to help improve the article, just focus on that.
I realise things get heated here, try to step back and take a breath instead of replying straight away. - <span style="font-family:Hobo Std.; font-size:12px; ">''']'''<sup>''']'''</sup></span> 17:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

=== Archive ===

Any objections to archiving this section? I want to make room for the new discussion. ] (]) 05:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

: No, you've just launched a long series of edits. It's important not to archive the discussion. ] (]) 21:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

== RfC - ] violations ==




''' See dispute in ] where negative {{dubious}} information requiring primary and secondary sources is being maintained against ] and specificaly ]. ''' <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: . In his opinion she is a public figure. He's Wiki's attorney with a vested interest in protecting Wiki from libel. His opinion is convincing to me.

: Information published by Random House is vetted and not dubious. ] (]) 17:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

:: Note that this discussion has been going back as far back as ] all with the same view on outside editors. If Godwin thinks she is a public figure and Random House has vetted it, it seems reliable to me. BLP (and especially NPF when the figure is consider public) is not meant to be used to hide damaging information. I've reverted the dubious additions. -- ] (]) 17:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

::: With all respect, Godwin says it's not a serious question. Editors must avoid false info see above. Have you considered:

::::* ]
::::] (]) 17:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

::::: I am well aware of policy. I was here when the policy came into effect and saw what started it. Quit jumping from policy to policy to keep trying to make the same point. I think we all get your argument: you believe Random House isn't reliable and want to see the material removed as poorly sourced or harmful because it's a living person we are discussing. While I'm not enamored with everything the sources have been used for, it's clear that they are reliable. The alternative is that you find sources that respond to the allegations (including self-published ones if needed) instead of simply attacking the source(s) again and again. I can't imagine that there isn't some response to some of the allegations. -- ] (]) 18:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::: I apologize, but my point is that negative material requires a primary and secondary source. Maybe, even greater when there have been complaints with folks saying the subject doesn't want it here. Random House alone, is not adequate for negative when it is contentious, must be published by another to be safe. I am sorry if I haven't made this directly clear to you. ] (]) 18:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::: There is no requirement to two sources for negative material. Besides, WP:BLP concerns material "whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable" so the same argument would apply to everything in the article. -- ] (]) 19:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::::: How do you read ] then? ] (]) 19:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
*I've been asked to give some input on this RFC. Rather than give a big 'ole wall of text, I would like to link and summarize a discussion I had elsewhere with ]. Basic ideas:
:*I believe ] is an important policy and where it applies it should be followed scrupulously.
:*I believe that the determination of 'when' it applies is a case by case matter. I don't know the subject so I won't make comments about this article, but some consensus should be reached among concerned editors. That consensus should be formed from an honest discussion about whether or not the subject: seeks publicity (e.g. interviews and profile pieces), is treated as a public figure by reliable (non-tabloid) sources, or holds some presumed position of public trust.
:*I believe that the application of NPF in articles where the subject '''''is''''' a public figure do damage to[REDACTED] and likely violate ].
*some support for those claims and a back and forth over some details is ] at ]. Hope this helps. ] (]) 23:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

:: Thank you, Protonk. It's not a point of debate at this point, but in case it comes up again (as it has many times), I believe Jetsunma is a public figure for these reasons:

::* Her recognition has been covered by Associated Press and picked up by such newspapers as the Washington Post and the New York Times.
::* She's had articles written about her in Mirabella and Tricycle magazine.
::* She filmed a documentary about herself in 1995, expressing her hopes to have it played on PBS.
::* She's produced, promoted, and sold several CDs of her singing.
::* She's been interviewed by Elle magazine, the Washington Post, and the Associated Press.
::* She participated in a biography that was published by Random House.
::* She was interviewed for a book about American Buddhist teachers.
::* She sold her life story to Hollywood, specifically Turner Productions.

:: There's more. I haven't included smaller local papers like the Gaithersburg Gazette and Sedona's Red Rock News, but I think the question is settled. ] (]) 00:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

::: Longchenpa, before you get too far off track. We must have a standard for ] and I don't see how these meet the threshold that could be applied. Please, cite your standard before continuing. ] (]) 02:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

::: Protonk, I apprecaite your input. I might ask you to consider the ], and ], as that what the Public Figure threshold exists to protect. Do you have any words of wisdom on these aspects? ] (]) 02:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

::::Ok. I read the article and most of this talk page. My opinion is that she is clearly a public figure. No doubt. This doesn't mean it is open season. It just means that the very stringent provisions of NPF don't apply here. And looking back at the talk page, this is the position you have been presented with from almost everyone here. Even the foundation's lawyer chimed in. My suggestion is that you ensure the page meets ] as material is added or removed but that you refrain from pushing the 'private figure' issue anymore. That probably isn't what you want to hear from me, so I'm sorry. about the page in general, as an uninvolved editor, I think it places undue weight on the controversies she has been embroiled in. Sources or not, devoting something like two sentences on an arrest without a conviction isn't kosher. But fixing ] and other POV problems doesn't require invoking ].

::::As for the requests for a legal standard, ]. We make a good attempt at following policy and we don't edit or make community decisions on a purely legal or procedural basis. It is unnecessary to make a formal argument as to what we mean by public figure if what the policy means by public figure isn't defined. In contrast, take ]. The words in the ] sentence are all independently defined. In those cases we may make statements appealing to thresholds and definitions. Where the policy is vague, assume it is intentionally vague. Assume that we are meant to work through this process through discussion and consensus, not sealawyering. I hope this helps you guys. ] (]) 04:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

::::: Well, folks seem conflicted on this that's for sure, we'll have to talk through with reason, absent a standard. I get concerned that selfish editor's are outweighing concerns for an individual's privacy. There is a conflict here, folks want it both ways to be protected. They want Public Figure protection should Wiki go to court, and so they get all the dirt. Then they want to cover themselves with WP:NPF, just in case. Specifically, when we have folks citing unauthorized biographies to created this unauthorized biography and we have indications that the subject is concerned about privacy rights. ] should be upheld as a conservative precaution in this case, <s>ir</s>regardless of the public figure definition. I can not support selfish activity that may recklessly disregard these concerns to reasonable privacy. ] (])

:(outdent). That's totally unreasonable. This talk page is filled with messages from people who want to meet you halfway on this. NPF doesn't apply in this case, not in a million years. Application of NPF to this subject is inappropriate. It's especially inappropriate to seek NPF protection "irregardless of" the individuals public figure status. As for the 'selfish' comments, it's pretty old hat to come in here and complain about anonymous editors seeking protection from scrutiny while they "expose" public figures. There's no tread left on that tire.

:And irregardless isn't a word. ] (]) 04:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

:Well, I want to meet folks half way on this too. There's only one editor that insists on keeping dubious material. Most do want to fix the POV and better qualify the source to "cover" themselves and so do I. What I have realized in this discussion, is that the sources must be qualified as an unauthorized biography. Possibly even to qualify that the subject may dispute the biography. I feel silly it took so long to get there, but we were facing edits wars in any attempt to change the content. I don't like that folks can keep dubious material, without a better ref qualification, and no real oversight. However, that's part of open source free rights. I wonder if my negative bias edit friend will agree to better qualification? I would not expect them to stand by the truth, only that the unauthorized biography has been released into the public record. I appreciate your "old hat" point, if it fits a bias editor, well then folks can see the selfish motives quite clearly. ] (]) 05:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


: As far as how ] applies, I must still disagree, it will always apply. Let's just hope it does not reach a court to enforce it. The aggrieved have only the Foundation to appeal to when editors go astray. ] (]) 05:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Longchenpa, I revered your closing the RFC because I think folks would like to hear your proposal to "meet you halfway on this". ] (]) 17:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

: You've had your community response from Protonk, Ricky81682, Mike Godwin has also offered his opinion in response to Zenwhat's question. The answer is unanimous with the exception of yourself. It's done. My understanding is you're supposed to take it down once you've received your community response. Otherwise it clogs the RfC page. ] (]) 17:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

:: You've had feedback as well. If you are having trouble finding a middle path in this, then we might have to proceed with mediation. It really seems like you are missing something here, most folks have looked at what it takes to be cautious in Public Figure (limited or not) and NPF. Do you notice anything about what makes a subject notable in these comments? ] (]) 20:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

::: Are you expecting more community response to this question? It has been six days since you posted the template, and three days since anyone in the community has commented. This template isn't a flag like most templates. It automatically posts a link to the RfC page. If you've already received comments, then it's supposed to come down. ] (]) 21:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

:::: I am expecting you to make comments about relevance and notability, in regards to limiting negative material. Some indication that you believe in caution to be respectful of privacy and human rights. Perhaps even acknowledgment that ] comes before guilt and no one should suffer the tyranny of false accusations. You might consider seeking a ] if you are having trouble with a bias POV. ] (]) 21:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

::::: This template is a request for community response. The community -- in the form of Protonk, Ricky81682, as well as Mike Godwin -- has responded already. Personal accusations do not promote a harmonious discussion. ] (]) 22:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::: I would appreciate a harmonious discussion. I am starting to realize you have little to give for a resolution. So, I must now take the editing into my own hands. ] (]) 03:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::: We can leave the template up for a few more days, but I think you have all the community response you're going to receive. ] (]) 22:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::::: Why are you in a hurry to close this? I am leaving you all the time allowed to be responsible toward limited public figure. Please see ] about closing. 15:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::::: Please refrain from personal swipes. Discusssion should stay focused on the article itself. If you think you'll get more responses, we can leave it open, but I believe it's been over two weeks now. ] (]) 17:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::::: Pardon me, I am aiming to improve the content here. Working to have you abide the Policy is not in ]. You seem to be oversensitive and unspecific about ]. ] (]) 20:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This should help: ] in this discussion. ] (]) 20:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


Moved to <s>Longchenpa, the Martha Sherril and Will Blythe sources you extensively cite for negative information. They were not authorized by Jetsunma, where they? Has this no bearing on your decision to include them without a back up reference to be sure?</s> ] (]) 03:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

=== Conclusion ===

RFC Ended, ZuluPapa5 conclusion is consensus not received on requiring 2 sources for negative info to be conservative. Many editors would like to see NPOV in this article. Now finding false light original research mixed in with sourced negative info. Some minor souring ref issues. Collaboration improving while some other disputes are escalating. Difficulty in having <s>other</s> Longchenpa acknowledge wiki policies to improve content. Remaining optimistic about the article NPOV improving. ] (]) 05:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

== Further reading section ==

I removed the entire "Further reading" section. The article is on Jetsunma and any further reading should at least involve her in some way. Books on the nature of Buddhism (or even on Western Buddhism) are far outside the scope of this article. -- ] (]) 18:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That was disruptive . There were several Books by Jetsunma in there. And all the books were verified to have a discussion on her. Please consider a reasonable revert. ] (]) 19:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

: Sorry, I put back the books by her specifically. However, I don't see how general books on Buddhism apply. If there were other biographies on her, on her church, specifically on her style, that would make sense to me but a book like, for example, ''How We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God'' cannot possibly have anything more than a scant mention of her. -- ] (]) 19:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

:: Ok, how's my change? I would like to keep the ones with American Buddhist relevance too. ] (])

=== Archive ===

This can be archived too, unless anyone objects. ] (]) 06:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

: No, no archiving now that you've launched a long series of extensive edits to the article, changing virtually every section. ] (]) 21:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

== Sherrill citations ==

Could someone help with the Sherill citations? I want to combine them but I've noticed that they come from five differences sources. I assume that most of the page numbers are from the ''Buddha from Brooklyn'' but I just want to make sure. -- ] (]) 18:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

: Maybe the Pico Iyer cites can be combined? It's a short article. Sherrill's book jumps back and forth in time quite a bit. Even with the index it is not easy to navigate. We need page numbers. You can't simply go to the TOC and find a chapter on the monastery, for example. It's organized by character.
: ETA: Ah. I see the issue. The other articles by Sherrill were added after all the Buddha From Brooklyn cites.
: ETA2: I've combined the remaining cites and clarified which are from the Buddha From Brooklyn and which from Sherrill's other articles. In a couple places there are pages that are close to eachother (241 and 242), so maybe those can be combined as well. ] (]) 23:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


I would like to see them combined too. There are several sources and the cross refs to correct may have been mixed up. Thanks for your help here. ] (]) 19:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

: I think we should remove everything from Sherill unless all the citations are fully clear, with date, year and even where someone read the book. We can never be too careful especially given the already dubious nature of Random House as a source. It also violates ], particularly ] and ]. We need to have two if not three very very reliable sources before we even hint at something negative about her. It wouldn't be fair otherwise. -- ] (]) 19:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
::According to Misplaced Pages's style guides, citations are supposed to be as specific as possible. A long time ago, I made the mistake in the ] article of trying to combine the "notes" and "references" section into one section. Upon further reconsideration, it simply makes sense: The notes section is where we keep detailed citations, such as specific page numbers. The references section is where we keep a bibliography of all the sources used. At some point, I need to go back to the Zen article and split all the citations, to back the way that they were.

::If you combine all of the sherill references into one or a few citations, then ZuluPapa5 is going to start arguing, "There are no sources in this article!!" or slap citation tags all over the place.

::Now, if you combine ''some'' of them, because the pages are in close proximity, then that makes sense, but combining all the citations would be a bad idea. <font size="4">]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;]</font>&nbsp;(]) 21:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

::: I agree. I'd like to see it cleaned up, but I've had to support statements line by line or else find them deleted or marked as dubious. ] (]) 23:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

::: You disappoint me Zenwhat, my next argument is ]] (]) 21:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

:::: I meant combined by page numbers, so that it is clear (like I did for Blythe). I also wanted to make sure all the citations are to the correct actual source. -- ] (]) 17:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::Ah, I see. I guess that makes sense. <font size="4">]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;]</font>&nbsp;(]) 19:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
::::: Yeah, I figured out that's what you meant when I looked at your changes. ] (]) 01:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

=== Archive ===

Is it OK to archive this? The links are cleaned up now. ] (]) 06:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

: You've just launched a long series of edits. I think it's important not to archive the discussion at this point. ] (]) 21:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

=== Ref Check ===

:::This caused the organization to run at a serious deficit.<ref name = Blythe112>Blythe, pg 112</ref> <s>According to one of her monks who was their finance manager, the temple was perpetually on the brink of collapse and foreclosure.<ref name = Sherrill241>Sherrill, ''The Buddha From Brooklyn'', pg 241</ref>
</s>
:::I double checked, and this material didn't show up in my 1st ed hardcover BFB pages 112 and 241. I looked a few pages plus or minus and can't find. It's questionable right now. Can someone provide an exact BFB quote to help home in better? ] (]) 02:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

OOPS, The second sentence checked out on my page 240, however is has a false light ("perpetually") to be corrected. ] (]) 02:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

:::: The page 112 cite is from Will Blythe. ] (]) 03:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
:::: The Buddha From Brooklyn cite page 241: "We were always on the brink of collapse and foreclosure, and that was hard to live with." It's possible different editions of BFB (I have the hardcover) don't match exactly. ] (]) 03:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

However this one doesn't check out right either near page 308.

::::Taiwanese donors gave $100,000 for a {{convert|100|ft|m|sing=on}} Amitaba statue, but the donations were instead used to pay for the first of Jetsunma's three houses.<ref>Sherrill, ''The Buddha From Brooklyn'', pg 308</ref>

::::: "And I was thinking about all the other things that I had learned from her--how the money for the Amitabha statue was raised in Taiwan, then used to pay for her new house" (Sherrill, 308). ] (]) 03:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

::::: Ok, so the $100,000 and first of three houses is original research? Right. ] (]) 04:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)



Sorry, I am not seeing "crippling" in my BFB source page 79. It looks like false light OR to me. Seems like "long standing debt" would be conservative to protect the innocent.

:: * Ani's Ink - A small typesetting business predicted to be a "sure thing" by Jetsunma left behind a crippling debt.<ref name = Sherrill79>Sherrill, ''The Buddha From Brooklyn'', pg 79</ref>

:: BFB p78 says: "There was a typesetting business called Ani's Ink -- much vaunted by Jetsunma a "sure thing," partly because of the auspicious year of its inception -- which left behind only debts and a cumbersome and obsolete typesetting machine that xxxxx was still paying off."

] (]) 04:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

== Musical "Acclaim" ==

I don't have any problem with the information being in the article, but having a section simply called "Acclaim" because one Buddhist magazine gave her a positive review on a CD seems a bit POV. I suggest keeping the information and moving it elsewhere. For instance, in her biography, we could mention when she started her musical career and then add, "Her album, Revolution of Compassion, was positively reviewed by Shambhala Sun magazine." <font size="4">]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;]</font>&nbsp;(]) 13:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

:Thanks, I agree about having a seperate Acclaim section. The orginal intention was to NPOV by combining the Controversy and Acclaim into one section, following the ] example. What may be an issue is what to include as noteable (i.e. What the subject is well known for) in the combined section. ] (]) 14:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

:: No, I don't agree to combining the sections. A separate Acclaim section is fine. ] (]) 14:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

::: I seem to recall you agreeing ]was a good format to work towards. The only policy difference I can make is living vs. dead. With what reason do you propose to keep separate sections? I am Ok for now, but ultimately as the material develops, it will be good to combine. ] (]) 17:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

:::: We should add an Acclaim section like his, certainly. But I do not agree with combining the sections. ] (]) 18:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

=== Archive ===
I am ok with Archiving this too. ] (]) 06:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

: There's no need. This is a recent discussion and the Acclaim section is not settled. ] (]) 21:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

== Authorized Biography ==
The Buddha From Brooklyn is not an "unauthorized biography." That implies Alyce didn't participate, which in fact she did. She and the KPC students opened their doors to Martha Sherrill and gave her their full cooperation with hundreds of interviews over a five-year period. Alyce only claimed it was "unauthorized" after it was published because it included criticism of her. Only a student of Alyce would call this unauthorized. By publishing standards, it is an authorized biography. ] (]) 22:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

: Ok, we can better attribute this when you point to a reliable source other than yourself. I see nothing in the Buddha From Brooklyn (BFB) saying authorized or unauthroized. This wiki biography is unauthorized too, as per wiki policy. ] (]) 01:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

:: Page 37, The Buddha From Brooklyn, Wib Middleton -- KPC's main PR person -- handled all Martha's interviews with Jetsunma. Page 60, one of many interviews with Alyce. Page 63-69, more interviews with her. Page 21, interviews with Sangye Dorje, her former consort and student. Page 17-18, more interview material with Wib... I could quote the whole book. Alana, Sherab Khandro, Aileen... interview after interview after interview. It's all from interviews with her and her students. The students inside KPC who spoke with her were vetted by Alyce. The problem that Alyce had with the book is that Martha, on page 66, didn't agree to not call Alyce's mother or her ex-husbands. But Martha was still given full access and even invited to go with Alyce to India on her pilgrimage to Mandarava's sacred sites. The sources and degree of access Martha had is obvious from the book itself. ] (]) 02:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have yet to find a source other than Jetsunma who considers this an unauthorized biography. ] (]) 03:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

== Jetsunma quoting Penor Rinpoche ==
It seems we need to bring some things out of archive. We've gone over . That quote is from her, not Penor Rinpoche. ] (]) 22:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

: Please site you sources and policy. The quotes are relevant, notable info from verifiable ] and a reliable source ]. It's not appropriate to go by your original research. I'll be Restoring the quotes and will consider any further reverts without valid policy site to be disruptive. We might want to consider a third opinion on your assessment. ] (]) 01:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

:: I don't do ]. This is standard procedure for any quote: you cite the source who said it. Penor Rinpoche didn't, she did. You've had more than one person tell you this. ] (]) 02:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

::: Well should I ask for an opion on this. We have standards to work with to help with dispute. I find your application of ] to be inappropriate and uncivil. If you don't address the standards, the administrators may not be kind to you. ] (]) 03:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

:::: Veiled threats are not appropriate for the Talk page. ] (]) 03:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

::::: Yes, thank you I feel it's best to warn before acting. Now remember original research is not appropriate for the article or supporting sourced material removal. ] (]) 03:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

== Reborn In The West ==
Reborn In The West never interviewed Penor Rinpoche, nor does it claim to. The book is from one interview with Alyce and needs to be cited as such. It's all from her. ] (]) 22:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

: I only attributed it to her, it seems apparent the info begins with her. This biography is about her. Please make edits to cite as you wish, but please avoid original research? ] (]) 01:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

:: No, the quote is what she says Penor Rinpoche said. She's misquoted Penor Rinpoche before. For example, what Penor Rinpoche had to say about her title "Jetsunma" was: "How did she get that title?" (Will Blythe, page 112). ] (]) 02:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

::: Please cite your source, this sounds like original research to me. ] (]) 03:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

:::: It's cited right there. That's the page number. ] (]) 03:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

:::: Thanks, I'll have to check further. I was interested in the source saying Reborn in the West is from one interview with Jetsunma, it appears students were interviewed as well. ] (]) 03:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

== Quotes sourced in The Buddha From Brooklyn are not original research ==
I realize you have fought tooth and nail for the last eight months to prevent anything from Random House's The Buddha From Brooklyn appearing in the article. Calling information cited from The Buddha From Brooklyn "original research" is unacceptable. You have had everyone up to and including Mike Godwin, Misplaced Pages's lawyer, tell you that Random House is considered a valid source by Misplaced Pages. Anything from that book is not "original research." ] (]) 03:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

My concerns are with your original research mixed in with the material. I am increasingly concerned about correcting to a ] to address the many comments we received about working to a NPOV. As I checked The Buddha From Brooklyn I've found material that's not represented in the source and presented in a bias false light. I also found some info there the pages ref were not correct or the material could not be found. I would like you help to correct this.] (]) 03:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

=== Unfair Characterization ===


=== History of this page ===
You know, you unfairly characterize my efforts with regards to BFB. I've been working to have cites qualified, proper attribution, negative info sourced by 2 sources to be conservative. I have not been working to prevent the entire BFB to be excluded from this article. However, I feel you have been working to entirely exuded self-published info, when there are case by case exceptions. ] (]) 05:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
A monk from KPC did in fact re-write this article, and I've largely been protecting the page from vandals and have been remiss in rewriting it to NPOV. But please respect BLP. This is a living person. I'm NOT a vandal so stop reverting my changes. ] (])


== Jetsunma Quotes from Mackenzie == == 2007 version of this article ==
], you're going back to an old version of the article from 2007 that we can't use. While the tone of that version sounds more neutral, it's riddled with problems that caused a massive edit war 12 years ago (yes, I've been working on this article that long). One of the problems is that it's riddled with dog whistles that violate BLP. The really big problem is that the references aren't accurate. When you actually go back to <i>The Buddha From Brooklyn</i> and look for the page references, you can't find things like 'gradually shifted from using "Christ consciousness" to "Buddha consciousness."' ] (]) 14:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
:I'm sorry: "you're going back to an old version of the article from 2007" - what does this mean? I haven't reverted to an older version, but have been editing the page as I found it. The page references don't align exactly with the copy of BfB that I have, but that doesn't mean these references were made up and don't exist. If you have a copy, please check before assuming this is the case.
:Please elucidate the problems to which you're referring; your comment as written leaves me in the dark and unable to help. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 06:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


== Jetsumma ==
Help me understand why these are objectionable? They seem very relevant to her religious declaration and teachers instructions to me. They are not self published and I don't see ] issues in them that would be off tone or off topic or a coat rack bias. ] (]) 04:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
The subject was referred to throughout the article as "Jetsunma." Jetsun or Jetsunma is a Tibetan title meaning "venerable" or "reverend." We don't refer to subject's by their title, only by their name. I've substituted Ahkon Lhamo throughout. ] (]) 18:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)


:: I noticed the change this morning. I've no objection, I think it's better for NPOV. I made a point of doing the same for the Khenchen Konchog Gyaltsen article. ] (]) 17:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


== Re-write ==
{{Quote|"... If I had to say I had a religion at all, I'd go right along with the Dalai Lama in saying my religion is compassion. That's all I care about."|- Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo}}
Have done a complete rewrite of the article, revising hyperbolic language. ] (]) 22:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


== NPOV help needed ==


Please see of the article to get an idea of the thorough POV scrubbing that has taken place over the years. Readers are getting a promotional article rather than an encyclopedic one. <b style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8">]]]</b> 15:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
{{Quote|'He told me that I had to buy a center, a real temple, that I shouldn't be afraid. ... "Your going to think you can't afford it," he said-and oh, we can't!-"but you will find a way. Have faith, it will be all right. Eventually, " he added, "you will have places all over the world." '|- Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo}}
: This article will perpetually have POV issues, in large part because no one without a POV has any interest in it. An awful lot of what has been hacked out of it over time, however, needed to be, due to ] and libel concerns. We must take due care when addressing controversies and accusations. But even something as seemingly simple as whether to use Zeoli or Akhon Lhamo is going to see-saw back and forth forever as editors with different ideas of what constitutes "neutral" apply their particular points of view. —] ( ] | ] ) 22:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)


: Actually, what's happened is that we had a chopped up mess that was the result of an edit war, that was replaced with a promotional version, that is slowly being edited for a neutral tone and updated with more recent articles. The Buddha From Brooklyn came out in 1999 which was more than 20 years ago. Zeoli is in her 70's now. ] (]) 02:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
::Could it possibly be that it is blatant soapboxing, that it is blatantly POV and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia? Noooooooooo! <font size="4">]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;]</font>&nbsp;(]) 15:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


== Removing Characterization section ==
== Longchenpa, ZuluaPapa5: Cut it out. ==
This is a biography of a living person. ] (]) 02:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)


== Moving Kunzang Palyul Choling-specific information ==
Longchenpa: Much of the tone of the article is extremely inappropriate and needs to be toned down for NPOV. For instance, ZuluPapa changed "crippling debt" to "long standing debt". This change is pretty reasonable, but you strangely reverted it.
Some of what's in this article should be on the ] page (such as fundraisers -- they are for the temple, not her). Others should be re-written to indicate her personal involvement. ] (]) 19:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)


:: Started the re-writes. ] (]) 19:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
: Crippling debt is a quote from ''The Buddha From Brooklyn.''


==Incomplete==
: It was the nun Ani Rinchen, who never had a lot of money, who was encouraged by Jetsunma to use all her savings and borrow as much as she could afford ($4,000, which wasn't a lot in the first place) to pour into a typesetting business. People in the field told her the trend was moving towards desktop publishing, but when she wrote to Jetsunma about it, Jetsunma told her that it would be a tremendous success because it was the year of the Iron Horse. The students who'd advised her that it was a bad plan then shut up, because who could gainsay the Lama? It was a financial disaster for Rinchen. Ten years later she was still paying it off. It was devastating to her personally, and also caused her to question her faith in her teacher on a spiritual level. ] (]) 17:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Having never heard of this person I came here to find out why people are angry at her. Not a line. Talk page shows evidence of repeated scrubbing. Look brothers and sisters, I understand that rants and innuendo have no place here, but where there is significant controversy, that's both notable and necessary to the facts. In this case, controversy is such that readers like me are finding out about this public figure through that alone. In such cases, most of our articles include a line in the contents called "Controversies" or "Controversy over X". Those links may lead to just one or two sentences, but they cover our encyclopedic duty.


This article needs such a section stat. Anything less casts doubt on the objectivity and reliability of our service. ] 23:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Referring to her temple as a "failed monastery," is POV, because the monastery still exists.


: No, thanks, that's troll bait. We tried such a section in 2008 and ended up in an edit war with both students and detractors. I doubt the Wiki mods want to referee another one. ] (]) 20:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
: What monastery? The monastery doesn't exist and it never has.
:I agree and added a section that discusses the controversies with citations to respected newspapers and magazines like LA Times, Tricycle and so on. This way, there is at least some information about this controversial teacher here.] 16:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


== Overlap between Kunzang Palyul Choling and this page ==
: Jetsunma told the ordained from 1988-1991 that KPC was going to build a monastery. It was never built. From 1988-92 sixteen monks and nuns lived at a retreat center that was considered to be a precursor to the monastery, and KPC did purchase 65 acres of land and draw up blueprints. Then in 1992, Jetsunma asked the ordained to offer her the retreat center to be renovated into a house for her, and any pretense of KPC building a monastery was dropped. Monks and nuns at KPC work full-time jobs and rent group houses, two here, three there, with no support or infrastructure whatsoever. People assume when they see these monks and nuns that they get to live like monks and nuns -- or that they have at least a building -- but they don't. Yet KPC can purchase three houses for Jetsunma.


: This is what Penor Rinpoche has been the most upset about, that she doesn't support her monks and nuns in any way. ] (]) 17:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC) I'm rewriting the charitable works section to focus on her actions. There is going to be overlap, however, because of the "follow the leader" effect typical of Buddhist temples: she adopts abandoned dogs, asks the temple to follow suit, then a dog rescue is founded, etc. Kind of impossible to separate it completely and still have an accurate article. ] (]) 23:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


== Deleted wildly biased section ==
Furthermore, Longchenpa, when I challenged the Acclaim section, you told me privately that you thought it was good for the Acclaim section to stay up, merely because she doesn't have much acclaim... Well, that doesn't make any sense. A section should only exist if there's enough information to create a section (this was the reason why I argued against the section in the first place: not enough content to fill the section). Since there isn't enough information on "Jetsunma's acclaim", you seemed to just want to allow the section in order to further make Jetsunma look ''bad'' in this article, by having the whole article filled with critical content of her, and a tiny Acclaim section which looks out-of-place (which ZuluPapa is now trying to fill with dubious POV garbage).
Deleted a section that was wildly biased -- recall this is a biography of a living person. We are not going through another edit war, dragging in three Wiki moderators. We went through that in 2008. ] (]) 13:16, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


: The reason there is no acclaim is that Jetsunma has a terrible reputation in the Tibetan Buddhist world. But who knows? Maybe there's some acclaim out there that I don't know about. If there isn't, I figure the Acclaim section will have to go eventually. ] (]) 17:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC) ::The references you removed are ], and a 2008 edit war is not sufficient justification for removing them. If you object to specific wording, please discuss the issues you have here. If there is a dispute about how these references should be included that can't be resolved here, a request for comment could be filed to get input from other editors.] (]) 15:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
:::They are book reviews and not reliable sources. And we're not going back to the edit war, forget it. ] (]) 02:28, 25 November 2022 (UTC)


== The promised rewrite is complete ==
ZuluPapa5: You are clearly trying to white-wash this article for your cult leader, Jetsunma. You have been uploading information derived from horribly sources (I mean come on, Youtube?! Also, it's been well-established why Palyul Productions is unreliable), outright removing information, wiki-lawyering, dumping copy\paste of policy on the talkpage, and trying to quickly archive talkpage discussions ASAP, in order to hide the fact that you are uploading the same kinds of nonsense, over and over, without any consensus. You are pretty obviously acting in bad faith and are not worth conversing with. Considering the extensive past mediation (and the fact that mediation should not even be done with contentious "advocacy editors," commonly known as trolls), I hope Misplaced Pages's administrators ban you immediately.
At long last, we no longer have discrete sections, but rather a narrative flow using articles about her life that pick up from The Buddha From Brooklyn (published 23 years ago) through news reports in the present. Thank you for your patience. ] (]) 06:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)


== Removal of Steven Seagal cite ==
That's all. Stop the edit-warring. Both of you should drop the agendas and leave this article alone, so that people ''without'' an axe to grind can make sure it's not pro-Jetsunma or anti-Jetsunma propaganda -- just letting the facts speak for themselves, without unreliable sources, weasel words, or omitting information. <font size="4">]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;]</font>&nbsp;(]) 15:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


: Here's how it has worked: I started out on the center with this article eight months ago. I'm not a fan of Jetsunma, but I have journalism experience and I can write a fair article. The more ZuluPapa has POV pushed, the more I've pushed in the opposite direction. Now I can write a better article, with more nuance to all of these issues, but I need to know that it isn't going to be turned into a sales pitch. ] (]) 17:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC) Agree with the change. The citation must be leftover from other material removed from the article. ] (]) 19:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:21, 16 February 2024

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis 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
WikiProject iconTibet Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Tibet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tibet on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TibetWikipedia:WikiProject TibetTemplate:WikiProject TibetTibet
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconBuddhism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconWomen in Religion Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconWomen
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
The following Misplaced Pages contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Archiving icon
Archives

Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3
Archive 4


Recognitions

I moved the new recognitions material to the recognitions section to be relevant. Also added in a few new sections headers to help the readers. Best, if the intro should follow these guidelines. WP:MOSBIO Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Cancer cure claims

Need to be removed from this article or written in a neutral tone. As if the ridiculous photo wasn't enough, claiming to cure cancer with prayer is a standard red flag for nonsense and needs to be fixed immediately. Viriditas (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll look at the claims and neutral tone. Apparently there are some new sections that have been added and I haven't been around in a while.
Her photo is fine, if you mean the main one. It's the same or similar to the one used in Associated Press articles about JAL. Longchenpa (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Ridiculous as Remission_(medicine)#Remission. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Rinchen Terdzod Section

I changed the wording to indicate that contrary to the prior text, there were other Westerners who were recognized and enthroned. In particular Vajracharya Ven. Peling Tulku Rinpoche, was enthroned by HH Penor Rinpoche in 2001 as the mind emanation of Padma Lingpa and the activity emanation of Karma Lingpa. He was the highest tulku ever recognized in a western birth.

Source: http://palyulcanada.org/wp/teachers/ven-peling-tulku-rinpoche

Geoff.zinderdine (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about the claim of anyone being the highest western tulku recognized--how does one determine such a thing?--but most of the articles about Jetsunma refer to her as the "first western woman to be recognized as a tulku."
I like the link and the article about Ven. Peling Tulku Rinpoche. It's sad that he's gone. When did he pass away? The article doesn't seem to say.
We should include the cycles of teachings and empowerments Jetsunma's received; it's important and we haven't covered it. Preliminary list... the Kama in 1988 from HH Penor Rinpoche, Rinchen Terzod, the Nyingthig Yabshi and Ratna Lingpa cycle in 1990 from Yangthang Rinpoche, Chod from Ngakpa Yeshe Dorje in 1992(?), the various termas from HH Khenchen Jigmed Phuntsog in 1993, the Nam Cho from HH Penor Rinpoche in 1995, not sure about what came after that. The Chimed Tsogthig was in there somewhere. Longchenpa (talk) 06:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

New source

for inclusion. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 13:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Eh. I'd rather not include it. It's depressing, for one. Also, it's a current event and we don't how important it's going to be to the article. It might be important. Might turn out to be a passing blip. In the meantime I don't want to elevate some crackpot. Longchenpa (talk) 06:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
It will take some other published sources to make it wiki significant and relevant. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
CNN, Forbes, Ars Technica. It definitely passes the notability test and should therefore be included. - Hux (talk) 07:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I looked at including it, but the case itself is The United States of America vs. William L. Cassidy. What it impacts is the cyberstalking law. The cyberstalking article definitely should be updated with this new decision. Longchenpa (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Stalking case

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2075332/Do-world-favor-kill-One-8-000-horrifying-death-threats-ruled-free-speech--author-posted-online.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Jude Order to dismiss https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/cassidy-order-121511.pdf

Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I looked it over. The case is The United States of America vs. William L. Cassidy. I agree it's notable and should be added to the cyberstalking article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Cyberstalking Longchenpa (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Add empowerments and teachings she's received

As I mentioned above, we should include the empowerments and teachings she's received. It's traditional, and other than the Rinchen Terzod, we haven't covered it. I have a preliminary list (above), though it's missing what she received in India in 1987 & 1996, and everything from '97-09. Not sure if it needs a new section or if we can include the info in some of the other sections. Longchenpa (talk) 06:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Where are these published? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Buddha From Brooklyn, as well as other sources. Longchenpa (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent BLP issues

I removed the recent string of edits which have disrupted the article with WP:BLP issues. There may be new sources to add controversial material, however they must be from reliable secondary sources and presented in a neutral tone to meet Misplaced Pages standards for inclusion. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Apparently people need to be educated about appropriate sources. In a particularly circular example (which proves the point) one of the references used was an archived version of this Wiki article. Longchenpa (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The article states that "her Misplaced Pages page is kept scrubbed free of references to controversy and mentions of the word "cult," with all edits critical of Jetsunma being removed usually within a few hours of posting." This is obviously incorrect, since the page contains many critical statements. Indeed, given that the quoted sentence appears on the referenced page, it's self-contradictory.35.16.4.82 (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The WP:BLP issues have been hashed out thoroughly. People don't understand that Misplaced Pages isn't the place for personal opinions. Longchenpa (talk) 08:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Secondary Sources in BLP

Apprecaite the contribution however, secondary sources may be required for this to maintain WP:BLP and remain in the article. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Alternate name

Hey,

I would just like to ask the mods to please make a search for "Catharine Burroughs" to link directly to her page. I couldn't remember this woman's real name or dharma name, just "Catharine Burroughs," and it took me like 10 minutes to find her page. (And yes, I know that this page is the first thing that pops up when you search using that name...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.212.83 (talk) 03:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. It's a thought. But I'm not sure what that would require. The times I've seen it have been when two pages were combined into one. Longchenpa (talk) 05:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Kapala image

The kapala image has been removed somehow. Looking for a new copy of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.141.74.63 (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Steven Seagal material

It seems that most of the information about Steven Seagal should be deleted from here, or moved to the Steven Seagal article, if it isn't already there; most of it isn't relevant to this particular biography. Any thoughts or suggestions? Thanks. AD64 (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of celebrities is definitely off-topic. I've removed it. Longchenpa (talk) 03:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of this, Longchenpa. Do you think that one line about Steven Seagal being the only other recognized tulku is relevant to the article? Appreciate your support. Best, AD64 (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Another thought, do we have sources that confirm that Ahkon Lhamo and Steven Seagal are the only other recognized western tulkus? I think there could be others. Thus, deleting all of the material may be the best call after all. Best, AD64 (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
There are numerous other recognized western tulkus, five mentioned in the film Tulku alone. Longchenpa (talk) 09:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Dec 2018 NPOV tag added to article

It looks as if, over time, this article has become non-neutral due to the paucity of well-sourced criticisms and controversies coupled with sourcing issues such lack of RS or possible overuse of primary sourcing. I'll be chipping away at this with the aim of a neutral, encyclopedic article per WP:BLPSTYLE. petrarchan47คุก 19:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Notes on edits made since NPOV tag

Removed - Prison program

I've removed the section on the prison program as it was sourced only to tara dot org (the subject's own site). The link provided leads to a dead page, and a search for "prison program" results in only one page that is of no help. petrarchan47คุก 19:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Removed - Projects pending

"Projects pending" had only one subsection, copied below. A project pending since 1990 does not seem to merit inclusion, but perhaps a mention of the land and how it's being used today could be added elsewhere to this, or more fittingly, to the KPC article. However, more recent references are lacking. petrarchan47คุก 20:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

In 1990, Jetsunma announced ambitious plans to build a monastery for 500 monks and nuns on 65 acres of land purchased by KPC. Sixteen monks and nuns were temporarily housed in a retreat center until the monastery could be built. As reported by Mirabella magazine, by 1992, Jetsunma asked that the ordained offer the retreat center to be renovated into a Lama residence.(Blythe, pg 112) The monastery has not yet been built though some ordained live on KPC property. Plans for a future monastery are still pending.

Removed - Hosting of important Tibetan Buddhist teachers and teachings

There was no RS offered for this section:

Jetsunma has invited and hosted many important Nyingma and Kagyu lamas and offered her centers in Maryland and Arizona as venues for their teachings, including: HH Penor Rinpoche; Ven. Gyatrul Rinpoche; HH Khenpo Jigme Phuntsok & Ani Mumtso; HH Karma Kuchen Rinpoche; Mugsang Tulku; Khentrul Gyangkhang Rinpoche; Khenchen Tsewang Gyatso; Khenchen Pema Sherab; Khenpo Namdrol; HH Ngawang Tenzin Rinpoche (Bhutan); Ven. Khenchen Palden Sherab Rinpoche and Ven. Khenpo Tsewang Dongyal Rinpoche; Chagdud Tulku Rinpoche; Ven. Yangthang Tulku; HE Taklung Tsetrul Rinpoche; HH Chetsang Rinpoche; Tulku Sangngag, Choji Rinpoche; Dzigar Kongtrul Rinpoche; Ven. Ngagpa Yeshe Dorje; HH Orgyen Kusum Lingpa; Tulku Rigdzin Pema; Bhaka Tulku; Khenpo Tenzin Norgey; and Lama Kuntuzangpo, Baasan Lama, and Lama Baasansuren (Mongolia).

Early Life section

NPOV needed fixing. The early life section is still too long. Longchenpa (talk)

History of this page

A monk from KPC did in fact re-write this article, and I've largely been protecting the page from vandals and have been remiss in rewriting it to NPOV. But please respect BLP. This is a living person. I'm NOT a vandal so stop reverting my changes. Longchenpa (talk)

2007 version of this article

User talk:Petrarchan47, you're going back to an old version of the article from 2007 that we can't use. While the tone of that version sounds more neutral, it's riddled with problems that caused a massive edit war 12 years ago (yes, I've been working on this article that long). One of the problems is that it's riddled with dog whistles that violate BLP. The really big problem is that the references aren't accurate. When you actually go back to The Buddha From Brooklyn and look for the page references, you can't find things like 'gradually shifted from using "Christ consciousness" to "Buddha consciousness."' Longchenpa (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry: "you're going back to an old version of the article from 2007" - what does this mean? I haven't reverted to an older version, but have been editing the page as I found it. The page references don't align exactly with the copy of BfB that I have, but that doesn't mean these references were made up and don't exist. If you have a copy, please check before assuming this is the case.
Please elucidate the problems to which you're referring; your comment as written leaves me in the dark and unable to help. petrarchan47คุก 06:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Jetsumma

The subject was referred to throughout the article as "Jetsunma." Jetsun or Jetsunma is a Tibetan title meaning "venerable" or "reverend." We don't refer to subject's by their title, only by their name. I've substituted Ahkon Lhamo throughout. Skyerise (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I noticed the change this morning. I've no objection, I think it's better for NPOV. I made a point of doing the same for the Khenchen Konchog Gyaltsen article. Longchenpa (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Re-write

Have done a complete rewrite of the article, revising hyperbolic language. Longchenpa (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

NPOV help needed

Please see this version of the article to get an idea of the thorough POV scrubbing that has taken place over the years. Readers are getting a promotional article rather than an encyclopedic one. petrarchan47คุก 15:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

This article will perpetually have POV issues, in large part because no one without a POV has any interest in it. An awful lot of what has been hacked out of it over time, however, needed to be, due to WP:BLP and libel concerns. We must take due care when addressing controversies and accusations. But even something as seemingly simple as whether to use Zeoli or Akhon Lhamo is going to see-saw back and forth forever as editors with different ideas of what constitutes "neutral" apply their particular points of view. —KGF0 ( T | C ) 22:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Actually, what's happened is that we had a chopped up mess that was the result of an edit war, that was replaced with a promotional version, that is slowly being edited for a neutral tone and updated with more recent articles. The Buddha From Brooklyn came out in 1999 which was more than 20 years ago. Zeoli is in her 70's now. Longchenpa (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Removing Characterization section

This is a biography of a living person. Longchenpa (talk) 02:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Moving Kunzang Palyul Choling-specific information

Some of what's in this article should be on the Kunzang Palyul Choling page (such as fundraisers -- they are for the temple, not her). Others should be re-written to indicate her personal involvement. Longchenpa (talk) 19:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Started the re-writes. Longchenpa (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Incomplete

Having never heard of this person I came here to find out why people are angry at her. Not a line. Talk page shows evidence of repeated scrubbing. Look brothers and sisters, I understand that rants and innuendo have no place here, but where there is significant controversy, that's both notable and necessary to the facts. In this case, controversy is such that readers like me are finding out about this public figure through that alone. In such cases, most of our articles include a line in the contents called "Controversies" or "Controversy over X". Those links may lead to just one or two sentences, but they cover our encyclopedic duty.

This article needs such a section stat. Anything less casts doubt on the objectivity and reliability of our service. Laodah 23:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

No, thanks, that's troll bait. We tried such a section in 2008 and ended up in an edit war with both students and detractors. I doubt the Wiki mods want to referee another one. Longchenpa (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree and added a section that discusses the controversies with citations to respected newspapers and magazines like LA Times, Tricycle and so on. This way, there is at least some information about this controversial teacher here.Javier F.V. 16:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Overlap between Kunzang Palyul Choling and this page

I'm rewriting the charitable works section to focus on her actions. There is going to be overlap, however, because of the "follow the leader" effect typical of Buddhist temples: she adopts abandoned dogs, asks the temple to follow suit, then a dog rescue is founded, etc. Kind of impossible to separate it completely and still have an accurate article. Longchenpa (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Deleted wildly biased section

Deleted a section that was wildly biased -- recall this is a biography of a living person. We are not going through another edit war, dragging in three Wiki moderators. We went through that in 2008. Longchenpa (talk) 13:16, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The references you removed are WP:RS, and a 2008 edit war is not sufficient justification for removing them. If you object to specific wording, please discuss the issues you have here. If there is a dispute about how these references should be included that can't be resolved here, a request for comment could be filed to get input from other editors.Dialectric (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
They are book reviews and not reliable sources. And we're not going back to the edit war, forget it. Longchenpa (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

The promised rewrite is complete

At long last, we no longer have discrete sections, but rather a narrative flow using articles about her life that pick up from The Buddha From Brooklyn (published 23 years ago) through news reports in the present. Thank you for your patience. Longchenpa (talk) 06:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Removal of Steven Seagal cite

Agree with the change. The citation must be leftover from other material removed from the article. Longchenpa (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo: Difference between revisions Add topic