Talk:Lobsang Rampa/Archive 1

Archive 1

Bias discussion (2004)

I guess there is no real harm in including this so-called "positive article" link - but Lobsang Rampa is a known fraud. There are no ifs, ands or buts applicable. He makes lots of absurd and factually false claims about Tibetan Buddhist practice, to the point that some Monks like reading his books for the comical value. Including this link is slightly misleading. Luis Dantas 21:51, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hello Luis, I agree that it can be misleading to put a positive article but I felt obliged to it because of NPOV. The books look pretty harmless but I think they are not. I heard from a former member of Scientology (Monica Pignotti) that who was influenced by Lobsang Rampa and what made her more susceptible for the $cientology business. And the f* thing is that these books are still here in the nearest local library without a good warning! Andries 22:07, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think the best way to keep the word "hoax" (and I agree that is indeed the better word, Andries) in the NPOV column although it appears without attribution or qualification is to give some facts of the exposé that would establish there is no counterargument to its status as a hoax. --Gary D 23:06, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Interesting. Pretty much the same thing happens here in Brazil if you substitute "Kardecist Spiritualism" for "Scientology". I agree that the books are not harmless at all, although this is probably not the place to go about why I think so. Best, 200.163.1.248 23:47, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

We hear remarks like "Lobsang Rampa is a known fraud" without any facts to back up that claim; it’s mainly what the Press printed and people accepted as absolute truth without another thought. Another is "He was the son of a plumber", his father was never was a plumber (and let's not forget that Jesus was the son of a carpenter) so what career a parent has, or had, is neither here or there. There is much proof to collaborate what Dr. Rampa wrote, but people want any proof dropped into their lap rather than trying the many things Dr. Rampa wrote in his 19 books. Then you will have all the proof you need by personally having experienced that which he writes about. Sadly society is more focused on ridiculing others rather than finding facts out for themselves. People are entitled to their opinions and in no way will I force my view upon other, but please read all his books and then make up your own mind; if you still disagree, then we agree to disagree.tlrampa 28 March 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlrampa (talk • contribs) 12:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Pro-Rampa comments (2005-6)

I have been reading lobsangs books now for 15 years i started reading his books when i was 14 he has written over 18 books i am missing two from the collection. I have followed his techniques and i can tell you he is not a hoax. He has made me the person i am today i have alot to thank. in this time and place of existance we are here to learn what we cant in spirtual form ie hardships, this is a learning place and if you dont get it right you can bet you wont be over the otherside of the fence eating yummy fruit, you will return untill you learn or evolve to what you set for yourself before you came. the mainstream world does not want you to learn all about yourself so they can keep feeding you the same old crap they have for years. The truth is surely denied by these peoples because they want control. think about it................

I propose we separate the author's body (Hoskins-Rampa) from the published body of work. Whether you believe it's fiction or non fiction is a minor point. For example, Tom Clancy's fictional works are often discussed in terms of 'Jack Ryan's Universe.' The same applies here. Sure, if you have first-hand Tibetan knowlege or if you knew Hoskins before and after his 'episode', then please enlighten us. Otherwise, admonishing the published work as a hoax or fraud with amplified with the assertion 'There are no ifs, ands or buts applicable' seems, at best, a second-hand opinion.

Dr. Rampa was NOT a fraud, his work has since been verified by other scholars, if you visit http://www.lobsangrampa.org/index.html you will discover the truth about this man. No one has ever disproved anything he wrote, please bear that in mind

The Aura is something which the majority disbelieved existed just because they couldn’t see it. Dr Rampa even took actual photographs in front of various scientist and medics; sadly they disbelieved what was shown on film as a trick. I am delighted to report that someone has achieved what Dr. Rampa was trying to do. Dr. Harry Oldfield has invented a system called “Polycontrast Interference Photography” or PIP for short, which is the closest we have come to actually seeing the real human Aura; this system doesn't use electrodes or high voltage as many other methods have done. Dr. Oldfield’s very safe system clearly shows the energy fields that flow between the chakras of the physical. Dr. Oldfield has also identified signs that clearly show an illness within the Aura before it manifest within the actual physical. With another of his inventions called "Electro-Crystal Therapy" or ECT for short, real-time corrections can be made to the Auric flow and restore balance, and once balance has been restored to the Auric flow, the physical body also recovers. Dr. Oldfield is being taken very seriously by medical science and the Occult world. tlrampa 28 March 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlrampa (talk • contribs) 12:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Rampa comment, counter-comments (2006)

[original heading of this comment: Rampa Hoax]

Reading this page brings back memories and a bit of nostalgic sadness.

To the above anonymous writer I have to say: "we are all allowed to believe in what we want". Nobody forces belief or desbelief. But sadly, Mr. "Rampa" was stating he was a "tibetan monk". No, forgive me. A Lama. His understanding and descriptions of Tibetan Bhuddism were inacurate and misleading. True, some of it might be accurate, but this can be done with research and studying of the real Tibetan religion. But the innacuracies cannot be forgiven, to somebody who claimed he was the real deal.

Trust me when I tell you that it broke my heart when I discovered the fantasies described in his writings. For me, reading Lobsang Rampa was a rite of passage, passed down from my grandfather (my Guru) to my young mind and soul. I based my belief system on false teachings, and while became a good person and some of it has to be attributed to what I've learned as a child, to program yourself with fantasy can be dangerous and misleading.

Open your "third eye" and seek the truth.

user:jerry.mills

If it's inaccurate, point out the problems in the article. As far as i can tell, this is just a description of the man and his work, with no evidence that he was a hoax besides conjecture. I'm not saying to do any original research; just think of pages like Bigfoot, which present the evidence that has been presented elsewhere. You can tell from pages like that, that it's possible to do these things NPOV and without original research.--The Sporadic Update 16:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. On this discussion page and the discussion page for The Third Eye contributors say that descriptions of Tibetan Buddhism are inaccurate and misleading. How so? Please cite sources, otherwise this smacks of opinion. 18:52, 14 November 2006 206.54.145.254

Neutral language, inclusion of both sides of argument

As one of the writers of the articles Lobsang Rampa and The Third Eye, I have steered clear of using words like liar, fraud and hoax, as they assume bad faith which is usually inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. Nevertheless, any serious look at Rampa's career would need to take a look at the controversies caused by his books. There are some links at the bottom of the Lobsang Rampa article which give both sides of the argument and allow people to make up their own minds. Much of Rampa's work contains claims which are not found anywhere in traditional Buddhist teachings, and in recent years his work has been seen as part of the New Age movement rather than as part of the mainstream Buddhist tradition. The articles on Lobsang Rampa and The Third Eye are not designed to support or disprove Rampa's claims, but to give both sides of what is a famous but controversial incident in the literary world.--Ianmacm 19:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the article looks OK to me. If some people still believe Rampa's version of events after reading the article and seeing his astonishingly outlandish claims (a book dictated telepathically by his cat??) then I don't think that anything would dissuade them. --Farry 11:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Rampa's birth certificate

Earlier this year, I sent off for Cyril Hoskin's birth certificate, which gave the information in the article. I was going to put a copy of it online, but the text would have been quite difficult to read.--Ianmacm 23:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I inserted the "verify source" template because I thought a reference to a copy of a birth certificate that isn't available online, in bookshops or at the library is, or borders on, original research. This may be nitpicking on my part as I actually think the name and birth date you have established should stand unless somebody comes up with a very convincing argument – and source(s) – to say otherwise.

Even so, I think the section "Note on Cyril Hoskin's name and date of birth" reads more like an editorial note than an integral part of an article, particularly the sentence "This has been taken as the reference source for the Wikipedia article." This is not because of the specific wording but because of its editorial nature. I can understand it if you would like to dissuade other contributors from editing the name and birth date based on less-informed sources, but I would suggest that you move the section from the article to the talk page, substituting it for the present "Rampa's birth certificate" section, which would then become obsolete. --Bwiki 02:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Requesting Cyril Hoskin's birth certificate will only tell you about that actual physical body and nothing about the spirit within. Transmigration is well documented in Eastern religions and even in the Christian bible. Dr. Rampa transmigrated into three physical bodies, Cyril Hoskin’s being the third and final before departing this Earth in 1981. There is photographic proof that Dr. Rampa was Tibetan, sadly this photo cannot be published yet. tlrampa 28 March 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlrampa (talk • contribs) 12:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a reasonable point, and I have moved the information about Cyril Hoskin's birth certificate to the Talk Page as follows:

Note on Cyril Hoskin's name and date of birth

Over the years there has been considerable confusion surrounding the spelling of Cyril Hoskin's name and his date of birth. His surname has been spelt as both Hoskin and Hoskins, while his year of birth has been given as 1910 or 1911. The birth certificate from the General Register Office of England gives his name as Cyril Henry Hoskin and states that he was born on 8 April 1910. This has been taken as the reference source for the Wikipedia article.

Opinions of Spiritual Authors

This section has been removed pending further research:

Venerable Master Samael Aun Weor states Lobsang Rampa is an initiate tasked with stirring the spiritual inquietudes of humanity (Las Respuestas que dio un lama 1976), but comments that the notion of awakening the third eye through an operation is a mistaken one.

In his autobiography (1990) His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama states it is probably best to consider Lobsang Rampa's work as fiction.

There is a need for a precise citation on the Dalai Lama claim, while the Samael Aun Weor claim is not particularly notable. Nowadays Rampa's books are generally regarded as works of New Age fiction.--Ianmacm 14:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rampa greywhiskers.jpg

Image:Rampa greywhiskers.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Introduction : Tuesday Lobsang Rampa, born Cyril Henry Hoskin

I deeply disagree with Ianmacm opinion about this point : Rampa never denied this, as explained later in the article

There are two version of that :

1. There was only one person Cyril Henry Hoskin who invented all the Rampa story
2. Cyril Henry Hoskin and tuesday Lobsang Rampa were two diferent persons who first spend separated lifes. After more than 40 years, Cyril Henry Hoskin agreed to get rid of his body (that was for him the equivalent of a natural death), and Lobsang Rampa continued his life in Hoskin's body.

Rampa allways gave the second version (never the first one).

To be honnest, the introduction of an article should only present facts that cannot be discussed. And for this point, Rampa (which is the subject of the article) didn't say the same thing as his detractors.

The paragraph Author found to be British gives the two versions (no problem whith it). But the article becomes caricaturly oriented, if since the introduction, you choose as an indisputable fact the version in which only Cyril Henry Hoskin existed. Bech (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to make the wording of the article as uncontroversial as possible, and this is the first substantial complaint that I have had to reply to. Although Rampa's best known book is The Third Eye, in many ways the most revealing is his third book The Rampa Story, which describes how Cyril Hoskin (who never gives his name as such in the book) came to be known as Lobsang Rampa. The Wikipedia article does not say " Lobsang Rampa was a liar/fraud/hoaxer" etc, since this type of language would violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. To be honest, I cannot see much of a problem with the wording of the intro, since it summarises what Rampa says in The Rampa Story, which is that he was occupied by the spirit of Rampa although he was born as another person. In one of the books (the title of which escapes me at the moment) Rampa says that any mail he receives which contains names other than Rampa goes straight in the bin. Nevertheless, the findings of the investigation by Clifford Burgess are given in the article so that people have both sides of the story and can make up their own minds. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I worked a lot on Rampa's french page which was at first a translation of the english one and the main reason I did that was the introduction sentence that even gave me doubts about the exigence of neutrality of english wikipedia. The question: Was Rampa and Hoskin the same person is a major problem. According to various websites some readers who trusted Rampa changed their opinion learning he could be an Englishman. On the contrary, for those who accept the concept of transmigration, the fact that Rampa couls have been considered as an Englishman (why not named Hoskin) is not surprising. When earlier in this discussion page you speak of Rampa's birth certificate looking for Hoskin's one, that means you implicitly assimilate Rampa and Hoskin as the same person. But if we consider a person as something aware rather than a physical body, it is only one of two options. In francophone Wikipedia page, I tried to present both points of view in the introduction, but it made a complex explanation. I found it easier to deal with the problem in the Author found to be British paragraph. The small modification I made in the English page meant to assimilate Rampa to Hoskin is subject to discussion, whithout immediately starting complicated explanations, but also without taking off all Hoskin mention.

According Rampa says that any mail he receives which contains names other than Rampa goes straight in the bin I found it in as it was (the 16th one) when Rampa says when he was in Colombia, could'nt keep two names, the civil one and his writer's name (because it was suspect in this country), he prefered keeping his writer's name is not for me an important detail. Bech (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There may have been a misunderstanding here. The article is not intended to imply that Lobsang Rampa was simply a nom de plume for Cyril Hoskin, in the same way that Lewis Carroll was a pen name for Charles Dodgson or Mark Twain a pen name for Samuel Clemens. Rampa insisted to the end of his life that Lobsang Rampa was a real person, and that his spirit occupied the body of another person. Hopefully the article makes this clear. The research involving the birth certificate came about after confusion over his birth surname, which has been spelled as Hoskin or Hoskins in various works. A scan of the certificate can be found here [1] .

Since it is not easy to read, here is a summary of what it says:

Born: Eighth April 1910 Plympton St Maurice. Name: Cyril Henry Hoskin. Father: Joseph Henry Hoskin (master plumber). Mother: Eva Hoskin, formerly Martin.

In his foreword to the 1964 edition of The Third Eye, Rampa writes:

I am Tuesday Lobsang Rampa, that is my only name, now my legal name, and I answer to no other.

Even today, some people are surprised by the controversy surrounding the authorship of the books, and it is only fair for people to have both sides of the story so that they can make up their own minds.

On a slightly different note, I wonder if you could help here: do you know the name of the book in which Rampa says that he has the name Tuesday because he was born on a Tuesday? --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

According what rampa says about him in his books, I am not surprised he refused to be considered as (or only as) Cyril Henry Hoskin. I think the introduction should mention only (as a FACT) what he says. There is a special section outlining details of the various versions of Rampa's origin. It's possible to give Hoskin's name in the introduction in a sentence like this one :

Tuesday Lobsang Rampa, was a British writer who claimed he was born in Tibet, where he became Lama before spending the second part of his life in the body of a british man : Cyril Henry Hoskin (8 April 1910 – 25 January 1981). The name Tuesday relates to a claim in his first book that all upper-class Tibetans were named after the day on which they were born.

Even if Rampa never gave the name of Hoskin in his book (he spoke about the host), that's are more minor problem.

According to the name Tuesday, Rampa talk about it in The Third Eye, page 21 (27 wrote at the bottom) of this [PDF_file]. In the same book, page 48 (54 wrote at the bottom), he gives another name Yza-mig-dmar Lah-lu were "mig dmar" or "gza mig dmar" means tuesday in the Tibetan calendar. Bech (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The whold point of TLR's claim is that CHH had nothing to do with the books. CHH was effectively dead (ie his soul was not in a body), because TLR was transmigrated to it, with a good deal of help. TLR did not have to claim anything of CHH's history, simply because that's not the experience of his soul. It's kind of expecting that a used car sold to a new driver, should remember the habits and haunts of the previous driver.

What is here presented as evidence of a fraud, is freely admitted in TLR: the whole process of finding a suitable donor, moving the soul, and such forth is detailed in TLR. Even CHH gives a life history in there, none of which is replicated elsewhere in TLR. Simply finding evidence that CHH existed demonstates nothing, since TLR states he was born (ie started this round of life on earth), in Tibet. The notion that souls live through a series of bodies is not a strange notion to eastern beliefs. TLR states elsewhere that he changed his name to that (rather than the name chosen at the transmigration, which is different), when he was living in Montedevo in Uruguay, because of local laws there.

In order to prove that CHH wrote these books, one should do analysis on what was written before the event vs what was written after. Such would be detectable by way of the name-change that TLR states happened just after taking over CHH's body. Wendy.krieger (talk) 08:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, Ianmacm. I think the following does not work:

Cyril Henry Hoskin (8 April 1910 – 25 January 1981), more popularly known as Lobsang Rampa, was a writer who claimed to have been a lama in Tibet before spending the second part of his life in the body of a British man

Cryil Henry Hoskin/s was not nore popularly known as Lobsang Rampa - Dr T. Lobsang Rampa was nore commonly/popularly known as Lobsang Rampa.

Was Cryil Henry Hoskin/s the author of the books? No, Cryil Henry Hoskin/s legally changed his name. So, the books were not written by Cryil Henry Hoskin/s.

• Hi Christian,

The tile/subject of the article is Lobsang Rampa - so I agree intro should not begin Cryil Henry Hoskin. However, the following is not factually correct, and even comes across as biased:

Lobsang Rampa, in real life Cyril Henry Hoskin

Use of in real life is suggestive of a strong bias.

…..Cyril Henry Hoskin …was a British writer

Where is your evidence to support the statement that Hoskin was a writer? Again, the (legal) name of the person who wrote the books was not Cyril Henry Hoskin. You are entitled to doubt the material within the books but the name of the person who wrote the books is most definitely not Cyril Henry Hoskin.

Btw Christian, could you expand on your (23:14, 13 October 2013‎) edit? I accept that the phrasing was cumbersome - but could you provide some detail as to what you felt was particularly unclear?

Souloftherobot (talk) 12:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

After writing the above, I saw your 11:31, 14 October 2013‎ edit. That is well thought out/worded (much better than my attempt).

Souloftherobot (talk) 12:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rampa.jpg

Image:Rampa.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fra Andrew Bertie

Fra Andrew Bertie has recently died and his obituary in the Australian newspaper, The Age, says that he unmasked Lobsang Rampa. I added this to the article as a claim only with a reference, but it was removed with an edit comment that the information was already there. I do not see it. --Bduke (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I cannot comment here, because the reference to the newspaper article given is not a weblink, and I have not been able to find anything else about this. This is something that needs more of an explanation. What did Fra Andrew Bertie say, and when did he say it? The conventional view is that Lobsang Rampa's "true" identity was found by Clifford Burgess and published by the Daily Mail in 1958. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources do not have to be weblinks of course. This came up in an e-mail thread when a friend said that this was new information that was not on wikipedia. That is why I added it as "An obituary .... claims ..". Certainly it raises issues to explore, but that is not reason to remove it. It is sourced. It does not give a date. It says he was a journalist at the time and that was after leaving Oxford. 1958 is not implausible. He would have been 29 and he had served in the Scots Guards, been to Oxford and done postgrad work at SOAS in London. I just found a web link to the obituary in the "Sydney Morning Herald", the sister paper to "The age". It is here. Note it does not give the name Lobsang Rampa, but it can not be anyone else and my friend recognised the link immediately. Now I have the Age obit here. Exactly the same phrase is found in the obituary from "The Times" here. There are lots of other mentions of his death and obituaries, but I found nothing else that mentioned this incident. I suggest changing the reference to a web reference, possibly the one from the Times. I think it should be left in the article unless a reference is found that challenges it --Bduke (talk) 10:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, the reason why I was unable to find this in a search of Google News is that Lobsang Rampa is not mentioned by name. To expand on the "unmasking" of Rampa, what happened was that Heinrich Harrer and a group of scholars were unhappy about the book and hired Burgess to investigate. Fra Andrew Bertie may have been involved along the way, although in its current form there is a possibility of introducing original research. As you say, it may be worth moving this to the external links section so that people can read the newspaper obituary. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I was not suggesting a link under "External links". I was suggesting leaving it in the article as a claim that someone else was involved but changing the link to the more well known Times newspaper with the URL link. All the obituaries I quote above seem to be essentially the same. It is not OR. It a link that says he was involved. However, it is late here and I'm off to bed. I'll sleep on it and get back here tomorrow. --Bduke (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The Times is OK as a reliable source. The main issue is that the details of what Fra Andrew Bertie did here are sketchy. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

After this issue was raised, I went through the archive and found the Daily Mail for 1 February 1958, in which the news of the Rampa/Hoskin connection was broken to the public. It can be viewed here. It makes no mention of Fra Andrew Bertie. While the information from the newspaper obituaries may be correct, the statement "Bertie unmasked Rampa" could be seen as containing a misleading impression. It is more likely that he was a member of the group of scholars asked to give their opinion on the validity of The Third Eye, which included Agehananda Bharati (Leopold Fischer 1923-1991). Bharati described the book as "Blavatskyan hogwash", a reference to Madame Blavatsky who also claimed to gain her powers from Tibetan occult masters. Incidentally, the Daily Mail article spells Rampa's birth name as Cyril Hoskins, creating a mistake which has persisted ever since. His real birth name was Hoskin, and can be viewed on his birth certificate here. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work. That old "Daily Mail" article is fascinating. However, it really does not say very much about the unmasking. It does not mention Bertie, true, but it does not mention Heinrich Harrer either. The edit I added does not make the statement "Bertie unmasked Rampa". It says that an obituary claims he unmasked him. Would replacing "claims that he unmasked Lobsang Rampa" by "claims that he was involved in unmasking Lobsang Rampa" be better? I'm going to change the reference to the Times. --Bduke (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I am not happy about the use of the word "unmasked" unless it is expressed in the context of a claim. This implies deliberate deception by Rampa, something which he always denied. A while back there was a long debate on the talk page (see above) about how to deal with the controversy over the authorship of the book. The article strives to maintain NPOV so that it does not read like a hatchet job, and avoids the use of words like "liar" and "fake" which could easily lead to further controversy over NPOV. There is still the question of what it was that Fra Andrew Bertie actually did, and there needs to be more research here. The phrase "claims that he was involved in unmasking Lobsang Rampa" is OK and gives a better weight to the information in the obituary. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concern about the term "unmasked" but it is in the sources we have which are the obituary. I will make the change to "claims that he was involved in unmasking Lobsang Rampa". Can we then leave it for now and see whether more information about Bertie's involvement appears? --Bduke (talk) 08:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, we'll stick with that form of wording for the time being. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Asking for reference

In the french page, which was at first a tranlation of this one, a reference has been asked for the translation on the following text :

The manuscript of The Third Eye had been turned down by several leading British publishers before being accepted by Secker and Warburg for an advance of £800. Prior to the book's publication Fredric Warburg met "Doctor Carl Kuon Suo" who was apparently linked to the author of the work, and was intrigued by his personality. Warburg sent the manuscript of the unpublished book to a number of scholars, several of whom expressed doubts about its authenticity. Nevertheless, the book was published in November 1956 and soon became a bestseller. The Times Literary Supplement said of the book: "It comes near to being a work of art."

Yesterday, I put the line
{{Template:Asking reference|...}}
but the template was syntaxicaly incorrect and instead of correcting it, somebody prefered removing it.

I still ask a reference (or more) fort this text. References can be included in the english article or just indicated in this discussion page for the french version. Bech (talk) 08:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

A large amount of the article is sourced from The Guinness Book of Fakes, Frauds and Forgeries by Richard Newnham, ISBN 0-85112-975-7 and the PDF book T. Lobsang Rampa – New Age Trailblazer by Karen Mutton [2]. The information about how the book came to be published is taken from these sources. I had a look at the Guinness book and it says that the manuscript was turned down by three publishers before Secker and Warburg accepted it. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Bech (talk) 01:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)