Talk:Sogyal Rinpoche/Archive 1

Archive 1

Tutor

I am a bit confused. It says that he was tutored by Dzongsar Khyentse Choki Lodro, but then it refers to Jamyang Khyentse. I thought he was referred to as Jamyang Khyentse Chöki Lodro, and that his incarnation was Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche. Where have I gone wrong?--Goffperu 21:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

POV

"one of the most renowned teachers of our time" This statement is definitely not NPOV Davidreid 05:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Reports

Indeed. In Sogyal Rinpoche's case *some* reports are disturbing: http://www.well.com/conf/media/SF_Free_Press/nov11/guru.html Greg Walkerden 22 Sep 06

Civil suit

What is the name of the civil suit that this article says was filed? I can't find it on FindLaw. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.142.98.102 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Useful articles

From what I've seen, this is the definitive article on SR and allegations of sexual harassment:

Mick Brown, "The Precious One", Telegraph Magazine, 2 February 1995, pp.20-29.

Not available on the internet as far as I know. Johnfos 01:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Another (Oct 2017) long exposé: Buddhism’s bad boy: the fall of Sogyal Rinpoche (South China Morning Post). Onanoff (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Removing links warning

This article only has one external link and the links warning comment is overkill. Not standard and not necessary... Johnfos (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. This was put there after a lot of spammy links were removed, if I recall. It is a standard template, Template:NoMoreLinks. People tend to put lists of dharma centers, projects, etc., etc., etc. on the articles of Lamas which are not appropriate. The only links present should be to sites which have more biographical information on the subject. GlassFET 22:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There haven't been lots of spammy links on this page for ages. You can't seriously think of adding a No more links template to a page that has only one external link? Johnfos (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

At the time it was added, there was a reason. There is no reason why it should not be kept. As far as I know, there are no other serious biographies of the subject online. Do you have a specific link to propose? GlassFET 22:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I don't know why you keep adding it to this talk page, it's in comments, it can't be seen. GlassFET 22:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

After saying that there were no more useful links to include, you have now added three more pro-Rinpoche links, making a total of 4 pro links. Please be aware that this will most likely attract the attention of those who will seek to redress this imbalance. Johnfos (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you say.... the critical links are all contained in the references... GlassFET 18:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The external links section is not for "pro-and-con" (and it's certainly not required that every "positive" link in an article be balanced with a "negative" one - all that's necessary is that the available information be summarized in as neutral a way as possible). The criticisms are dealt with in the article and linked in the references. If people feel tempted to repeat all the reference links in the external links section, or add critical links without confirming their reliability, well, that's a good reason to have NoMoreLinks, isn't it? Please also keep in mind WP:BLP. - AdelaMae ^{(t - c - wpn)} 23:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

Having a hidden comment requesting that users exercise caution doesn't seem like a big deal. It simply reminds people of WP:EL and WP:SPAM, and says that if "there are already plentiful links" to propose additions or replacements on the talk page. There are a lot of other issues to be resolved in this article. Debating such a minor issue as this only serves to distract from handling the larger disagreements and concerns. Vassyana (talk) 13:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

From my reading this article is in breach of the Biographies of living persons guidelines on a number of counts. I thought it best to discuss here first before reporting it on the "Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard" or just deleting the offending passages. In brief, the criticism section is in breach I believe for the following reasons:
*Relevance to notability

• From the guidelines: :Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources". Sogyal Rinpoches notability is related to being a buddhist teacher, not sure that an allegation that never went to court is relevant or worthy of noting in an encyclopedia.

*Reliable sources

• The sources quoted in the criticism section breach the guidelines for biographies too. The primary source for the alleged filing of a court case is the "San Francisco Free Press" which was a blog instituted by some of the journalists who were on strike when the newspaper was closed down. So it does not comply with the guideline thatit be "subject to the newspaper's full editorial control".

*Avoid repeating gossip

• From the wikipedia biography guidelines:"Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases and attributions to anonymous sources. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?"
• The Guardian and SF Free press cite anonymous sources

*Neutral Point of View

• There appears to be repeated attempts to highlight criticism from these poor sources including elevating these aspects to the introductory paragraph. To elevate these poorly sourced references to the introductory paragraph does not suggest a neutral point of view. The history of this page suggests a continued struggle between editors trying to maintain neutrality versus highlight criticism - it seems to me that the wikipedia guidelines for an encyclopedic approach to biographies would resolve this antagonism.
• Interested in other views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cranberryzap (talk • contribs) 23:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Cranberryzap, I have just read over the lead multiple times and can't for the life of me find any "poorly sourced references" or criticism. The only source citations in the lead are for Rigpa's own website. Can you be more specific? As for your other concerns, the allegations against Rinpoche are certainly relevant to his status as a Buddhist teacher, since that status involves an expectation of ethical conduct. The allegations are not given undue weight; they are addressed in a brief Criticism section three quarters of the way down the page. I notice that there's a Telegraph Magazine article cited there that you may have missed. And surely, you can't be claiming that the Guardian doesn't count as a reliable source? - AdelaMae ^{(t - c - wpn)} 10:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks AdelaMae for responding. I was not suggesting the Guardian is not a reliable source as newspapers go.But the source must still be judged in terms of reliability as a reference for an encyclopedia and the reference to the newspaper article must be accurate. My discussion above was perhaps not concrete enough, so to be concrete: I propose that the following sentence and its references be deleted because when one follows the references there is no support for the sentence - " A susbtantial sum was paid to the plaintiff.[30][31][32]"Cranberryzap (talk) 10:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Since there has only been one response to the discussion I have raised above I tried to place this on the Biography of Living Persons Noticeboard but because it was semi-protected my post appears to have been lost. <
I believe we need to maintain the high standard of Wikipedia and note that Wikipedia has recently received good reviews for adherence to editorial policy compared to the Guardian Wikipedia passed - Journalism flunked . Given I have left this discussion thread open for 6 months, I now propose an edit.
I propose to change the entire criticism section to the following to ensure compliance with Wikipedia policy:
"In 1995 an online blog [31] alleged that a $10 million civil lawsuit was filed against Sogyal Rinpoche claiming "physical, mental and sexual abuse" by an anonymous plaintiff known as "Janice Doe". In December 1995, the issue was settled out of court through mediation.[30- suggest delete - broken link][31 - suggest delete this reference as it does not mention settlement]][32 - cant find this reference either]"
I will await further discussion, but otherwise will make the changes in approximately 6 weeks. Very happy if someone is able to get this posted to the "Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard".--Cranberryzap (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticism is generally not placed in the lead, especially when it is simply unproven allegations settled out of court. The material is already in the article elsewhere.

Ahem, unproven allegations? It may have been settled out of court but that does not in anyway diminish the seriousness of Sogyal Rinpoche's conduct. Clearly, the victim was too fragile to endure months of having to give public testimony. Note that she has never come out and bared her soul in the media, she has remained anonymous due to the gravity of the experience.203.214.4.25 (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't particularly like the "timeline" format of the article and would not object to a separate "Criticism" section to call it out. That's how it is done in most Biographies of living people. GlassFET 23:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I would like the timeline format changed to the usual wiki style. Putting the Criticism section in is a good first step. I like it where it now is. Also the Criticism section needs to be expanded to specifically mention that the lawsuit was a $10million one. This is an important detail that is missing.Sereness (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Name

• [1]

Wylie: Bsod-rgyal

In the above dictionary Bsod is not to be found, but you can find some meaning for rgyal.

I sometimes wondered about the name, whether there is a difference between Sogyal and Tsogyal or Tsogyel.

Austerlitz -- 88.72.0.25 (talk) 11:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Austerlitz, The bsod is short for bsod-nams, which will be in the dictionary above. Sogyal Rinpoche's name is bsod-nams rgyal-mtshan. His predecessor, Tertön Sogyal, was called bsod-nams rgyal-po. Neither has anything to do with Ye-shes mtsho-rgyal. --Orgyen108 (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

There are many statements confirming Sogyal Rinpoche as an incarnation of Terton Sogyal, and indicating how Jamyang Khyentse cared for him like his own son. See, for example, the section on Rinpoche in Nyoshul Khen Rinpoche's history of the Dzogchen lineage translated here --Orgyen108 (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Teachings

Shouldn't some of his teachings be mentioned? For example this one? Tonglen, [2], [3].

Austerlitz -- 88.75.213.180 (talk) 11:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

There also is a wikilink Tonglen.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.213.180 (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section continued

I've moved some text from above which was getting lost up there: Johnfos (talk) 01:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Cranberryzap said:
I propose to change the entire criticism section to the following to ensure compliance with Wikipedia policy: "In 1995 an online blog [31] alleged that a $10 million civil lawsuit was filed against Sogyal Rinpoche claiming "physical, mental and sexual abuse" by an anonymous plaintiff known as "Janice Doe". In December 1995, the issue was settled out of court through mediation.[30- suggest delete - broken link][31 - suggest delete this reference as it does not mention settlement]][32 - cant find this reference either]"

I will await further discussion, but otherwise will make the changes in approximately 6 weeks. Very happy if someone is able to get this posted to the "Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard".--Cranberryzap (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Reference 32 is the Mick Brown article in the Telegraph Magazine. A very reliable source by a well-known journalist and author. When you say you can't find this reference, what do you mean? I have a copy in front of me and it is readily available through libraries, etc. It is a long, thoughtful and detailed analysis of the situation and something you should read before suggesting major changes to the article or posting on the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard. Johnfos (talk) 01:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

To shorten the criticism section to the above is to hide the mutiple allegations in the public domain and thecontinuing scandal and is therefore disingenuous.'An online blog'??? Deceptive. Mick brown article pdf avilable on Dialogue ireland wordpress. Also M Finnigan's article in the guardian, the one from the san francisco free press and, most recently, the irish edition of the Sunday Times. are all worthy references. To hide these is interpretable as a politcal con trick94.192.139.167 (talk) 09:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Cranberryzap said:
I propose to change the entire criticism section to the following to ensure compliance with Wikipedia policy: "In 1995 an online blog... This shows how you dont understand WP procedures. Blogs are not considered 3rd party reliable sources (3PS)The newspapers above on the other hand ARE considered 3PS. So please dont tinker-WP is not a place for Rigpa propaganda94.192.139.167 (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

on Sogyal Rinpoche

I think the Criticism section is written in a gossip journalist style and refers to sources that are not necessary reliable, since the journalists lack clearly awareness on Buddhism.

"Supporters have argued that lamas of the Nyingma school are not required to take vows of celibacy, and indeed Sogyal Rinpoche does not claim to be a celibate monk." As a student of Sogyal Rinpoche and alarmed of these 'news' I have personally asked around about it from close students who have been around for decades (since 70´s): they have not witnessed any of such claimed actions to have happened. No-one knows the true events that have taken place or reasons behind them. Sogyal Rinpoche doesn't ever comment on it and the legal issue was settled. The students publicly spoke about dealing with issues like this gossip in France summer 2009, because it shocks people fundamentally and unnecessarily. It is mainly speculation, but one should be always aware of cultural differences.

This is also some piece of text that has been there for a long time as criticism of Tibetan Buddhist morals and shows that the purpose of this information is not to be 'neutral': "The central role model of the Nyingma school, its founder Padmasambhava, had five principal tantric consorts who were also his students." I and any Tibetan Buddhist could tell you this: Padmasambhava didn't have relationships with them at the same time and there was no power abuse, since the women were adults and high ranking persons in society: Princess Mandarava and Yeshe Tsogyal. The main female disciple Yeshe Tsogyal became the main holder of Padmasambhava's teachings .

In the article, where 'Critisism' refers to, it says also: "The Dalai Lama has known about this for years and done nothing. There is a real code of secrecy and silence," said Barlow. This is not true. HH Dalai Lama has publicly spoken about the issue and given advice over 10 years ago in Dharamsala, where there were many Westerners and Tibetan lamas including Sogyal Rinpoche present. His Holiness nevertheless gives his support to Sogyal Rinpoche - for his constant efforts to preserve Tibetan tradition and to teach Western people. HH Dalai Lama said in 2008 that he would visit Lerab Ling again soon. Journalist Mick Brown accepts in his article comments from an informant, who is not very well aware about the state of affairs. Does Wikipedia accept gossip newspapers as a reliable source? Did people ever wonder who is publishing these articles tiredlessly in the web and why, when so many people are benefitting enourmously from Sogyal Rinpoches teachings?

Finnigan refers to Ngakpa Chogyam Rinpoche as a spokesperson in her article. This shows me and many Buddhists that she doesn't really know what she is doing. Ngakpa Chogyam Rinpoche and his group has nothing to do with any other Tibetan Buddhist groups. They are a separate group which doesn't practice Dharma in the traditional Tibetan way. They begin their practice in high level practices like Chöd without doing preliminaries Ngöndro first like one should according to the Tibetan tradition. Preliminaries usually take months or years to finish. It's easy to lure young people into some 'ghost hunting' without understanding the basics of the teachings. So 'Cool'?

Wikipedia wants to hold on to the Criticism section in order to be 'good people' and warning new comers. I must say that I have been studying with Sogyal Rinpoche for 8-9 years now and should inform you all that it is impossible to have private conversations with Sogyal Rinpoche. People are asked to write their questions down on a paper or ask in public. He has thousands of students and really no time for 'private intimate chats'. I have NEVER seen him behaving in any other way than being a great tiredless spiritual teacher. I hope this information helps people calm down.

References

Integration of criticism

Since the criticism section is already written in proseline, I've moved the text into the 1990s section of the biography and deleted the criticism section. All text was retained. One one-sentence paragraph was concatenated with the previous paragraph. Since criticism sections attract vandalism and npov violations, they are discouraged in all articles, especially BLPs. --Danger (talk) 06:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my recent confusion with this. Yes, I think the criticism should be integrated with the main text, as it is now. Johnfos (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Edits to contentious material, per WP:BLP

I have edited the article in an effort to keep it compliant with BLP. First, I have replaced a deadlink with an archived one. I have replaced some sourced material that is not viewable online with material that is. Some detail has been lost, but I could not find the article anywhere. If the article is located, please be careful in restoration of Wikipedia:Words to avoid: "pointed out" suggests a POV. From similar concerns, I have neutralized the word argued and clarified that this is not a statement of fact: "In 1995, a young English woman attended one of Sogyal Rinpoche's residential retreats and was led to believe she had been singled out for special attention, only to discover that she was being invited to join a harem." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with this. When you say that you "could not find the article anywhere" which article are you referring to? Do you mean that you could not find it online, or just could not find it period? Johnfos (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I have restored one sourced paragraph which went missing. Johnfos (talk) 21:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Controversies

In 1994, a $10 million civil lawsuit was filed against Sogyal Rinpoche. It was alleged that over a period of many years, Rinpoche had used his position as a spiritual leader to induce some of his female students to have coitus with him. The complaint included counts of intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of fiduciary duty, as well as assault and battery. In December 1995, the issue was settled out of court through mediation.

Subsequently, additional reports surfaced of students who "claimed that they had felt obliged to have a sexual relationship with their teacher." In 1995, a young English woman said she had attended one of Sogyal Rinpoche's residential retreats and been led to believe she had been singled out for special attention, only to discover that she was being invited to join a harem. "At first I was flattered, and very open and trusting. He encouraged me to fall in love with him - but I realised he was toying with me. I noticed several other young, pretty women going in and out of his apartment; when I confronted him with this, he dropped me and ignored me for the rest of the time I was there."

Sogyal Rinpoche's need for a partner is not in question... Rather the issue concerns the inappropriateness of sexual relationships with his students. In the West it is not considered ethical to engage in sex within the confines of a pastoral or teacher-student relationship where there are clear power imbalances.

Supporters of Sogyal Rinpoche state that lamas of the Nyingma school are not required to take vows of celibacy, and indeed Sogyal Rinpoche does not claim to be a celibate monk. As a Tibetan lama however, Sogyal certainly holds tantric vows, vows which prohibit ordinary sexual activity with unqualified partners.

You are confusing voluntary sex with sexual harassment and abuse of power. Similarly, doctors are not to have relationships with patients, professors with students or lawyers with their clients.Hmm... (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

References

Some problems with this article

This article has come to my attention in connection with a deletion review.

• Abuse of the honorific Rinpoche. I know that the use in the article conforms to the standard use inside the Tibetan Buddhist community, but that's not how Wikipedia does it. See MOS:HONORIFIC: "Styles and honorifics related to clergy and royalty, including but not limited to His Holiness and Her Majesty, should not be included in the text inline but may be discussed in the article proper." On the other hand, the guideline continues: "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included." In my opinion this probably makes it possible to refer to him as "Sogyal Rinpoche", but makes it impossible to shorten this to "Rinpoche", as is occasionally done in the article. I wonder if "Lama Sogyal" would also be an idiomatic way of referring to him.
• WP:BLP concerns with the sources in the paragraphs about the law suit. I have removed the advocateweb.org source as too unreliable. I think it was only used for the date the law suit ended, and that it ended in mediation. The date isn't really noteworthy anyway, and I have no simply replaced this by "privately settled", sourced to the Sunday Times. I am also slightly bothered by the article from the San Francisco Free Press, which existed only a few days and thus is also not really a proper source for such allegations. I will try to cut back its use as far as possible.
• BLP weight concerns. The allegations and the law suit have been widely reported and are obviously notable. But an encyclopedia is not the boulevard press and we are very conservative in our reporting of such details. Newspapers often write more about a BLP subject's sex life than is appropriate, and certainly more than is appropriate in an encyclopedia article. In this case we have allegations of sexual misconduct that may well be based to a large extent on intercultural miscommunication (for all we know the subject had funny ideas of the morals of western women and the women in question had naive ideas of the "holiness" of a Tibetan lama), and some of the things reported around the court case look like white noise to me. I am going to cut this part back significantly. There will still be enough left to get an idea of what happened, and I am sure anyone interested in the details will read the sources provided. Hans Adler 22:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

When you say things like "may well be" and "for all we know" you are just guessing, and trying to play down what happened. There is no need to guess as there are reliable sources that lay it all out in considerable detail. Mick Brown's seven page "The Precious One" article from 1995, with additional reporting from Claire Scobie, is the most useful single source I have seen, and I have a hard copy in front of me. Quite balanced, factual, and not at all salacious. Johnfos (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I found this article with a grotesque amount of weight being given to this issue (as well as generally in a bad state, but that's less pressing), totally inappropriate to judge from all sources I could access. The Brown article is the only one whose full text I could not locate. Is there any way you can provide a copy of that so I can see what you mean? Hans Adler 23:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Brown's article should be available through regular library services. But if you have difficulty perhaps send your postal contact details to me via email, and I will post you a copy. Or I could type up some long quotes from the article and put them here so that interested editors can get a flavour for what is being said. Johnfos (talk) 23:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The second option sounds fine (while I doubt that I can easily get an old Telegraph Magazine article from Vienna University), but sounds like potentially more trouble than it's worth: I strongly suspect that we will have to either agree to something very much like the version I wrote or escalate this further. Please note that my approach was based on my experience with how such allegations in BLP articles are generally handled when they get wide attention in Wikipedia.

I had to re-revert most of your revert. I explained why in the edit summaries, but here it is again:

• AFAIK there is nothing too special about a lama not being a monk, it's well known that quite a few Tibetan lamas are not celibate, and it's easily verifiable with multiple books available on Google Books that this includes lamas of the Nyingma school. Therefore the following was grotesquely over-attributed, making it sound more special and less credible than it is:

Supporters of Sogyal Rinpoche state that lamas of the Nyingma school are not required to take vows of celibacy, and indeed Sogyal Rinpoche does not claim to be a celibate monk.

That kind of thing simply has no business in a biography.

• The English woman from the Finnigan article got an entire paragraph, even though the source does not even mention Sogyal in connection with her and indeed appears to speak about a different lama. So I obviously had to remove it. Hans Adler 23:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

In case you have any doubt about my second point, this is an excerpt from the Finnigan article:

Rand is emphatic that such high risk relationships rarely benefit both parties. This opinion is shared by other women who have had sexual liaisons with their gurus.

"I was touched by his need for me," says one, who had a long relationship with a lama, "but it was difficult and strange, in no way a normal relationship. It fuelled my fantasies about having special qualities, but he debunked them. I felt empowered by him but though he treated me with respect, I was always aware he had other lovers."
Another woman speaks of the confusion that arose from being first a humble devotee, then an exalted sexual partner, then back in the ranks again. "I felt used," she says "He put his needs above mine."
More recently, a young English woman attended a residential retreat. She thought she had been singled out for special attention only to discover that she was being invited to join a harem. "At first I was flattered, and very open and trusting. He encouraged me to fall in love with him - but I realised that he was toying with me. I noticed several other young, pretty women going in and out of his apartment, when I confronted him with this, he dropped me for the rest of the time I was there."

Did she learn anything from her intimacy with the guru? "He gave me good advice, but I am left with a hangover of pain and confusion. I also have doubts about Buddhism. If anything, I have learnt to be more cautious."

This passage is preceded by material that mentions Sogyal Rinpoche explicitly. After this passage he is not even mentioned or alluded to a single time. (To judge from the article he didn't spend much if any time in England anyway, so it's not clear how he could have abused an English woman in this way.) Hans Adler 23:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to be helpful, but can see that you're intent with guessing, playing down the issue, and reverting, when you haven't even looked at the most comprehensive source available. Pity really. Johnfos (talk) 23:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Um, what? Assuming good faith, you just didn't read properly what I wrote. I have, among other things, removed the following paragraph:

In 1995, a young English woman said she had attended one of Sogyal Rinpoche's residential retreats and been led to believe she had been singled out for special attention. "At first I was flattered, and very open and trusting. He encouraged me to fall in love with him - but I realised he was toying with me. I noticed several other young, pretty women going in and out of his apartment; when I confronted him with this, he dropped me and ignored me for the rest of the time I was there."

The citation for this paragraph was not Brown, it was Finnigan. It was obviously the passage in italics that I quoted further up. That is, it was a passage that has nothing to do with the subject of this article in the first place. It should be obvious that you can't simply copy unrelated claims into this article just because they appear to be in character. Hans Adler 23:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to be helpful, but can see that you're intent with guessing, playing down the issue, and reverting, when you haven't even looked at the most comprehensive source available. Pity really. Johnfos (talk) 23:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow. If you think that's an appropriate response to removal of an obvious BLP violation... Hans Adler 00:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

This page is being vandalised by having verifiable content deleted Maherus (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism by 88.114.61.10 Maherus (talk) 20:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC) Two IP addresses (88.114.61.10 and 88.114.63.124) are coming up as repeatedly vandalising this page by deleting verified content, presumably because the poster does not want the information to appear on the page. However, the information being deleted is important and should be publicly available on the Wikipedia page. Maherus (talk) 14:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC) The same user is repeatedly posting claims that Mary Finnigan is behind all the accusations against Sogyal Rinpoche. It is libelous to claim that Mary Finnigan is behind "all the accusations" against Sogyal Rinpoche. There are repeated misleading claims about this on the internet. Maherus (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This libelous comment ("Mary Finnigan is the commentator and journalist who appears to be behind all the accusations and writes only critical views on Tibetan Buddhism.") is being repeatedly inserted in this article without any evidence to support it. Maherus (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Controversy

I have changed the following sentence "Credibility to the claims raised was given by prominent Buddhists, Stephen Batchelor and Martine Batchelor, who were interviewed for the program" as it is misleading. From watching the videos, it is clear that they do not address specific claims of sexual abuse directly and SB does not even mention Sogyal Rinpoche at all. --Orgyen108 (talk) 13:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

There is repeated vandalism by user Zenario. Verified factual content is being repeatedly deleted and edit warring takes place when this is reverted. My assumption is that this user simply does not want the informaton s/he is deleting to be in the public domain. Maherus (talk) 07:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks like there are two different issues under this header. Orgyen108 raises the point that Batchelor video interviews are not about Rigpa or Sogyal Rinpoche. In both of those interviews they are discussing sexual impropriety in Tibetan Buddhism in very general terms. Orgyen108 is right, these interviews do not belong here, they are misleading, or at best tangential to the subject.

As for the section on the television documentary as a whole, the only sources about the documentary are from the documentary itself. This isn't good, per WP:PRIMARY, but of larger concern is that this section doesn't seem to add any information besides promoting the TV show. If the documentary has revealed something specific about this scandal that belongs in this article with respect for WP:BLP issues, then it could, potentially, be used as a source. As it stands, the entire section reads as promotion for the documentary. It is adding undue weight to the controversy without adding any verifiable substance. My guess is that if any of this is verifiable, it has been covered by other reliable sources.Grayfell (talk) 00:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

From Zenario: I am trying to bring out the full facts that journalist Mary Finnigan, who is the main contributor of the allegations against sexual abuse, is trying to prevent. She has written most of the articles about the issue and it is not a libelious claim but a fact that can be checked by search in google. She was part of the Sex Scandals of Religion documentary together with her long term friend, Victoria Barlow, who has falsely claimed for decades that she had been raped by Sogyal Rinpoche and also abused by HH Sakya Trizin, but in fact she was an ex-girlfriend of Sogyal Rinpoche [4]. This is an email Victoria Barlow sent to Mary Finnigan years ago [5]. Claiming falsely that someone has raped them is a libelious act. Finnigan has been criticized widely about her various claims against Sogyal Rinpoche, but ignores it [6].

Adding this section to the whole would bring out the criticism against the documentary. One should learn to be media critical and not to take anything shown on TV at a face value. "Allegations of sexual impropriety were the subject of a May, 2011 episode of the TV Christian documentary series Sex Scandals In Religion. [7] "In The Name Of Enlightenment" Journalist Mary Finnigan wrote Behind the Thankas blog [8] and here she verifies that she was the author [9]. Behind the Thankas blog was written to support the documentary which has received much criticism [10]." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenario (talk • contribs)

Ah -- at least you've come to the discussion page. What you write here is potentially important, and if there's a way to help you meet your goals here I'm happy to try. But: you must learn about some of the core policies we have been trying to note for you. The blogs you indicate here are not acceptable sources. Please learn about WP:RS -- any sources you use (particularly for biographical articles) must meet this standard, and blogs are simply not going to be accepted here. Please discuss here further before editing the article again; I was on the verge of reporting you for edit-warring, and it's very likely that you would have ended up having your account blocked, leaving you unable to edit. Again, work it out here on this talk page with other editors before editing the article again. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

This is also equally unreliable source: [11] Regards, Zenario — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenario (talk • contribs) 11:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The original source of the article, The Guardian newspaper, is considered a reliable source for referencing purposes. Afterwriting (talk) 14:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Zenario: In the beiginning: "Significant controversy, due to claims of student abuse have been prominent for much of his career.[4][5][6][7]" This is mostly speculation. It is not information that can be in the beginning of an introduction of anybody. Nobody has taken him to court - and there is no proof. You don't know the few women behind propagating the issue. The journalist Mary Finnigan hasn't met Sogyal Rinpoche for 40 years. Victoria Barlow was not a rape victim, but a girlfriend (and sexually abused as a child. Search: Luce family case http://www.american-buddha.com/cia.lucefamilywar.htm). I don't know Mimi, but she could be mentally unstable. Until there is any proof and real evidence this kind of introduction is not fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenario (talk • contribs) 07:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Zenario, it is important to note something. Victoria Barlow and Mimi's personal histories are completely irrelevant to this article. Having been sexually abused in the past does not, and should never, be used to invalidate later accusations. It is not about how fragile they are, or 'unstable' they are. Allegations have been made, that is all that needs to be said about them. Additionally, how long it has been since Mary Finnigan has met Sogyal Rinpoche does not determine her journalistic integrity. Many journalists report on people they have never met, that doesn't mean that they don't count.

The paragraph says that there is controversy. It doesn't say that the allegations are true, it only that they have been brought against him, and that they have been significant through much of his career. I really don't know if this belongs in the lead. It is hard for me to determine if this is wp:undue weight or not, but I don't see anything that is clearly false.

Grayfell (talk) 07:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Zenario: I have made personal research on Finnigan and Barlow, discussed with them in various internet pages. I have formed my opinion which is that Finnigan is after slander. She picks up any gossip she can find and makes a huge story. She has no interest at all to make a proper research. Focus is on all negative she can find, weather it's true or not. If I hadn't really seen how she operates, I might have doubts and would give up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenario (talk • contribs) 17:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Re your "personal research": please see WP:OR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Zenario: Compare Behind the Thankas Blog (http://behindthethangkas.wordpress.com/) and Response to the Behind the Thankas (http://dialogueireland.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/a-response-to-the-blog-behind-the-thankas/). Just because somebody is a journalist professionally doesn't make them reliable in any way. Finnigan wrote the Behind the Thankas Blog anonymously, because the purpose is slander, nothing more. What could she know about the reality when she hasn't been involved for 40 years? She has claimed that the Royal Albert Hall could be filled with victims, which is in no way true. She has done 'research' on the issue for 30-40 years, but not very successfully - and therefore she needs to resort to low tactics. If you don't bother to read the both texts, then you miss to see the point of my writing. One can prove and see her tactics clearly, if one wants to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenario (talk • contribs) 10:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I read both of those, and I'm still not sure of your point, Zenario. Neither of those blogs are used as sources for this article. Do you have any reliable sources for your statements? If so, please bring them here, I would like to see them. We need sources because Wikipedia has a policy of verifiability. We can't just take your word for it, for the same reason we can't use those anonymous blogs. These controversies have been a part of Sogyal Rinpoche's story. We are not saying they are true, but it seems they warrant a paragraph or two explaining that they exist. Grayfell (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Birthplace?

Shrigley changed "Khams, Tibet" to "Ganzi County, Xikang, China". Is this a good idea, or do we need both descriptions? Aside from the political dispute over the region (I think the Lhasa government was still claiming it at the time of Sogyal's birth, although it was not under their control)--students of Tibetan Buddhism, at least in the West, might know where Khams is but generally have no idea where Xikang is. Literature about Tibet rarely mentions the Chinese geographical names unless there's some specific relevance vis-a-vis the Chinese government or Chinese personalities. I don't want to push a POV on this but if I saw something written on Tibetan Buddhism by a non-Chinese author that, say, referred to the Dalai Lama's birthplace as Qinghai rather than Amdo I'd be astonished. (God, I'm turning into a nationalist-POV warrior. The Chinese POV is not exactly well presented in English sources if you study Tibetan Buddhism...) 169.231.53.116 (talk) 05:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point. I can't find the specific manual of style entry but as far as I can tell, most bios list the birth location as it was known at the time of birth, with the contemporary name in parenthesis. the example in Template:Infobox_religious_biography is Mother Teresa, who is listed as having been born in the Ottoman Empire. On the other hand, the 14th Dalai Lama is said to have been "born in Taktser, Qinghai (also known to Tibetans as Amdo)". The infobox just says Taktser. My understanding is that Kham (like Amdo) is a cultural region rather than a governmental region, which complicates things even further. Hmm. Grayfell (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Sogyal Rinpoche. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070701162409/http://www.rigpa.org/Sogyal_Rinpoche.html to http://www.rigpa.org/Sogyal_Rinpoche.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.rigpa.org/Tibetan_Book_of_Living_and_Dying.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040718140244/http://www.cpwr.org/2004Parliament/dialogues.htm to http://www.cpwr.org/2004Parliament/dialogues.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150415050959/http://www.well.com/conf/media/SF_Free_Press/nov11/guru.html to http://www.well.com/conf/media/SF_Free_Press/nov11/guru.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070701162409/http://www.rigpa.org/Sogyal_Rinpoche.html to http://www.rigpa.org/Sogyal_Rinpoche.html

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) 07:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)