Talk:Michael Roach

I removed some gossipy text that was added recently by Tony Simmons. This text references a New York Post article in which many quotes from various students are taken out of context and spun so as to present a salacious view of the story. I also removed the text quoting Dr. Thurman and Surya Das, because the quotation didn't support the point being made. I also removed the claim about the Dalai Lama's office, since the Dalai Lama's office has never made any such formal pronouncement, and since the Dalai Lama himself has contradicted the claim attributed to his office. I provided a citation showing this contradiction. These updates are in keeping with the policy stated on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons page:

Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to comply with Verifiability.

I realize that this will probably provoke some controversy, and I apologize in advance for that, but the text I deleted is gossipy and in some cases defamatory, and should never have been added to the article. Geshe Michael is a controversial figure, and it's not inappropriate to mention that controversy, but it is inappropriate to try to expand on the controversy in the wikipedia article.Abhayakara (talk) 05:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The template above says: "This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them..." This you did not do. And you promptly have undone my reversion of you. Please don't try to push your changes through by edit-warring.

The NY Post is a reliable source and so BLP concerns don't apply. I've read the articles carefully and support the addition of the material which Simmons has added over recent weeks.

I am restoring the article again. Make additions if you wish, and improve the wording, but don't remove material which is properly sourced. Johnfos (talk) 05:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The New York Post is not a reliable source. See the Verifiability link in the Biographies of living persons article, particularly:

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion.

The New York Post is a well known gossip rag, not a trusted journal. See the criticism section in the article I've referenced. In particular, the article you claim is a "reliable source" is in fact a page six gossip column, which is noted in the criticism section of the New York Post article.

The bit in the template about this being a controversial topic is intended to discourage the addition of gossip, not to prevent the removal of gossip. The entire section supposedly substantiated by the New York Post article was added by Tony Simmons on July 11, without any mention on this page. Your failure to criticize Tony Simmons for adding this material, and your nearly instant response when I removed it, suggests that your motivation here is not neutral. If you were neutral, I would have expected you to remove Tony Simmon's addition to this article for the exact same reason that you are now insisting that I leave it.

Unless you can come up with some alternate explanation for your actions, please stop undoing the changes I have made. Abhayakara (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course the New York Post is a reliable source - it's a major daily newspaper in New York City.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Sylvain1972, with all due respect, your assertion is simply wrong. You appear to be knowledgable about Tibetan Buddhism, so I'm surprised to see you advocating the inclusion of gossip in a web page. Please consider the following Wikipedia policy:

Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid <-- a tabloid is a format for a printed publication, dummy.: it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material.

Note particularly the final sentence. The burden of proof here lies with the person adding the gossip. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. The New York Post, on the other hand, is a noted tabloid<-- tabloid is simply a format for a printed publication, dummy. Just like folio, quarto, octavo, etc. The article being used to "substantiate" the claims added here to this wikipedia page is from a gossip column in this well-known tabloid. The standard that the Wikipedia docs refer to for biographies of living persons is that of an academic journal, not a gossip column in a tabloid newspaper. The wikipedia policy specifically mentions tabloid newspapers and gossip as not being appropriate.

Similarly, the New York Times article is quite balanced, yet the paragraph it's used to substantiate is not at all balanced. So this text doesn't seem to meet the wikipedia standard for neutrality. 173.162.214.218 (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I've raised this issue on the BLP noticeboard. For the information of non-buddhists who may come here to check up on what's going on, I will summarize my view of the controversy, which I do not claim is impartial, but in which I will nevertheless do my best to present a neutral viewpoint. Once this issue is resolved, I would appreciate it if this explanatory text could be deleted, since I don't think it's appropriate to present it here--it's largely unsourced. I tried to present what I could from this summary in the edits I made to the article.

If you read the text that I've been trying to remove, it will probably seem weirdly gossipy, in the sense of not being very important. The reason it's in contention is that various Buddhist lineages tend to have different views about partner practice by Buddhist monks. The Gelukpa lineage in particular generally forbids such practice for monks, although there are exceptions, such as the one mentioned by Dr. Thurman in the New York Times article given here as a source, and also mentioned by His Holiness the Dalai Lama in his book How to Practice on page 193.

The reason this is controversial is that although it's allowed in special cases for Gelukpa monks to engage in partner practice, they are supposed to keep a low profile, so that monks who are not qualified to do the practice don't get the wrong idea. Gelukpa monks have a vow of celibacy; properly done, partner practice does not break this vow, but improperly done, it does. Only the practitioner knows whether or not the practice is being done properly. So an onlooker might reasonably conclude that the practitioner is merely pursuing a worldly activity. Because Geshe Michael was not given the opportunity to engage in this practice discreetly, he had to make a statement about it, so as to explain why he didn't renounce his vows. This was an unavoidable situation, but it created a lot of difficulty, because the Gelukpa lineage in particular has no tradition for dealing with such revelations.

Since this situation is out in the open, it would be inappropriate for the Wikipedia article not to mention it. However, the article as written today goes to great lengths to make it look scandalous. Perhaps it appears scandalous to the people who wrote the article; I do not mean to imply that they have any ill intent in presenting it this way. However, the presentation is very deliberately one-sided, and goes into great detail about things that are simply gossip. The article as written clearly attempts to draw the reader to the conclusion that Geshe Michael is not in fact qualified to engage in partner practice, and construes various unsubstantiated claims about him from the gossip column as meaning that he is spending all his time dressing up and pursuing Russian models. I've spent quite a bit of time around him, and never seen him do this, so it's a surprising thing to find in his Wikipedia article.

If the authors of the "controversy" section have a point to make, why make it with all this innuendo? They can substantiate their innuendo (if gossip columns and clever use of ambiguous quotes from a human interest stories count as substantiation). But they are using the innuendo to draw the reader to a conclusion that cannot be substantiated. This is why I made the changes I made to the article--I think the new presentation gives a fair voice to the controversy, without being one-sided about it. I tried to find a way to keep the part of the original text that says that some people find his claims unbelievable. But it seems self-evident that some people might find his claims unbelievable, and so it comes across as gossipy. I suspect most readers of this article would simply find his claims incomprehensible, referring, as they do, to a very obscure point of practice.

What particularly concerns me about the article as written is that when read by a layperson, it implies that Gelukpa monks can never engage in partner practice, which isn't true, and therefore that Geshe Michael must have broken his vows, which is also not true. We can't know whether or not he broke his vows, unless we have mystical mind-reading powers, which I certainly don't. No verifiable source with such powers has weighed in on the topic (nor do I know of any such source who could weigh in on this topic!), so making any statements regarding the truth or falsehood of Geshe Michael's claims would seem to necessarily be in violation of Wikipedia's policies on sourcing for controversial statements. Abhayakara (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Greater input from the BLP noticeboard would be welcome. Although the New York Post is of course a tabloid newspaper, BLP policy does not preclude it from being used a source entirely. The article in question is not a blind item, it is an extended profile that Roach himself obviously cooperated with, granting an interview with the author. The material in question is not salacious gossip, it's prominent and entirely public activity by Roach that no less a reliable source than the New York Times has reported has caused quite a stir in the Tibetan Buddhist world - not just among uninformed observers, but among colleagues and peers. You are correct of course about the context of the consort practice - I've reworked the material and restored your previously added cited passage on the matter. I've also tried to make the handling of the issue more even-handed.Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Your edits look good to me, but I am not knowledgeable in the details of this dispute, rather simply responding from the BLPN thread. However, I removed the link to the NYP blog-post-like article, as it appears to simply be an advertising blurb for the more in-depth "Page Six Magazine" article and doesn't contain anything that article does not. More problematic, the NYT post allows comments like a blog and the content of those comments may be unreliable and violate our BLP policies. We can't know what may be posted there in the future. Since it doesn't actually add anything as a reference, we should err on the side of caution and not link to it. Yworo (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed some of the text pending discussion

"Roach has since taken to wearing Armani suits, rather than a monks robes, and has been inviting his students out to nightclubs in New York. This is reported to be creating confusion amongst his followers, and that many of his students are leaving him."

I just read the Page Six article cited for this paragraph, and this summary looks to me to be highly biased and contentious in parts. First, "has since taken to wearing" is questionable pending further verification - we do have him in the story wearing an Armani suit at least once, but "taken to" is questionable as it implies two things: that he never did before (seems likely) and that he does as a regular matter of course (less likely).

Second, although there is a statement that some followers are confused, there was - unless I miss it - no claim at all that "many of his students are leaving him". That may well be true, I don't know, but Page Six didn't say it (unless I missed it somewhere).

My own perspective is that the Page Six story is highly questionable for a number of reasons and that unless and until we get confirmation from other sources, we should be very cautious about it. The story cites as a source a Yogi instructor but admits to faking her name - not exactly a journalistic hallmark to give rise to confidence.

I'm also concerned that whoever added this material has misrepresented it. The story is quite clear, for example, that Michael Roach denies that his prior relationship was romantic, but we had him "admitting" that it was - in directly and obvious contradiction to the source cited. That's really bad. (I'm about to study the history to see who did that.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

[Addendum] This edit contains the insertion of the claim that Michael Roach 'admitted' that the relationship was romantic, while citing the precise paragraph in the text of the Page Six article where it is made clear that he does exactly the opposite: "maintains the relationship wasn't romantic". That's a pretty appalling state of affairs, I must say.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"Everything is going into chaos. It's all exploding," says Erin, who's close to many of his followers. "People are switching partners, and some are leaving him."

I have no problem with the latest edits, but I do think the Page Six article merits some inclusion for the reasons stated earlier - Roach clearly cooperated with the piece, and it's one of the few profiles of him by a major media source. I do agree that whoever added it initially put a disingenuous spin on the points mentioned, but I don't think the misrepresentations were quite as egregious as you do. The article indeed does not say that "many" students are leaving him, but it does say that "some" are. And you are correct that he denied that the relationship was "romantic" (whatever that means in this context) but then concedes in the quotes that he has not "truly overcome" being "trained since childhood to think of a partner as romantic." So I would not characterize the representation as appallingly misleading, although it is somewhat so.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"We are not allowed to have sex, but in yoga there are practices that involve joining with a partner," he explains. "They are secret, and you are not allowed to disclose them. You might think of them as sex, but their purpose is to move inner energy. It takes very strict training. There would be penetration, but no release of semen." Sex or no sex, the two developed a unique bond, and their unorthodox message attracted thousands of followers around the world, including in New York and Arizona—where in 2004, they founded an unaccredited Buddhist University and retreat center called Diamond Mountain.

Might as well go into it thoroughly. He also says that sex isn't allowed, but intercourse is, as far as some rituals go YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't really understand that. How can intercourse not be sex? Clearly, it's not "casual sex", but it seems it would be a form of sex just the same. Could one of those more knowledgeable about the subject please explain, or give a pointer to a resource that might clarify this? Yworo (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I think what he means is it's not conventional sex, or sex as most people conceive of sex. The idea is that it is possible to manipulate ones internal energies in a way conducive to spiritual realization by having sex without ejaculation. It is something that has been part of Vajrayana Buddhism for a long time, but very discreetly.Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

So essentially he's saying that Tantric sādhana isn't sex? I'm sure most people (and sources?) would categorize it as a form of sex. Our own article on the topic calls it an "aspect of sex". I'm just not clear how we could work this dichotomy into the article without it being original research. Wouldn't we have to find an independent source that directly says something to the effect that "tantric sex is not sex?" I don't see how a practice that includes penetration as Roach say could somehow not be sexual. I could understand that it is not intended for procreation, but I don't think that the prohibition against monks having sex was specifically aimed at preventing procreation. It all just seems like some sort of double-talk. Yworo (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Roach's quote indicates that the situation is a little ambiguous, depending on how you want to define sex. I would call it sex myself, but I understand what he's trying to say.Sylvain1972 (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Great. Glad to know I'm not going bonkers about it. If any of this needs to go into the article, I'll leave it to the experts, that's for sure! Yworo (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it might be helpful to recall that Buddhists can be obnoxiously pragmatic. Anything that will get us to enlightenment quicker, we will do, if we have the Wish. So you hear stories of sages who do things like deciding to live on fish guts, because the fishermen consider them garbage, and so they can be had for free, and thus the sage can practice all the time and not spend time earning money for food. Who cares if they taste like, well, fish guts? They are in fact the essence of bliss, if they bring us to enlightenment. You can see in His Holiness' book that in the Gelukpa lineage, practices with a partner are held to be proper, even for monastics who can do them with the highest of motivation. Whether you call it "sex," "tantric sex" or "practice," the point is to use practices of the physical body to get enlightened. This is why the distinction between "high school romance" and practice. You're doing it for pragmatic reasons, not because you want a relationship. There's no commitment in the sense that we normally think of in relationships. This is my understanding from reading His Holiness' book, How to Practice, particularly p. 193. Abhayakara (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm dismayed to visit this wikipage and find that, once again, there are individuals trying to distort basic facts so they resemble truth. This page previously had a section entitled "Controversy." Unfortunately, this section has been removed, watered down, and sublimated with the new title "Spiritual Partnership." Michael Roach is likely the single most controversial figure in American Buddhism and his wikipage should reflect that controversy (as well as his many laudable achievements). A Gelug-pa monk has taken vows against wearing his hair longer than two finger-widths, wearing (diamond) jewelry, and engaging in sexual activity whatsoever. To take a tantric consort for completion-stage tantric sex, a monk must give back his vows. To my knowledge Geshe Roach has not given back his monk's vows. Though he is a gifted and charismatic teacher, his activities do not accord with a Gelug-pa monk's behavior. His students and friends come to this forum and try to obfuscate, dilute, and, it seems, in fact remove the section outlining why many find Geshe Roach controversial. This does a disservice to Wikipedia, the very nature of which is to provide information to those wishing to find it. Fledgling readers coming to this page to find out why Michael Roach is so controversial will have to leave roughly as clueless as when they came because a few editors here are engaged in a relentless campaign to obscure the controversy surrounding Michael Roach. 152.133.7.130 (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes well life stories are not all about so called controversies, we had a discussion about it and looking at it now it is a lot better. Partisan dislikes are not worthy of inclusion. Off2riorob (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Now that's balanced. Most erudite.152.133.7.130 (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It all comes down to what can be sourced reliably. Perhaps changing the title from "controversies" was excessive but I think readers can still get an accurate sense of what the issues are. I pushed back on a lot of the changes that were made and I think the result is satisfactory. There is a reliable source from the Dalai Lama saying (highly realized) monks can practice tantric sex with a consort without breaking vows.Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Update, try for NPOV on spiritual partnership issue.

User:Yworo asked for an example of what I think the section should look like, and since we don't seem to have had any new reviewers, I decided to take a stab at it. I pulled in some new references, in particular the "Get to know us" article, in which Geshe Michael and Lama Christie go into some detail about the incident with the Office of HHDL. I hope this comes across as a constructive attempt at NPOV, because that's what I was shooting for. If not, please tell me what I got wrong.

Thanks! Abhayakara (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it is generally OK, except I'm not crazy about the paragraph starting "Geshe Michael's openness . ." I don't think Thurman's quote should be removed.Sylvain1972 (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Which of Thurman's quotes do you mean--the one where he says that he's skeptical, or the one where he says that the monks are all in a tizzy? The reason I ask is that the latter seems kind of random. Which monks think he's gone crazy? All Tibetan monks? Clearly not--the Nyingmas and the Kagyus find the whole thing completely unremarkable, for example, and many Gelukpa monks were happy to hang out with Geshe Michael during the height of the controversy--some even came to the teachings in Palampur, where we relocated after we were asked not to establish a visible presence in Dharamsala. Khen Rinpoche (GMR's lama) never expressed the opinion that Geshe Michael was crazy. None of the monks in Howell did either. Surely they would be most qualified. I used the "superhuman" quote instead because it's Dr. Thurman's own opinion, which I think carries a lot more weight. I kept it brief because I think the section's too long already in relation to the rest of the article. I realize that the "the monks think he's crazy" quote makes him seem crazier, and if you really think he's crazy, taking it out does compromise the NPOV. But if you really think he's crazy, I don't think that's justifiably an NPOV. There's little evidence to support that position, and a lot to contradict it. The controversy is over real issues that can be analyzed rationally, not over Geshe Michael being crazy. Abhayakara (talk) 01:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to Thurman's quote “there is a tremendous amount of opprobrium by the Tibetan monks; they think they have gone wacky." But on reflection I agree that it is lacking in specificity and is perhaps not so useful for that reason. Archtypical Thurman in that regard.Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a mindreader here

Someone needs to rewrite the paragraph(s) to explain what the controvery IS. WHAT are the two of them "practicing" together? Is it a matter of "holy monk found with secret girlfriend"? Lotta quotes about how it would be "superhuman" of him to "practice" with her, but again, what are they TALKING about?!

I've read the page 4 times now, and I can't even get the basics! 66.3.106.6 (talk) 02:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You're right, it was confused and confusing. I hope the revision clarifies it.Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I myself was confused yesterday and had even forgotten the Post article, so thoroughly was the relevant information suppressed last summer. I hope it is clear now.Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

New Material

I'm going to add some new material to the article that's not related to the spiritual partner section. It probably won't happen for a few days at least, but I'll do a work-in-progress page as a subpage of my user page so that interested editors can comment on it before it goes live. The article is very out-of-date right now--it doesn't really talk at all about the Enlightened Business Institute, which is Geshe Michael's big project right now, and it's also missing a lot of information about his books, translation work, ACI Phoenix, and so on. There is some text I'd like to add to the spiritual partner's section as well, but I'll bring that up as a separate matter because it seems to be of interest to a number of editors. I think the other stuff should be pretty non-controversial. Abhayakara (talk) 01:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Controversy Section is Too Long

I tried to trim down the controversy section because it's quite long and rambling, and it's not clear what it's trying to say. Unfortunately, User:Sylvain1972 apparently did not agree with my edits. I would challenge User:Sylvain1972 to come up with a more concise way of making whatever point it is that he or she is trying to make here. It's frankly bizarre that a Buddhist monk who's been teaching since the 1970s, who has founded several major Buddhist projects that are in widespread use beyond his own sangha, and who has done many, many interesting things in his life, gets half of his Wikipedia article dedicated to a practice that some Buddhist practitioners consider controversial, but that in fact the Dalai Lama says is perfectly permissible. The mere fact that someone finds these practices questionable doesn't seem like a good reason to be talking about body fluids in the Wikipedia page.

So, User:Sylvain1972, could you try to articulate what it is that you want to say here on the discussion page, so that we can try to figure out a way to say it that isn't so long-winded? Alternatively, if you feel that this is an article that ought to be longer, so that the controversy section would be a more balanced part of it, it would be awfully nice if you could help to expand the other sections of the article. Abhayakara (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The controversy section is there for self-evident reasons - there was in fact a controversy around his spiritual partnership and open practice of karmamudra, as reported and cited by the reliable sources which have been included. That seems pretty clear to me. If it is large in proportion to the rest of the article, that is only because the rest of the article is thin. The obvious solution is to expand the other sections, not to once again truncate the controversy section to the point where it is no longer intelligible. See the earlier comment from User:66.3.106.6 - he/she was no longer able to make sense of it, so completely had it been bowdlerized. The only recent edit of yours that I did not agree with was the one in which you deleted the sentence featuring a direct quote from Roach clarifying that the relationship that he had earlier characterized as "chaste" includes penile-vaginal penetration. Surely that is relevant to understanding why there is a controversy. As far as the Dalai Lama saying it is permissible, he says it is permissible in general, but in the case of Roach he does not condone it, and other prominent teachers have spoken out unfavorable as well. That is certainly relevant to the article and worthy of inclusion.Sylvain1972 (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I guess I failed to explain my objection properly. Suppose we were to take out everything but the controversy section. Would what we had left be a Wikipedia article? I don't think so—I think it would just be a random slam against a person who might or might not be considered notable according to Wikipedia tradition. In and of itself, there would be no point in the article's existence. So the point is that the "controversy" section is, in my opinion, not notable. Okay, so a bunch of Buddhists from one sect happen to disagree with the practices of a Buddhist from another sect. Why does the average Wikipedia reader care about this? The fact that User:66.3.106.6 was unable to make sense of it doesn't mean that it needs to be expanded—you could just as well say that because of this it needs to be removed entirely, because it's confusing and pointless, and only of interest to a very select group of people, not to Wikipedia readers in general.

So this is why I asked you to explain what it is that you're trying to communicate with this section. Are you trying to say that Geshe Michael did something improper? If so, what? Is the controversy between his sect and other sects interesting? If so, why not have some academic references describing the controversy, and explaining the positions of the two opposing sides? Why not have a Wikipedia article that's specifically about this controversy, and that explains why it is interesting? Why the gossip column and a New York Times culture section article as the primary sources? Surely someone more notable in the context of Buddhist thought has had something useful to say about this in a printed publication that you can use as a reference.

Also, I see that you admit that the article is a bit thin otherwise. You obviously have some interest in Geshe Michael, or you wouldn't have edited the article at all: surely you have more to say about him than some comments about a decade-old controversy. What is it about him that inspires you? What about him initially attracted your attention? Do you find his founding of ACIP interesting? Do you find the eighteen-course ACI series interesting? Does the three-year silent retreat in a yurt in the desert catch your fancy at all? Do you have anything to say about the Diamond Cutter book? Or is this particular practice that he was doing, years ago, the only thing interesting about him to you? Abhayakara (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not a Buddhist, nor do I have a particular interest in Geshe Roach but I have contributed to a number of articles on Wikipedia. My interest in this article is entirely related to having verifiable information available in NPOV so that readers can make up their own mind about the subject. The controversy section in this article is important as it relates directly to the actions and decisions of its subject. In order to understand the controversy you must understand the Vinaya Sutra which spells out the restrictions placed on the Bhikkhu (Monk). If you understood this you would understand that one of the main ideas of the restrictions is to keep the Sangha of Bhikkhus free from gossip and distractions. In this light, Geshe Roach's long hair, jewelry wearing and open admission to having and working with a consort caused quite a lot of talk. As is cited in the article, working with a consort is permissible if it is done in absolute privacy. The whole idea is so that the Sangha is not gossiping or laying odds on whether or not the "Monk" is ejaculating or how often. Geshe Roach decided to part with tradition and go public in contradiction to established norms of practice. This is what the controversy is about. He was advised to remove his robes and he refused. Many found his reasoning and actions to be insulting to the tradition and Vinaya. That this article does not reflect this non remarkable information is a failure largely due in my opinion to editors who fail at NPOV and likely have a WP:COI issue such as students of Geshe Roach are likely to have. I have edited this article a number of times and this information is rapidly reverted even if correctly cited. Even this Talk page gets "cleaned" if the controversy is clearly brought up here. It would be nice if people could understand the issues and make up their own mind about the subject. Vritti (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC).

In reply to User:Abhayakara: One could say that about any wikipedia article - remove everything but one section and it no longer is a coherent article. That is not an argument to remove the section. The section is not a "slam" against him. It simply notes the existence of a controversy that does in fact exist, and presents it in a way that conforms to WP:NPOV. The controversy represents a major focus of much of his coverage in general interest media sources, including the New York Times, one of the most prominent newpapers in the world. For that reason alone it is notable. My interest in this is simply that wikipedia adequately incorporates the reportage of the controversy by reliable sources, and it now does that. My opinions about Michael Roach are not relevant or at issue. If you have academic references relevant to Michael Roach, by all means incorporate them, but the existing references are certainly permissible reliable sources, and the material in the section is noteworthy, well-cited, and in accordance with WP:NPOV. If you are inspired to expand the rest of the article, by all means please do so.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

If it were your intention to communicate what was communicated in the two articles in popular media that you claim are the only ones about Geshe Michael, I would expect to see the tone of the New York Times article, for instance, conveyed in the text that uses it as a reference. But that's not what I see. What I see is very selective quotation from this article, arranged in such a way as to convey a very different message than is conveyed in the Times article. The tone of the Times article is "look at what these crazy Buddhists are doing, isn't that interesting, and oh, here's some controversy to keep you reading." The tone of the controversy section is to focus in on a detailed description of the controversial practices, without saying why they are controversial, and while leaving out pretty much all of the context that is presented in the source.

And when I ask you to explain what it is that you are trying to communicate in this section, you ignore me, as if I had not asked the question at all. Part of working on wikipedia articles is collaboration: different editors working together to make the article as clear and accurate as possible. Perhaps you didn't notice that I asked, so I will ask again: can you say, in your own words, what it is that you are trying to communicate in this section? Abhayakara (talk) 04:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I did address your question, but I will address it again. I am trying to convey what the sources convey, which is that Michael Roach has been fairly open about his unusual "spiritual partnership," as he calls it, and that partnership has provoked comment in the press and among his peers. As I already mentioned, it is notable because it has been a focus of his press coverage in reputable publications. Roach himself has been forthcoming about the nature of that partnership, more so in the Post article than in the Times article. I don't agree that there is not any context. The section clearly states that karmamudra practice by monks with a live rather than visualized partner has some precedent in the Gelukpa lineage, although it is traditionally kept secret. Roach himself has a long quote providing further context. Including Roach's own detailed description of the practice is certainly relevant, especially considering that he himself felt the need to publicly clarify the nature of the partnership in detail. It is peculiar to me that you are imputing a motive to me of wanting to make him look bad. He clearly feels that a high level of transparency regarding this practice is the best policy.Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I have further refined the section, I hope you will find it improved. In my view the section should convey clearly and in a NPOV manner 1) what the practice is that is the subject of controversy and what is the nature of it (karmamudra involving celibate monks and female partners), 2) why has Roach's practice of it caused controversy (it is traditionally kept secret and Roach has gone public with it), and 3) Roach's explanation of his motivations in being open with it (times have changed and secrecy in his view is no longer appropriate).Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing in the section that I find particularly objectionable except for your insistence on speaking in very explicit and also ordinary terms about secret practices that you stipulate are sanctioned by the lineage. It's true that Geshe Michael did talk about these practices in the same degree of detail in the article you reference, but that was an article written at the time of the controversy several years ago. The controversy is pretty much dead at this point, so retaining a lengthy explanation in an encyclopedia article about Geshe Michael seems weird to me. It's not a problem for Geshe Michael; it's a problem for his students who are less pure of heart, and have to deal with seeing this stuff in a general article about him. His practices with his partner are between him and his partner, unless there's some accusation of wrongdoing, and it's no more fun for his students to see graphic descriptions of these practices, no matter how holy and proper they may be, than it is for a child to see a detailed description of the encounter that led to his or her conception, or for a stranger to see that same description.

Anyway, the point of these criticisms is not to say anything about you. I don't really know anything about you. The point is that I think you're making this section longer than is appropriate, and when I propose changes intended to shorten it, you object, but I can't figure out what the basis is for your objection. This seems like a relatively straightforward matter to me. Abhayakara (talk) 05:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

That is basically the essence of the dispute. It is not for us to censor certain information for the perceived benefit of those of his students who by your assessment "are less pure of heart" for whom you imagine this will be a "problem." The purpose of the article is to provide an accurate and NPOV reflection of the information published about the subject by reliable sources. Whether or not the controversy is "dead" is not relevant to the fact that is still notable and appropriate for inclusion in the article. The Monica Lewinsky scandal is also dead, but it has not been purged from the article about Bill Clinton. The suggestion that I have been unwilling to work with you is unfair. The section has been revised and shortened time and time again. I have also articulated my objection to your purposes over and over. By your own admission, you would like to shorten the section to the point where it is no longer clear, for the purpose of hiding the information therein for the perceived benefit of Roach's "less pure of heart" students. That is simply not an acceptable editorial policy, and that is what I object to.Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to argue for cutting it down, not "to the point where it is no longer clear" - but to the point where it is clearer and isn't WP:UNDUE weight. I also agree that the needs of "less pure of heart" students isn't really the point, of course. But right now, the article blows a very minor thing into a long controversy section.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a little problematic to invoke WP:UNDUE weight here, considering that one of the previous complaints about the section was that there was insufficient context. Most of the section is now devoted to providing that context.Sylvain1972 (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

One of the earlier complaints was indeed that there was insufficient context. However, I just rewrote the section and had no difficulty expressing the needed context in a single paragraph. My rewrite does elide some of the juicier details; I persist in claiming that these are private details. It's true that the students' feelings shouldn't be predominant here, but it ought to be the case that some purpose is served in including these details. User:Sylvain1972 has not been able to articulate what the purpose of these details is; therefore, I have left them out. If there is some purpose, User:Sylvain1972 should be able to say "these details need to be included for X purpose," not simply "these details appeared in the source material, and hence must be repeated in the article." Many details from the source material are not repeated in the article, so clearly the mere fact that some detail appears in the source is not sufficient grounds for its inclusion in the article. Abhayakara (talk) 04:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Er, one additional point. I expect that someone might take exception to my assertion that the physical details of the karmamudra practice are private, when they were described in the source material. What I mean here is that even if the details of some public figure's sexual activity is known, unless that activity is held to have been inappropriate, it's considered unnecessary to broadcast the details of that activity. For example, unfortunately we must endure the descriptions of a certain U.S. president's sexual activities, because it is relevant to events that unfolded in the latter portion of his presidency. However, it would be quite odd to see, in an encyclopedia article, physical descriptions of the activities occurring between a public figure and his wife or her husband, even if source material existed that could be cited. In this case, since the behavior being described is private conduct, the mere fact that source material exists that describes that private conduct does not justify its inclusion in the article, because those details are immaterial—they do not speak to the character of the subject of the article. Abhayakara (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Gah, or her wife or his husband, of course. Abhayakara (talk) 04:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with the changes, except the cryptic wording. It is not private conduct after a person has described it in detail, on record, to the New York Post. If you object to a precise description of the conduct, we can just call it sex - Roach acknowledges that's what most people would call it. Already after your edits we had an editor who could not understand the passage anymore, given that he thought karmamudra referred to the female partner rather than the practice itself. The controversy was that a supposedly celibate monk engaged in secret sexual practices that are sanctioned as long as they are private, and then he went public with them. All of those elements are relevant to the article, and the elision of any one of them makes for an incomprehensible account.Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm with you. There are some significant issues here, that needn't be explicitly discussed here, but are nonetheless implied (and are discussed in the articles cited). Karmamudra is NOT ideally supposed to be a romantic partnership - it is a religious partnership. Not that it matters, but personally I question the possibility of that sort of exclusivity - and Roach himself said that it didn't turn out that way for them either. They did indeed have a romantic relationship, with all of the complications that implies, by his own admission ("It got kind of high school" he said. !) Also - their secrecy was never very, well, secret. Their students knew, so they went public before the whistle was blown more widely. Most Tibetan Buddhist leaders were highly skeptical of their highly irregular "karmamudra" practice, and were vocal in their opposition, or so reports say. So - I find the passage covers the issue, with citations for those who wish to dig up more of the dirt, or understand the issues. 48 hours ago, this page read like a Michael Roach pamphlet. It is considerably better now.Tao2911 (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

New edits to controversy section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article might want to include the newspaper articles about Michael Roach suggesting that people should look beautiful and dress up, and his hitting the clubs as not seeming to make sense.