Talk:Alexander Berzin (scholar)

Getting this article beyond start class

The article does not currently have sources that establish WP:BIO. Not that this is in question, but it's important even if WP:BLP didn't apply.

The article is basically an advertisement for him and his website. Third party sources need be found and used as the guiding sources for the article. Again, WP:BLP applies as well.

The references need to be expanded with publication dates, authors, etc. --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Ronz. I'm perplexed about your tags. I've read and reread the article and I can't work out what you mean:

— written like an advertisement

— promotional content

— inappropriate external links

— sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral

I haven't contributed to the article myself and I can't commit to being able to help you with whatever exactly is wrong with it (depending on what it is), but can you please be more specific. Otherwise, it's not possible for the rest of us to appreciate your qualms.

Moonsell (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand your confusion. These are straightforward problems verified by simply scanning the article and its references. --Ronz (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Please don't take this the wrong way. My difficulty understanding is real. I've just asked you to say what you mean. Moonsell (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I've made three statements on what needs to be done, linking policies/guidelines with each. Please identify which you don't understand, and try to explain your understanding of how the policies/guidelines are currently being met (if you believe they are). --Ronz (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with this article and I can't understand the tags. Please, is there anyone else who can shed light on this? Moonsell (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Let me try one more time.

Of the three statements I made, the first is: The article does not currently have sources that establish WP:BIO. Does my statement need clarification? If so, indicate so and how. Have you looked at WP:BIO? If you disagree with my statement, say so, and identify the specific sources that I am overlooking that indeed establish WP:BIO. If none exist, find some. --Ronz (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Removal of advertisement and sources too close tags

Dear Ronz, Dear Moonsell,

I see you were reaching no agreement. I think I can see the problems Ronz was talking about and have modified the article accordingly. I am quite familiar with Berzin's work since I follow it for many years. I added some references to better cement the notability aspect (in the Tibetan Buddhist and academic religious study worlds) using third-party sources of biography. Also, I added third-party references about his life work in Mongolia and Kalmykia. I had to use a reference in Russian from a friend since no reference was available in English. I think the Reviews section I added better shows the appreciation many others have for his work. Also, the new Bibliography section contains selection of the non-website traditionally published material I know from him. For sure this needs to be expanded by others. I also think that this article shouldn't be an advertisement for Berzin's website. It should be a reference about him as an academic (who happens to publish almost all his work for free on his website since 15 years or so). I believe we can now remove both tags. What do you think? Jorgenumata (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the help.

Unfortunately, I don't think you have addressed BIO directly, and I'm not going to look through all the new sources and reviews you added to see if there may be something in there that might.

I think the easiest way would be to start by identifying the specific sources here on this page. --Ronz (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear Ronz, Thanks for your editorial work. First of all, if I understand you correctly you now agree to remove the tag "advertisement" since this article has lost the character of just being an advertisement for Berzin's website.

As for the second concern on BIO, I have annotated the specific sources below and how they relate to each item on the biography. I trust you will be satisfied that quality sources were used, none of which were posted by Berzin himself:

• Birth in Paterson N.J, Harvard PhD, Age, part-time translator of the Dalai Lama (source )
• Working with translators in many languages (source )
• Advised with the revival of Buddhism in Mongolia (sources )
• Advised with the revival of Buddhism in Kalmykia (source )
• Participated in the Buddhist-Islamic Dialogue (sources )
• Berzin Archives website included in the Boolean Electronic Archives and Manuscripts collection of the University of Oxford (source )
• On the Board of Advisors of Tibethaus Deutschland (source )
• One the Board of Advisors of the International Center for Buddhist-Muslim Understanding (source )
• Gives explanatory talks at Kalachakra initiations given by the Dalai Lama (sources )

Jorgenumata (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm focusing on BIO, because it will help or at least impact everything else in the article. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm concerned that verification is being confused with the notability of a person. The first source doesn't address BIO at all. The second is weak because of the short treatment, lack of independence, and promotional nature of the publication.

The following two interviews are weak - I don't have access to them but in general interviews have little independent coverage of the subject, what there may be is often provided by the subject of the interview or is heavily weighed to grabbing the attention of the potential reader.

The fifth is weak, being a press release.

The sixth is weak, being another interview.

The seventh fails BIO, as it's not independent.

The eighth fails BIO because it says nothing about Berzin other than identifying him as the author of an article quoted in the source.

The ninth fails BIO, and very weakly demonstrates notability for his archives.

The rest fail BIO because they say nothing about Berzin specifically.

This is harder than I'd hoped. I think we meet WP:AUTHOR taking these all together. I find it hard to believe that there's no in-depth coverage about him and his archives. The archives have some notability of their own, though not separate from him that I see, so they probably deserve a bit more weight in the article. --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

This is long, I know. If you don't have time, skip it, but just one thing: take the tags down in the meantime.

Please can we continue this discussion calmly. I think you deal with a wide range of stuff on WP, Ronz and that gives you some common denominator expectations. This article is about a Buddhist scholar and this niche of WP tends to be particularly consensus driven. Once in a while someone combative does crash in on an article. We Buddhists tend to just get frightened away. If WP is lucky, one or two of us might come back in time.

THE IMPORTANCE OF SOURCES

On your user page you've got:

"Editors working incredibly hard to defend their personal opinions, rather than finding, evaluating, and incorporating more and better sources. It's the focus on sourcing that resolves these disputes."

This is true to an extent, but I have a qualification: Sources are not a be all and end all. For a start, they're not for legalities. For example, they do get thrown in as a pretext for adding nonsense to an article. Usually this happens when an editor has misunderstood the source or applied it to a context where it doesn't fit, but other editors don't have access to it. Then the first editor is too busy to reproduce the words in a discussion (all of them including context) and there's a communication breakdown.

Editors can fall in love with their contributions while they battle with whose source is bigger. I even had an experience some years ago where one in good faith wrote something smelly but with a reputable source attached. He just couldn't consider that there could be something wrong. In that case I actually got a reply by email from the writer of the book that what he meant was the opposite of what we were trying to say on WP.

PUTTING SOURCES IN THEIR PLACE

More crucially for us is the other side of the coin, where sources are missing. That's not a license for rubbishing good things.

This is my favourite part of WP:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources

"The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations..."

Most stuff on WP is not contentious and doesn't need sources. A lot of editors don't get that. In fact, there is a trap of getting carried away and making sourcing a fetish. To put citations on stuff that's common knowledge and part of scholarly consensus looks plain silly to a reader.

SOURCES IN WP:BIO

That's why in WP:BIO, which is only about why someone can be notable enough to deserve an article on them and nothing else, it says:

"The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." To scholars of Buddhism Berzin's lifetime of contributions are common knowledge. As if that wasn't enough, though, WP:BIO goes on with more:

"Academics: Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as 'academics' for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources."

Even though Jorgenumata has gone out of his way to give you secondary sources on Berzin, this is a situation where wider knowledge of Buddhism could give more subtlety and humility to your editing. Students of Buddhism (and Tibetan Buddhism in particular) don't need secondary sources to know about Berzin's importance to our understanding of it.

TAKING YOU AS HAVING GOOD FAITH

You say on your user page: "I'm trying to find better ways of dealing with Tendentious editing, Disruptive editing, and the all-too-common bullying within Wikipedia… I'm looking for some preventative measures. First and foremost in my mind is getting editors to be more respectful of each other by being more respectful of the numerous policies and guidelines related to civility".

I too have had interactions with two editors that pushed me over the edge with glee at one stage. The worst thing was how one editor had the time to throw her weight around over a year and a half but no inclination to take responsibility for what she was doing or even acknowledge my talk about it. Yet it turned out, she had absolutely no insight into what she was doing.

Please stop and think. You've taken the trouble to put confronting tags on the Berzin article. I tried to talk about big problems with them. You ignored, changing the topic to WP:BIO, which, as I said, is just about criteria why someone is notable enough to deserve an article on them at all. That tells me, "Hands off the tags, no questions asked. I have the power to nuke the whole article if I feel like it."

Then look over the way you've first talked about WP:BIO. In tone it comes across as patronising and feels like bullying.

You've ignored what I raised at the start but look at how demanding you've been of us. Initially you didn't had the time to even glance at the work Jorgenumata has done to satisfy you. Now you tick him off on everything and don't give him an inch.

You've been bold enough with your tags but now you've demanded talk from us in future before contributing. Jorgenumata's new contributions are all there neatly laid out already in the article's page history.

And how curt and abrasive your responses to him! What could he or any of us expect from you in the piecemeal discussions you've demanded now? You yourself just don't have time in any case.

So, talk about sources and guidelines all you like. I agree, although I've seen legal games and warring over them too. But collaboration has to start with having the time for each other and then being prepared to look honestly at what we ourselves are doing.

WHAT WE NEED FROM YOU

I'd like to come back to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources:

"The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations..."

What we need sources for is things that are *"challenged or likely to be challenged"*. Please consider that. What actual bits are you challenging in this article with your tags. And… *why*?

WHY IT MATTERS

I've never contributed to this article but I think the others have done a pretty good job. I know a bit about the field of study and the tags aren't cute. To people like me who come across them and then check out the context they trivialise WP. This is the wrong place for them.

They don't belong here but the thing that keeps coming through is that you're too busy to deal with this. The professional and respectful thing to do is take them down while you have no consensus and no time for it.

That won't stop you from discussing more as much as you like. We won't go away. Read up on Tibetan Buddhism. Contribute constructively. It really is a matter of respect.

WP:BIO has nothing to do with your tags. It's a red herring and it isn't your real problem. At least take the time to:

1) read this discussion from the beginning;

2) say specifically what's wrong.

Last of all, is there any one of us who agrees with the tags and does have time to elaborate?

EPILOGUE

It's not about you, Ronz. It's the tags and what you do with them. Please don't just spin off a dismissive response. Like others here I take care with what I write, including in discussions. Honour that by sleeping on it for a few days.

Moonsell (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Please focus on content and Wikipedia's policies.

As there's no tag about notability, and that's all that has been addressed so far, asking for their removal is premature. The tags are their to identify problems and to attract others to assist in addressing them.

If you look to the last sentence of my response you'll see that I believe that we've made progress. --Ronz (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad we're starting to talk about content, not just legalisms. As for policies, after your display so far with WP:BIO, I think you need to show us first that you can cope with them. Also, "please focus on content". I've urged you to do that with the policy I emphasised twice and you haven't even noticed it.

WP:BIO

— Right at the beginning I alerted you privately on your talk page to big problems with your tags. You had done something hasty and with goodwill I was nudging you to reconsider early rather than digging yourself in.

— You raised WP:BIO for the first time (in the outrageous way I've said) later that day in response to me about the tags, not on your talk page but on this one, as you preferred. You were insisting on making a case out of this and you'd decided the tactic was going to be heavy-handed.

— From the start I had already allowed for you not knowing the material you were tampering with and offered you as much personal consideration as a newbie as I could. I'd given you a heads up that the guy you were dealing with was someone reputable and impeccable.

— From that time on you've banged on about nothing else except WP:BIO, taking a superior stance to us like a kindergarten teacher with a red pencil in her hand.

— You sent us on a wild goose chase with WP:BIO. With your editing experience you should have known what it said about you demanding sources like that over someone like Berzin. You wasted Jorgenumata's time and it isn't just your own time that matters.

— You want to focus on WP's policies but can't even understand WP:BIO yourself. You haven't commented on the other policy I emphasised. Maybe that's Greek too.

— You can't make sense of all this without a tag on notability (an extra one!), like a cop who's holding someone he doesn't like the look of, but groping for a technical label to put on it. What kind of a buzz can someone get from throwing round tags anyway?

THE TAGS

— At the start, when I tried to alert you to what Berzin meant to scholars of Buddhism, I wasn't even talking about WP:BIO. You brought it up. I'd never even considered it as a question. I was talking about those particular tags on a good article about a person like that and how the tags were trashing it. I thought at best they might come from some kid who had found new toys. This is the stuff that makes academia disdain WP. But I do also have first-hand experience of the tea party vigilantes who've been making havoc on WP the last few years. They make a show of tag versatility and quibbling over sources to evade accountability. Constructive volunteers get ward off them doing what they feel like with their wrecking ball on good content. You could have been one of them. Either way, I was talking about the tags, not WP:BIO.

— You can't say which actual parts of the article you dislike and what things about each of them make you uncomfortable. Now I'm starting to wonder if you know yourself. The tags are just your off the cuff impressions. Maybe you were in a bad mood that day and didn't like the picture of Berzin's face. Maybe you think there's no place for religion on WP, let alone voodoo esoteric stuff. Maybe you carry a bag of tags and pseudo-legalities round with you on this site, trawling it like a graffiti artist wanting to use up his paint.

— It's been six weeks now since I politely and considerately challenged those tags but you've just kept dodging the issue.

— You've kept the tags there all that time. That's not just inflammatory. It's not just arrogant. It's infantile in a professional sense on a platform like this with a sincere discussion ongoing.

— The tags are a contribution, even if a negative one, even if not constructive. You still need to take responsibility for them as your edits.

— At the start I detailed the exact ways they stigmatise the article. You didn't notice what I wrote. It's you who won't be informative. It's not enough to wave a hand around waftily. "You ought to know what I mean" isn't good enough. You've tagged the whole article. You can't lay that stuff on us and then not spell out each part that has issues and what exactly each of them are. I've been talking about content all along and you've been evading it.

Please do what I've asked for. Start by rereading this discussion from the beginning and actually taking the time to think about it.

Then look at the points I first raised. They are the criticisms the tags are making. You chose those particular tags.

Show us what each criticism has to do with each bit you don't like. (Content, not wishy washy feelings). The tags apply to the whole article so show which bits deserve each criticism and why (content).

Like I said, please give it at least a few days and show that you've taken the time to think before replying.

Moonsell (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the hurtful words I used above, Ronz. I'm feeling at my wit's end. But emotion is taking over how I try to get understood. I need to back off for a while. Please give me scope to come back to it more harmoniously.

Moonsell (talk) 23:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

… and thank you for not taking advantage of my shameful show of personal weakness here.

Moonsell (talk) 02:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm following my standard, policy-based approach to addressing such articles.

As part of my approach, I try to find common ground with the other editors involved. A large part of that common ground must be based upon understanding and working from Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Because of this, I regularly point out specific policies and guidelines, and focus on those that I think are most important, especially if I'm uncertain that they're understood or their relevance isn't clear.

As far as articles go, my first area of focus is to check the notability of the topic. Because it wasn't clear, I've spent some time focusing on it. While I think we're at a point where we can move on from it, having better sources would make it clearer and would make the rest of the work much easier. While the notability guideline doesn't establish content, the type of sources it requires are extremely helpful, even necessary, for a good article.

This takes me to my next area of focus: looking at the sourcing in detail. Independent sources are better than non-independent ones, all else equal. Secondary sources are better than primary ones, all else equal. Sources based upon strong research and that put the topic in a historical context are some of the best sources we can hope for.

Looking over the sources, too many are primary, too many are not independent. I've already addressed them all quickly. We can work from there.

If editors would like to take a different approach, WP:DR covers the many options we have.--Ronz (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problems

Looking over the article vs online treatments, I'm concerned there may be copyright violations and plagiarism. Those will have to be resolved first. WP:CP is where to go next. I'd like to take some time to collect concrete evidence first. --Ronz (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The initial article creation is just a copy of [1]. Much of that content remains, and none of it is verified by berzinarchives.com nor by a more current biography from studybuddhism.com. --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the advertisement and sources too close tags should not be removed. I appreciate Jorgenumata´s efforts to provide inline sources but these sources are rather poor, especially in a WP:BLP. Ronz has shown a lot of good will when he concluded that "we meet WP:AUTHOR taking these all together." I am not sure that this article would survive Wikipedia:AfD.

The article needs an additional copyvio tag. Jorgenumata, please consider to save a copy of the article (not in your userspace because it is a copyvio). I assume it might be deleted as a copright violation. JimRenge (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Tagged, and I've made a backup of the article. Sorry for the confusion. I don't recall the copyvio template removing the content, the last time I used it. --Ronz (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

In support of maintaining and improving this valuable article

I am somewhat astonished to find this article basically suspended and even nominated for deletion. Forgive me, as a an editor with little experience and only one year's track record, but I have personal knowledge of the subject and feel that deletion of this article in its entirety would be tantamount to vandalism. Berzin has a ginormous track record with 17 published books and endless articles, literally hundreds or even thousands of them; his compilation of Buddhist teachings and lore is probably the best and also the largest in existence on the internet - plus most of the invaluable information in it has been translated and published in no less that 21 languages.

To contend that he and his phenomenal achievements are not notable and therefore not worthy of a Wikipedia article would appear to be a travesty of justice. Agreed, it needs a re-write, with all the sources tied up to all the bits of information to be stated, but this can please be done in a positive, instructive and helpful way, rather than talking about deletion, picking holes in it, finding endless fault in it and condemning it for this that and the other as if it is some sort of dubious attempt to get Berzin's name in Wikipedia without justification.

I have to state my potential conflicts of interest here. I have known Berzin personally since 1975. The Tibetan master for whom he interpreted for 9 years, the late Serkong Rinpoche, was a teacher of the Dalai Lama as well as of myself. I have also worked to raise funds for the Berzin Archives to finance the translation of hundreds of his freely-available website articles on Buddhism and its history into Arabic, Urdu, Persian, Turkish and Indonesian, thus paving the way for greater understanding of Buddhism throughout the Muslim world, of which I also know a little myself.

In closing as a rookie WP editor I have been lucky to have been helped along by various senior editors who have mentored and coached me in the ways of WP editing in an extremely kind and helpful manner. I hope the same standards of positive and helpful behaviour will enable this article to be improved as it deserves to be without making any further unnecessary and if I may say so, inappropriate threats. Moreover, the text that has been removed should be reinstated as soon as possible and instead of all these endless reams of argument and criticism some good energy might be put into actually improving the existing information which is what I understood WP was all about. Thank you for your kind consideration of my intervention which I hope will be taken in a positive way. I have come to love WP and its ethic. Let that not get tarnished over time. MacPraughan (talk) 13:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The text was a clear copyright violation. There are instructions on how to rewrite the article within the copyvio notice. I highly recommend taking the time to find new and better sources (sources with more depth of inforation about him, independent sources clearly demonstrating his notability, and sources verifying some the many things that editors assert here on this talk page), so we can get out of the shadow the past problems. --Ronz (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear Mr or Ms Ronz, thank you for your clarification that the text is a clear copyright violation. Can you please specify exactly which part of the text you are talking about and also indicate the exact place the text has been stolen from, as I would just like to check out that what you are alleging is right. I am on a learning curve with how to deal with such an awful condemnation in practice. It sounds truly terrible that anyone acting in good faith could unknowingly or otherwise commit such a reprehensible offence as you describe when giving facts in good faith about a person who has devoted his life to such a wonderful purpose as Dr Berzin has done! Thanks very much and sorry for the bother, it would be very helpful of you to do the necessary. MacPraughan (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The copyright problems were identified above [2]. To repeat, the original version of this article was a simple copy of the biography on Berzin's website at the time. The editor that did so, Template:UserRudyh01 has a history of such editing, as well as direct conflict of interest problems.

The solution is to rewrite the article. I think our focus should be there. --Ronz (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, thanks! I see what you mean. I have looked at the "Short Biography" of Berzin on his website and it is full of lots of similar information to what was written here. But isn't that normal? A person's biography does not change according to where it has been posted. Also it is not copied and pasted, it is completely different in every sentence and sequence. If it had been copied and pasted en bloc then you might have a point. As it is, it is completely differently written. True, the individual facts stated in each version correspond, as one fully expects in a biography, but it has been all put in the mixer and re-written. So it seems to me it has been completely re-written already. I cannot understand why you want to do it all over again.

Also all the facts stated can indeed be found in all the various independent verifiable reliable sources that have been listed in the citations section - I have looked at them.

I am confused by your contradictory statements about reliability and biography, your position appears to change with each comment that is made. As such I do not understand why you are campaigning against this article. Why is it so important to you? What is the big deal and what is your personal interest in attacking the good doctor and belittling his work, much valued and admired in all the interfaith world as a uniquely wonderful resource? Please let me know the real problem because as I see it, and I tend to agree with Moonsell, you appear to be, let us say, acting somewhat unreasonably in demanding in such a haughty and superior manner the deletion of this excellent article and demeaning Dr Berzin's life and work in the way that you have. It is as if you hold a deep professional grudge against him.

Do you not have something more creative and constructive to get on with? I hope it does not end in a dispute resolution process but if you demand the article to be re-written, I have a simple suggestion to make, why don't you just go ahead and show us how to do it? You have already invested a huge amount of your valuable time and effort attacking the article and having it provisionally deleted with all ths disputacious stuff, now to be only re-written, with all your reams and reams of carefully-composed accusations and criticism and explanations and justifications of your attack; if you are acting in good faith why don't you just put a bit of your valuable time and energy into improving it in the way you suggest? I am sure you could do a great job and it would be a good lesson for me, how you do it, since as a relative beginner I need to have people show me how things are properly done and due to my conflict of interest I do not feel I should be the one to re-write it myself.

How about it? Please! Let's be a bit more positive here. I am sure, assuming that you are sincere, that you can re-write this article all beautifully in a few minutes with all the references in place and it would be an object lesson for all concerned. Please show us how to do it. You are clearly a skilled editor and I appreciate that very much indeed. Thanks for your forbearance and please don't mind my somewhat cheeky remarks and asides, ribbing you mildly for the contentious way you have been coming on here in the course of all your statements and negative arguments above! Admit it, objectively speaking, what you have been writing here does look a bit OTT, considering the self-evident worthiness of the subject of your unrelenting attacks. MacPraughan (talk) 18:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

MacPraughan, the first version of this article was copypasted by Rudyh01, according to his wp user page the webmaster of the Berzin Archives, from Alexander Berzins self-published autobiography on the Berzin Archives. The corrrespondence between these texts is 99.6% [3]. The last version of the article is also a suspected copyright violation ([4] 80.4%). Wikipedia:Autobiography describes the problems associated with autobiographies in Wikipedia. JimRenge (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I see, JimRenge, so even though that entire original text was written by the same person who posted it here, and even though the original publication of the text was deleted some 5 years ago, you consider it "plagiarism" and "copyright violation". It is news to me that someone can plagiarise his own work, and violate his own copyright! This is beginning to sound more and more like a witchhunt. I see that RONZ has not responded to any of my questions.

And why does nobody want to re-write the article and improve it, only to disparage and delete it? The entire text of the article has been deleted, after some sleuth has gone back five years on the Berzin Archives archive to discover the same text that appeared here, which in fact constitutes an accurate biography supported by independent reliable sources.

Right, I now see the picture. I shall quickly write a brief biography of Dr Berzin myself, drawn from the list of cited sources, all in my own words, and post it on the article. Will that solve the problem? Then you can all go back to carrying out some more positive activities. I declare my conflict of interest that I am a former colleague of Dr Berzin as we have both worked, many years ago, for the Office of the Dalai Lama in different capacities; he as an interpreter, me as a driver. I trust this does not disqualify me or make me a plagiarist, mole, agent provocateur or other sinister intervener in your campaign to put Dr Berzin's article down.

Do I have to involve an administrator to remove this pernicious threatening notice one of you has put in place of the so-called "plagiarised" text? What's the procedure, JimRenge? I do appreciate your pointing out what is really going on here.MacPraughan (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)