Talk:Ole Nydahl

Revised criticism

Rumours were put at the beginning of the criticism section, implying all criticism as not valid. I have put this part in the controversy section, where it belongs.

Boldened parts put emphasis on certain points, making a neutral reading harder.

Williamettes was wrongly attributed as having won a price, lending credence to its positive article about Nydahl. One of its authors, not the newspaper itself, won the price.

Facts around the timeline are not represented clearly. Ole used the title Lama since the late 80ies, the first written reference of this title is in 1995. -- Sceptic Watcher (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Changed Structure to be more biographical - i.e., teachers are now mentioned after the summary of his life until he became buddhist.

Changed Criticism section, as both the Criticism and the Response to Criticism section contained a detailed explanation of when which Authorities endorsed him as Lama.

Deleted the Williamette's section, as it doesn't add anything to the previous paragraphs except that the author thinks Ole is a nice person. The previous and following paragraphs mention that some buddhists are offended by Nydahls skydiving and anti-Islam stance already. --Sceptic Watcher (talk) 11:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

There is also a bit of a problem about the Freiberger source. Actually what Freiberger refers to is the German Buddhist magazine Lotusblätter, which at that time did have some critical people writing in it. Problem is, later in 2000 these disagreements was solved, but of cause Freiberger dosn't say anythin about that (because it was solved after Freibergers writing). Since there is no newer source, and nobody started researching the researcher and made a paper out of that, the context is totally missing.

Another thing is the structure, wouldn't it be better to make one Criticism section and leave out the response to criticism part, and instead writing pro et contra togheter? Like dealing with everything about the lama title first, and then on to the next topic? Siru108 (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

@Freiberger: I agree, we should add that the disagreement was solved.

@Deleting Response to criticism: That's a valid approach, too. I just didn't want to have it in twice. I will change it right now, please tell me if you think it can be improved. --Sceptic Watcher (talk) 18:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems good. Maybe the section should also be shortened a bit, I find it somewhat odd that around 25% of this article is about criticism. Siru108 (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It is mainly this long because many of Ole's responses are given as citations instead of as summaries of his positions. We could try to convey the meaning by summing them up. For example,

Nydahl emphasizes that he does not make political comments in his capacity as a lama. Since the Buddha didn't express any opinion on religions such as Christianity or Islam, neither will he in his role as a Buddhist teacher. However he will address the issue as a “responsible, thinking human being”. He says “Islam, I warn against. I know the Quran, I know the life story of Mohammed and I think we cannot use that in our society today. ” He also rejects Buddhism playing a role in fighting Islam and overpopulation: “Any political idea one has, is not because of Buddhism. It's one's responsibility as a citizen. We do not get involved as Buddhists in political things, but we do, as members of society, act as protectors of our constitutions and women's freedom and stuff like that.”[9]

He also defends himself with the notion that he offers proposals for changing the current situation. He was quoted saying that “actually, I also mention such subjects because I have a constructive idea. It is both simple and humanistic: pay poor families around the world to not have more than one or at the most two children and help educate the ones they have. Machines do the hard work today and a life on a street corner and in and out of jails is what awaits more and more of the excess youth. Imagine the relief if one could visit Africa and meet healthy, free and educated people like in our societies today”.[18]

could be shortened to

Nydahl emphasizes that he does not make political comments in his capacity as a lama, but as a “responsible, thinking human being”, giving Buddha's nonability to comment on religions founded centuries after his death as reason for his comments not being buddhist, but based on his own life experience.[20] He also defends himself with the notion that he offers proposals for changing the current situation, such as introducing working birth control in developing countries.[18]

--Sceptic Watcher (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I made the shortening. Now Freiberger is out, changed to a generel thing. Siru108 (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The section is taking form now. I think the length is ok, but I will put Freiberger back in. I think it's good to give specific criticism. Just saying that some buddhists criticize him doesn't reflect the fact that the conflict appeared in academical publications. Otherwise, good work. Thumbs up! --Sceptic Watcher (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I also had to take out the eyewitness-part. Non of them are named, and I don't think unnamed eyewitnesses count as a reliable source. --Sceptic Watcher (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that shortening removes certain aspects that are important to understand the way Ole Nydahl talk/thinks. They are an euphemism at best, so please undo the shortening; the sentence "Imagine the relief if one could visit Africa and meet healthy, free and educated people like in our societies today" displays racism and arrogance. Also the idea of paying poor families for having less children is from a standpoint of equality and social fairness controversial (at best). The shortened quotes suggest quite a diffrent way of thinking than the unshortened. 89.59.200.117 (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be an euphemism? No reason for pinpointing every little detail, the criticism section is still a rather big part of the article. Siru108 (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Siru. The section is ok the way it is. --(forgot to login) Sceptic Watcher (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Freiberger - out

The sources, especially in the critism section ought to be high quality in accordance to WP:BLP. Relooking at the Freiberger source, I do not think the source in adequate compared to the kind of criticism put in the article on this basis: Freiberger simply mention some criticism/gossip he read, but does not seem to have done further research to support the these findings. Next, the seriousity of the research also seems to totally lack context: If this was any serious confirmable study, the contaxt for these sayings would have also been brought. Apart from Freiberger being an academic, the source itself doesn't seem to be enough for such criticism. I therefore remove the part. Siru108 (talk) 10:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

He is only mentioned because the more detailed sources dealing with the conflict are written in german. They are available (and linked to in the german article) for readers who speak that language. If you want, we could directly translate the original sources and put them in the article. Until then, I will revert your change. --Sceptic Watcher (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Skydiving

"In July 2003, on his eighty-eighth jump, the 63 year old Ole Nydahl was seriously injured while free-falling in lotus position,[12] but has since made a full recovery."

I suspect he was fine while free-falling. It was most likely the sudden stop at the end that injured him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.229.196 (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Removing Conflict of interest and Neutrality despute

I will remove those two tags, reason given here:

• Conflict of interest: As this seems to be referring to my edits, I tend to agree. However - after reading the guidelines closer - it seems my edits do not qualify for such a tag: The vast majority of my edits falls under the catagory Non-controvercial edits, and thus do not qualify for such tagging. The edits I made is mostly dealing with deleting or rewriting (so the text fits with the sources) violations to Wikipedia's biography of living persons policy. I think at least 90% of my edits falls under these catagories:

• 1. Removing spam and reverting vandalism.
• 2. Deleting content that violates Wikipedia's biography of living persons policy.
• 3. Fixing spelling and grammar errors.
• 4. Reverting or removing their own COI edits. Cleaning up your own mess is allowed and encouraged.
• 5. Making edits that have been agreed to on the talk page.
• 6. Adding citations, especially when another editor has requested them.

• Neutrality dispute was added, but besides the [wp:sock| sockpuppets-accounts] editing on these pages, there do not seem to be a conflict. Also, as there is no raeson given as to exactly what is not neutral, the right thing seems to remove it according to the guidelines on how to handle NPOV disputes. Both tags seems to have been added mostly to justify the BLP violations. Siru108 (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

sleeping with students

i added this info today. a named journalist at a large newspaper claims to have the information from Ole himself. if that is not a reliable claim it should be settled in court. not on wikipedia 188.177.18.87 (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

So you should say that Ole Nydahl has admitted to having sexual relations with some of his students, not Ole Nydahl "abuses his authority." One is a fact (sort of, maybe... that LaCrosse tribune article is a sorry excuse for journalsm), the other is a moralistic opinion.Changchub (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

thats right i admit i went too far in my first try. are you disputing that ole nydahl told the journalist this though? 83.89.213.87 (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No. I'm disputing your representation of what he said. —C.Fred (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

i said i went too far in my first claim. 83.89.213.87 (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

as nobody has answered, nor offered any solid reasons why the LaCrosse article should not be included, i have re-inserted the critisism, this time in a format that closely follows the original text. i am ready to have a civilized discussion as to why the claim should not be in the article, but keep in my that the fact that the journalist is biased does NOT nullify Nydahl's statement. it is still in there, clearly enclosed in qoutation marks. 188.177.0.6 (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The claim should not be included. First the article/source is clearly biased, and not fit for wikipedia - especially not a biography of a living person. Second, why the obsession with this mans sexlife? This may be of interest for some, but it is not really wikipidia stuff. Pink Python (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Its not about his sex life, its about abuse of authority as has been clearly stated by other posters elsewhere. Really these arguments are not particularly persuasive. 82.143.250.145 (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

What's worse, not only do you and other keep diverting the argument that its about ABUSE OF AUTHORITY, you don't adress the fact that this article - biased or not - has the man himself admitting to sleeping with his students. Furthermore, this article is not the only article which features this claim as other posters have also pointed out.

Now in spite of all this it may be true that such claims are not valid for Wikipedia. But I doubt it, because Wikipedia rarely has any problems featuring other stories concerning abuse of authority. If this is really true I want to hear about it from someone who isn't biased, not the same handful of people who keep straw-manning their way to a white-washed article. 82.143.250.145 (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Besides, how can this claim be libelous when THE MAN HIMSELF admits to sleeping with his students? 82.143.250.145 (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Previous related arguments not adressed by the users who want to remove this and other criticism, reproduced below:

[quote] If someone uses his place in a religious organisation to obtain sex from students below him I want to know about it. And whatever you may think of the newspaper article, you cannot dispute that Ole himself admitted to sleeping with students. 188.177.18.87 (talk) 01:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not involved with DWB in any way and I too think that it is suspicious that none of the criticism reported in newspapers and journals have found their way into wikipedia. 188.177.18.87 (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC) [/qoute] 82.143.250.145 (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Look at the history. Members of the Diamond Way cult have long been trying to suppress criticism and whitewash this article. I'm glad to see this is finally being challenged. 62.172.58.82 (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yearh it was way ridiculous. Lets get the abuse out there. 93.163.54.253 (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe if those of you who are for some reason obsessed with painting DWB in as negative a light as possible were to actually make user accounts instead of this spate of unregistered ip addresses individuals like myself who are fairly neutral on the subject might be more inclined to give you a bit more credence. As it is this has the look of a strange obsession with discrediting a man/organization and that always makes me suspicious of the motivation. Are you perhaps a disgruntled ex-member? Why the need to call it a "cult." It really does not have the characteristics of a cult as far as I can tell... more like Buddhism-lite.

To answer some of the above accusations/questions: How do you get from having slept with students to an automatic abuse of authority? Without proof that he actively used his position as a teacher to obtain that sex this is a specious accusation which only serves to make the accuser seem obsessed with denigrating the accusee. Wikipedia is meant to be informative, not to be a forum for your moralizing. And finally, I think you overestimate the amount of edits that have been made by actual DW members. Some of us just actually would like Wikipedia to remain somewhat objective!! Changchub (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, well for my own motivation for being here I am not an ex-member I have read ON's books and seen him talk but was not convinced. I frequent other Buddhist sanghas in Copenhagen. In many different sanghas people have heard the rumours that ON is sleeping with students and SOMETIMES (not always) also that ON pressured or promised advancement of teachings in exchange for sex. As to what the precise relationship is there, I don't know but apperantly, the same rumours have found their way to the US and Canada. These are clearly the rumours that ON is being confronted with in the article, and he responds not by denying it but by saying that there is no teacher-student relationship between them at the moment they are having sex. This means (1) that he admits to sleeping with students and (2) he is granting that before and after sex they are in a student position to him, yes? As to ON's logic here, I might have my thoughts but these are not appropriate for WIKIPEDIA. However, the accusation and ON's response clearly is.

As to "abuse of authority" I have kept these words out of the article. But how often does a 65-year-old man that is not a rock star get to sleep with bundles of 25-year-old girls within an organisation which he is the head of without some abuse of autority going on? Do you know what happens in protestant parishes where the 65-year-old male priest sleeps around with the 25-year old female church-goes? This strikes me and others as the same thing, but not you?

Finally there is the point about ON preaching fidelity to junior members in talk and in his book on love. A religious figure that preeches A but repeatedly indulges in B, well I would want to read about it in an encyclopedia article. 87.63.69.127 (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Illicit use of Ph.D title?

There are several publications and flyvers advertising ON as Ph.D. though according to University of Copenhagen records, ON never got a Ph.D. - is ON making an illicit use of the title? That is a criminal offense. 87.63.69.127 (talk) 13:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Archiving Ongoing Disputes?

I see that ongoing disoutes are being archieved. Is this normal WIKIPEDIA-practice when the talk page is so short as the present one, or is it an attempt to conceal the ongoing influx of controversies? 87.63.69.127 (talk) 13:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)