Talk:Michael Roach

Open Letter

The edit is certainly better, since the language is now neutral, but I think it's still misleading to say "Roach stated in a letter..." because it suggests to the reader that Roach is the only one who holds this opinion, despite the fact that the event being referred to is mentioned in numerous articles, and that the letter was published by Diamond Mountain, not by Roach on his personal web site. If you must qualify this, you should say "In a letter published by Diamond Mountain, Roach stated that...." But I think this is unnecessary and misleading, since the fact that they were ejected from DM for violating DM policy is not disputed. In general, you say "so and so says" because you are trying to make it clear that it is a minority position. Abhayakara (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You have gauged my intentions incorrectly. Let's assume you asked, and so here's my answer: my intention is to use a primary source in the correct way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I've read that admonition too, but it's neither in WP:PRIMARY or WP:SELFPUB, and I don't remember where I saw it. I'm pretty sure it didn't apply to the situation we are discussing. You are essentially arguing that some policy you haven't cited means that we have to say something misleading because that's the policy. Abhayakara (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm tempted to delete the whole sentence, actually. Pay close attention to SELFPUB: a self-published source may be used if ... it does not involve claims about third parties... My construction of the sentence is meant to approximate adherence to that condition by at a minimum making clear that it is an assertion of a self-published source (as against including a sentence that states [after careful consideration blah blah] authoritatively in Wikipedia's voice that a third party VIOLATED THE TERMS etc etc). I trust things are now clear. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Roach asserts that violence is a violation of the agreement students make when they are permitted to stay at the center. This is not an assertion about a third party: it is an assertion about the rules of Diamond Mountain which, as a member of the board, Roach is well qualified to speak to. The actual violation that occurred has been reported in numerous reliable sources, some of which are cited here, and has even been admitted to by the perpetrator of the violence, in a WP:SPS that we can't refer to here.

Of course, one might follow your line of reasoning a little further and inquire as to why we are even speaking of a third party on a BLP, regarding events in which the subject of the BLP was only tangentially involved. Abhayakara (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The sentence in our article makes a claim about a third party. It really couldn't be clearer. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The sentence in our article reports a documented fact about a third party, which is substantiated by reliable sources. So yes, it couldn't be clearer, but not in the way you suggest. The entire paragraph has been added on very flimsy basis, and if you insist that it be here, it needs to explain the situation accurately and in neutral language. Your edit is not neutral—it implies that there is some question as to the veracity of Roach's statement. Abhayakara (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Since you're evidently familiar with SYNTH, the following point should be accessible. While reliable sources document that there was a violent altercation, the only source for VIOLATED THE TERMS etc. is Roach's letter. I disagree that the sentence as constructed implies doubt about veracity -- it merely attributes, and the only intention is to attribute. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess my main objection to it is that it's unnecessarily wordy. If you really think it's important to phrase it this way, I won't continue arguing with you about it. Abhayakara (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hm, I just noticed that you didn't add the text saying that Diamond Mountain published Roach's letter. Do you disagree with that suggestion? It seems to me that if you want to be really clear about who said what, you ought to include it—the fact that DM published the letter seems relevant, since it's talking about DM policy. Abhayakara (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Please correct WP:BLPSPS violation.

{{Request edit}} I'm requesting that an editor who has not been accused of COI revert this edit, which is in violation of the Wikipedia policy for using a self-published source in a BLP (WP:BLPSPS). Abhayakara (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. Vritti can make a case for restoration if desired, but I agree that it's SPS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

He's already made a case on your talk page, for some reason, which is valid—I don't see any reason to dispute that source. However, the other reason for reverting this edit, which I didn't mention because SPS seemed like enough of a reason, is that Gyatso is talking about married monks living openly with their wives, which while certainly related to the case being discussed here, is not the same as the case being discussed here, and hence requires WP:SYNTHESIS to make the connection. I've been unable to locate any details on why these monks are married and living with their wives—perhaps the situation is exactly the same as the situation with Roach, but we have no way of knowing that, and at least in one sense the situation is different, since the fact of Roach and McNally's legal marriage is what's being discussed here, and that was not revealed until someone went through the records and found it, so while certainly Roach and McNally didn't try to hide the existence of a relationship after 2003, neither did they openly go about saying that they were married. Abhayakara (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

If Gyatso is talking about married monks living openly with their wives, then I'm not persuaded that there's any synth involved here, given that it seems that Roach and McNally were in fact married. I don't have a strong feeling about it, though -- perhaps Vritti will shed more light. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't really see the synth or stretch since the word married is being used the same way in both the existing paragraph and in the interview with the Dalai Lama. Even though the marriage was kept secret until 2003 they were still married and remained so until 2010. I believe the brief opinion of the DL clearly reflects the view of the Gelugpas and is important as Michael Roach was ordained as a Gelugpa monk. I'll put the words back in with the proper source to remove the BLPSPS issue. If this is still a problem, please discuss here and I will try to understand the issue I fail to see at the moment. Vritti (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I can make a guess as to what User:Vritti's response will be, but I suppose we should let him do that. In any case, if we are going to keep this text, I suggest removing the quote from the New York Times about it being a stark violation of the tradition, since it's essentially saying the same thing, but isn't attributed to a specific person who'd be qualified to make such a statement. Abhayakara (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, for some reason I read both paragraphs above as being from User:Nomoskedasticity—didn't mean to imply anything by not responding to User:Vritti. The reason I claim this is synthesis is that we don't know why the Columbian monks are married. Are they also claiming to be qualified to practice with a karma mudra? The article doesn't say. So by conflating the two situations, we are synthesizing the assumption that the Columbian monks are practicing with karma mudras, which are covered by the quote from How to Practice, and excluding the possibility that these monks are not qualified to do karma mudra practice, and that that is why Gyatso has spoken of them as he has. Abhayakara (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the "stark violation" reference as per Abhayakara. If another editor feels this was rash, please discuss here. As for the claimed synthesis, I don't understand this argument. The reference says married and means married as found in any dictionary. Karma mudra is a different word with a different meaning not in the reference. One required qualification for a monastic to do karma mudra practice while maintaining precepts was revealed yesterday. When we have a reliable source that states Michael Roach is transmuting human excrement into ambrosia or turning bricks into gold or physically flying in the air, etc., then this should be added to the article at that time. Vritti (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I've read that section of the book too. I didn't include that in the article because it seems inappropriate to be talking about excrement in a BLP. The talk about miracles must be taken either as hyperbolic, for those who do not believe in miracles, or as literal, for those who do. In the former case, the statement doesn't make much sense—why would Gyatso refer to something that was impossible as a basis for being permitted to do a practice he is clearly stating is permitted in some cases. In the latter case, I don't know what the wikipedia guideline would be—do we assume that Roach is telling the truth when he says he's qualified to do the practice, or assume he is not telling the truth? I don't think we're allowed to say either way. Abhayakara (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Abhayakara (talk), I believe it was you who added the book by the Dalai Lama to the article. You clearly pointed out the "exception" to the monastic restrictions but you failed to include the conditions or single example of action required to uphold the exception. Some historical examples include, tying a knot in a yak's horn, reattaching a severed head without injury, being cremated and regaining the body, etc.. The office of the Dalai Lama and others have already communicated to Michael Roach that he must performs miracles and actions like the Siddhas of old to prove his claims of being qualified to perform karma mudra. To my knowledge there is no evidence he has accomplished this. If and when there is it can be added to the article. There is no argument that he legally married. The Dalai Lama's words puts the marriage aspect in perspective. In other words, I do understand your argument but find it baseless. If you want to continue this line of debate I would prefer not to be involved. I would however be inclined to examine the claims made by Michael Roach regarding his self purported realizations and spiritual accomplishments. The Vinaya vows of a monk by the way, restricts them from making any such claims. If they do, they are asked to prove these claims which explains the various requests by Lamas for Michael Roach to perform suitable miraculous manifestations and actions. Vritti (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

What are we trying to accomplish here anyway?

I think maybe it's worth revisiting what we are trying to accomplish here. I'm going to tackle this from the perspective of Wikipedia, not from the perspective of our various POVs or whatever. Wikipedia editors are supposed to take what the literature on a topic says and condense it into an encyclopedia article which is neutral and accurate to the sources. I think we ought to be able to use our knowledge of the subject to figure out where to go to find sources, and how to summarize what the sources say. But there is a danger in this: if we know the subject intimately, we start to put our own opinions into the article, rather than accurately representing what the sources say.

So to bring this back to the discussion at hand, we are talking about what to say about Roach's partner practice with McNally. This is a religious topic, so we have the additional morass of belief to sort through. We mustn't choose to say which beliefs are valid or correct—all we should do is to report what the sources say. Roach says he believes he is qualified to do the practice. Thurman says he finds this claim incredible. Gyatso says nothing specific at all about Roach.

So let's take an example that I think none of us have a personal stake in, and think about how we'd write about it. Imagine for a moment that we are writing about a well-known Catholic who's an alcoholic, and who claims to be sober for ten years. Yet this Catholic has been seen taking communion faithfully every Sunday morning. Parishioners have reported that this person takes a healthy drink of the sacramental wine as it is passed to him. Questions are raised: is this person lying?

Of course, we would never have this discussion. It is an element of faith in Catholicism that the sacramental wine is transformed by the priest's blessing into the blood of Christ. It isn't wine that we're pretending is the blood of Christ. It's actually the blood of Christ. At the same time, if you ask recovering alcoholics about this, they will often say that because taking the host alone still counts as taking the holy sacrament, there is no need to drink the sacramental wine, and that to do so is playing with fire.

But here we have a recovering alcoholic who is taking both elements of the holy sacrament. Are we, as wikipedians, entitled to question his assertion that he is drinking the blood of Christ, and therefore not drinking wine? Clearly we are not. If someone else asserts that he is drinking wine, and not the blood of Christ, is it our duty as wikipedians to report this? Is it even appropriate to report this?

So to bring this back to Roach, he is saying that he is qualified. Does he mean that he can transform the atoms of meat, alcohol or feces into some other substance? I don't know, and it does seem incredible. Assuming that such a miracle were possible, what would we see if we watched him do it? Would we see the unclean substances miraculously turn into something pure? Or would we see him eating these substances in their impure form? Does "transform the substances" even mean that the atoms change, or is it just a matter of him experiencing the substances as if they were different? I don't think the answer actually matters, since we couldn't use this experience in our wikipedia article, but the point is that assertions that Roach is not qualified haven't been made. Questions have been raised as to whether he is qualified. I don't think it's even appropriate in a wikipedia article to report on these questions, because they are essentially speculation and matters of opinion, not matters of fact. No Buddhist tribunal has rendered a judgment on Roach in particular. The Dalai Lama's words on the topic in How to Practice are informative, but can't be used to decide either way.

On the question of his legal marriage to McNally, he provides an explanation for why it was done. They have not acted publicly like a married couple—I've never seen them embrace, or kiss, or do more than hold hands—itself somewhat scandalous for a monk, but certainly not grounds for an accusation of a downfall. We don't have pictures of them doing so, and we don't have reports of them doing so in any reliable sources. So the marriage question is really separate from the practice question, for which we do have reliable sources, including Roach.

Suppose a monk were to legally marry a woman, so as to have legal access to her insurance, or her to his, or so as to ensure that she would inherit his property, and they were not engaging in any karma mudra practice together, and did not openly act like a married couple. Would that qualify as a downfall? If so, why? Does the quote Vritti offered from Gyatso support such a contention, or not? I think it's a judgment call, and so we can't report on it: to do so would be WP:SYNTHESIS.

This is why I keep harping on all the gossipy stuff that keeps getting added to this article. It's not improving the article. This article isn't a place for determining whether Roach is a good guy or a bad guy—it's a place for reporting on what we know about him. We honestly don't know whether he's qualified to do the practice, and we don't know whether he's still got his monk's vows, or whether he's committed a downfall. And so we shouldn't say. Abhayakara (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to begin with a plea to other editors to consider weighing in here with their thoughts. For myself, I am attempting to edit this article with an emphasis on NPOV so that anyone reading this article can understand what is being presented and make up their own minds as to what it may mean to them. If the article is well done, the reader can find most everything they need to know about the particular subject without further reference or study. For the record, I'm not a Buddhist of any stripe, robe, tradition or practice. I could not care less about what the subject of this article has done or hasn't done. Abhayakara's long arguments on this talk page often invoke in me a sense of disturbing cognitive dissonance. For example, he writes, "Roach says he believes he is qualified to do the practice. Thurman says he finds this claim incredible. Gyatso says nothing specific at all about Roach." ... You are correct that Gyatso, (AKA) the Dalai Lama doesn't mention Michael Roach by name. The Dalai Lama is the leader and spiritual head of the Gelugpa sect. He is the foremost authority regarding all aspects of Gelugpa tradition and practice. The Gelugpa sect is very strict in its observation and implementation of the Vinaya (rules) for its monastic community of monks and nuns.

1. 1. Vritti: You are abso fucking lutely WRONG about the Dalai Lama being "the leader and spiritual head of the Gelugpa sect." You have been pwned by facts. Ask the Ganden Tripa if you don't believe me.

Enter Michael Roach ordained as a Gelugpa monk. Since the entire "controversy" in this article revolves around the behavior of Michael Roach as an ordained monk, I think you are arguing and wiki-lawyering a very minority view that what the Dalai Lama says about Gelugpa monks and monastics somehow, has nothing to do with Michael Roach. The remarks of the Dalai Lama are in no way gossip as they reflect the view of the Gelugpa sangha of monks and nuns. It is clear that Michael Roach looks at things differently, but this is his minority view which he shares with very few. At the moment the article now includes exceedingly credible testimony on how the Gelugpas view monastic conduct and how Michael Roach views it. Let the reader decide what to think about this "controversy", the whole point in bringing this subject to NPOV. 201.191.195.82 (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC) I, Vritti wrote the statement immediately above. For some reason I am getting regularly logged out of Wikipedia today while doing all this writing ... Vritti (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It happens to the best of us. Make sure you check the "remember me for 180 days" checkbox when you log in. It still makes you re-log-in every so often, of course.

As for the question of whether or not you are a Buddhist, you have an excellent command of the Vinaya for a non-Buddhist. But your statement that you aren't a Buddhist rings true, because it's pretty clear that you haven't had any teachings on the topic of Vinaya from Buddhist masters—much of what you say here reflects a shallow knowledge of the topic, which a Tibetan Buddhist scholar would have long since surpassed.

I'm referring to the Dalai Lama as Gyatso not out of disrespect, which I most certainly do not intend, but because User:Orangemike made the claim that I must have COI because I keep referring to various people using their titles, against house style. So I'm making an effort to follow house style. Gyatso is actually not the head of the Gelukpa lineage—that would be the Ganden Tripa. Gyatso is of course a highly respected scholar in the Gelukpa lineage.

We don't actually have a majority or minority view among Gelukpa monastics. If we take your source as well as mine, we have Gyatso contradicting himself. Thurman expresses an opinion, but that's not the same as making a ruling on the status of a particular monk. What view the Gelukpa sangha of monks and nuns may have is not relevant because you haven't cited any source other than Gyatso who is a member of that sangha.

Consider the rather excellent Wikipedia article on Karl Marx. It's substantially longer than this article. It talks in detail about his life, goes into some detail about his philosophies, and includes a criticism section titled "Totalitarianism" with a word count that is less than the "Marriage and controversy" section of this article. Given that you can't even cite a source who does more than doubt that Roach is being truthful, without actually making any argument to support that position or positively asserting that he knows Roach is not telling the truth, why do we have such a high word count for this criticism section? It is very much gossip, and it makes a mockery of Wikipedia's BLP polices. Abhayakara (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, FPMT founder Thubten Yeshe ("Lama Yeshe") was legally married to one of his followers, apparently just in order to apply for Australian nationality. --Dawud

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Michael Roach. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120606052328/http://diamondmountain.org/about/lineage_and_roots to http://www.diamondmountain.org/about/lineage_and_roots
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130118150559/http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-06-18/strategy/30091918_1_diamond-cutter-buddha-book-worthwhile to http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-06-18/strategy/30091918_1_diamond-cutter-buddha-book-worthwhile
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110516215132/http://www.asianclassics.org/about/overview to http://www.asianclassics.org/about/overview
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.mtexpress.com/2004/04-04-09/04-04-09monk.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

This article is being distorted by students of Michael Roach

I think this article should be rewritten by an established Wikipedia editor and locked against vandalism. There is minimal discussion of the most notable thing about Roach--the death of Ian Thorson and the controversial marriage to Christie McNally. Meanwhile, the talk page clearly indicates that people editing the page are extreme minority insiders with idiosyncratic ideas about Tibetan Buddhism--indicative of Roach's teachings. Furthermore, most recent edits come from accounts that don't even have user names, just anonymous IP addresses. Switfoot (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Suggest reversion to May 2022 version of the page located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Michael_Roach&oldid=1089002018 Switfoot (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

On the neutrality of the article - May 2023

Anyone who reads this article, its editing history, and its Talk page, quickly realises that there had been numerous and consistent attempts to rewrite the article, manipulate the flow of its style and tone towards a certain biased point of view (from both sides of the isle). Both, those who are affiliated with Roach, and those who create blogs to work at destroying his reputation, had tried to push the article towards a certain direction.

I believe we shouldn't allow the article (or its Talk page for that matter) to be dominated only by one point of view that stems from a clear COI.

In its current state, some sections of this article are biased against Roach.

We need to start an objective conversation around the current state of this article and where it is going.84.198.107.83 (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)