Jump to content

Talk:Michael Roach

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aoidh (talk | contribs) at 04:32, 15 September 2022 (Assessment (C/Low): banner shell, Biography, Buddhism (Rater)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I wish it were not necessary to include this here, but as far as I can tell the participants in the above dispute have not read it. This is from WP:NPOV:

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and NPOV, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.
From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from a September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

Why is this excerpt relevant? Because you are claiming that because this exciting news about Ian has been all over the gossip rags this month, it must be included in the article about Michael Roach. So okay, who's the prominent person who blames Roach for Ian's death? Where is the book about Buddhism that blames Roach for Ian's death? Of course there isn't one, because no notable person has made any such assertion, with the possible exception of Ian's mother, and even she equivocated. When a notable person (Surya Das) was asked about this question specifically, he declined to blame Roach for what happened. So we have a bunch of he said she said articles that insinuate that Roach had something to do with this, but do not say so. And we have Surya Das saying "sure, you should definitely be careful about any situation where people are in a long retreat," but not blaming Roach. So? What do you have other than your personal indignation at the notion that anything bad that is ever implied by anyone about Roach might not be documented in triplicate here on Wikipedia? Abhayakara (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Abhayakara -- you've convinced me that we shouldn't include the bit about Ian's mother blaming Roach. You've puzzled me, though -- I don't think I've ever heard anyone describe the New York Times as a "gossip rag"; not even the Independent. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes they do well, but frequently they do very poorly. I don't know why this is, and find it really disappointing—when I lived in New York and took the paper regularly, it seemed that we could depend on them for journalistic integrity, but yeah, they do sometimes seem to stop to the level of a gossip rag now. The Santos article is basically a he said she said—there's no real investigation, and no analysis at all. It provokes controversy, rather than weighing in on it. I'm sure you will tell me that it's just my POV saying this, but this is what I've found a lot in the Times in the past five years or so—the Santos article is not the one that led me to form this opinion. I really wish you were right about the Times. Abhayakara (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No one is talking about "gossip rags" -- we are talking about multiple respected international media outlets. All of them connect the death of Thorson to Roach. It is far and away the topic that he has received the most mainstream media attention for. The suggestion that having a paragraph about it in this article constitutes "undue weight" under WP:NPOV is absurd.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sylvain1972, you didn't respond to what I wrote. This is not a gossip column—could you please try to participate in the discussion and not just spout off whatever comes to your head each time something is added to the talk page? Abhayakara (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did indeed respond to what you wrote, directly, using your words.Sylvain1972 (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abhayakara, if you're going to do this, I would suggest not complaining about "undue weight". This is how we keep ending up with expansion of coverage of this incident. I'm not going to revert you (though I'm quite puzzled by the addition of a section heading) -- again, though, let's not have complaining about how this issue is dominating the rest of the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The complaint about undue weight was with respect to Ian's mother's opinion, which you now seem to agree doesn't belong. I don't consider the problem with this section to be undue weight—I consider it to be completely off topic. Hence the title, which I think illustrates the point nicely. I suppose you could also call it undue weight in the sense that we have not reported on every other decision that the DM board has made with Geshe Michael participating, so it's surprising that we are reporting on this one.
In any case, the reason I made the section longer is because the way you wrote it, it implies that Geshe Michael kicked Christie and Ian out of the retreat in retribution for the divorce, without providing them with any support, and implies that that's why Ian died. In order to make this section not imply that, it's necessary to explain what happened in detail. So yes, the amount of detail here is absurd, but if we are going to report on this at all, we have to report on it in such a way that it doesn't lead the reader to draw a erroneous conclusion. Abhayakara (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah -- well if the point of the section heading is simply to make a point, then please see WP:NOTPOINTY. I suggest that you revert that element. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that section of WP:POINTY says what you think it says. Abhayakara (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tying it together

I think User:Sylvain1972's recent edit to the section about Ian's death does do a good job of tying it together and uses good neutral language to express the point, so on the whole I think this improves the article. I still think the whole thing is being given undue emphasis, but let's not beat that dead horse. I do however question the new heading. "Criticism" and "controversy" sections are generally advised against in the wikipedia guidelines. I can understand the desire to change the heading, but I think the new heading is not neutral, and ought to be rephrased. Why not just "Death at Diamond Mountain?" It probably also ought not to be a sub-head under "biography," since it's not biographical. Just make it a top-level head. Abhayakara (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not bothered either way, and you're probably right about "criticism" sections. But I'm confused by the idea that the death took place off diamond mountain property but within the retreat boundaries. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tibetan Buddhist retreats occur within a tsam—the Tibetan word for boundary—which is defined at the time of the retreat. Generally speaking, you want to keep the tsam small enough that people aren't likely to wander into it, but large enough that you can go on walks. Diamond Mountain is a 1000-acre property with a big mountain just outside the property line that belongs to the BLM. I don't actually know if this is where the cave is, but that would be my guess. I am pretty sure that mountain was included in the tsam, because it's an attractive hiking feature, but far enough off the beaten path that it's unlikely anybody not from DM would bother to seek it out—there are much more attractive hiking opportunities nearby at Cochise Stronghold and Chiricahua National Monument. As far as I know, despite the proximity of Fort Bowie National Monument (which is right across the property line from DM on one side), there aren't any developed trails on the mountain. It's quite rugged. There's also quite a bit of land that's to the south of the property but drained by the main wash that runs down the retreat valley; this land is a less rugged hike because you can just go into the wash and walk up it to the top of the ridge. There are also some nice trees up there, which is a rarity in the Sonoran desert. These again are outside the property line on BLM land, that and I think the retreaters would want to be able to hike to there. So I can't give you a definite answer as to exactly where the tsam is, but that's what they mean by "retreat boundary" versus "property line," and that's why they are different. Abhayakara (talk) 20:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the violation of Diamond Mountain rules is acknowledged by McNally in her own letter about the incident, which I think people have referred to here in the past. Her letter can't be used as a source in the article because it's also SPS and not by the subject of the BLP, but my point is that it's not a disputed question, and the way you've phrased the text now gives the appearance that it is disputed—you're saying that Geshe Michael is the only person saying this, and you use the word "assertion" instead of "statement," suggesting that it is part of an argument. The letter was published by Diamond Mountain, and I think that unless someone disputes the statement (and no-one has), it's reasonable to take them at their word. Abhayakara (talk) 12:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while the letter from Geshe Michael is the only source that says that they violated the terms under which they were permitted to be on campus, every other article that's cited here talks about what they did that violated the terms, and it would be somewhat absurd to claim that the terms that they violated were unreasonable, or that the Diamond Mountain board's decision to ask them to leave was unreasonable. Abhayakara (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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

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:

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Roach&oldid=1110383706"