Talk:Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo

Self Published Sources in Biographies

Longchenpa, these policies say self-published sources are allowed in biographies.

• Wikipedia:BLP#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source
• WP:QS
• WP:SPS
• WP:SELFPUB

I am aghast you didn't learn this last time around.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This talkpage isn't meant for arguments strictly between you and Longchenpa. If you have something to say to him, send him a message on his own talkpage. Now, with that said, what sources did he use that are self-published? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You are right, I did that not too long ago, and it ended up back on Talk page, (see COPIED above). Longchenpa has challenged Palyul Productions as a source, claiming they are Jetsunma's self-publishing wing. They exclusively record and produce Jetsunma's teachings. However unlike a blog, they have a editorial process and they are an official organization. I rate them as a reliable source, because they have the most frequently available information. I'll agree their editorial process could be better. There's no reason to exclude Palyul Productions as Longchenpa would like. Case by case analysis must be applied with regards to WP:SELFPUB. (BY THE WAY, the historical Longchenpa would welcome Palyul Productions as a source. Perhaps a new enlightened version will emerge now.)Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

We're talking about Palyul Productions, which seems a bit suspect. However, I'm not too sure, so could you show me the specific source we're talking about? Is it a webpage or a written source? If it's a webpage, please link to it. We may be able to add the information, provided that we mention who we're quoting. Simply citing them as a regular source would be misleading. Even if it's not technically self-published, their strong ties to her make them unreliable. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 06:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This issues are Palyul Production's editorial process and WP:SELFPUB, which for the recent Palyul Production's sourced material I've added is not "unduly self-serving" because is avoids WP:PEACOCK and does not harm third parties. The parties are all in line with Tibetan Buddhism as first and second parties. It's highly notable and not contentious to me. As far as Palyul Production's editorial process, at least they have one, but it could be better considering they have no paid staff. I agree the info added must be properly attributed to the quoted sources. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I've never used self-published material. I've relied on Random House and mainstream publications.

Palyul Productions is Alyce's self-publishing wing. She tells Palyul Productions what to publish, she hires, fires, and appoints people to work at Palyul Productions and has complete control of the organization. Longchenpa (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean you won't allow Palyul Productions on a case by case basis? Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPF enforcement relief

The tabloid aspects of this Article are subject to WP:NPF enforcement, which by my read says negative information must be substantiated by Primary and Secondary sources to be included. There is not sufficient notability when negative information comes from a single primary source. Thankfully, relief is on the way for any agenda to include irrelevant negative information by publishing on Wiki.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not sure if this applies here, but I don't know. It hinges on a crucial question: When we say "public figure," do we mean within the relevant topic at hand, in terms of the international world, or in terms of the average Wikipedia reader? Jetsunma is a Lama and a Tulku. In terms of Tibetan Buddhism, that's a public figure. And she's been in the media like a dozen times over the past several years, so I would say she is an obscure public figure, but not a private figure like you or me. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are ways to degree public figures however, it's best to side with caution that WP:NPF applies. The key word in the policy is "relatively unknown" which is about the same as when you say "obscure public figure", so by your own reasoning it applies. Contrast with the "well-known" alternative WP:WELLKNOWN#Well-known_public_figures. We could split hairs, but I really believe most folks would say Jetsunma is unknown to them, that's a simple test. She was relatively unknown to me even after the publicity. I don't want to waste time on this.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

In reviewing Public Figure I have greater certainty that WP:NPF applies, Jetsunma does not meet the public figure definition. She's not a politician or celebrity and for the most part 501(c)3 restrictions keep her our of the public influence arena. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If she could sue Wikipedia, then she could sue every book, newspaper, and magazine article about her. But she can't. Obviously, if she's been in the Washington Post several times, she is a public figure in legal terms. To settle this, though, you could easily e-mail Mike Godwin, Wikipedia's lawyer, and ask him what he thinks. See his userpage at User:MGodwin or email him at mgodwinwikimedia.org. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 06:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I am convinced this issue will survive third party review. You can ask for one on this section. However, you're making an argument that has nothing to do with what the policy says. I call that grasping attachment. Is it your intent to have a court case? ... that would be a dereliction of editorial responsibility. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You keep asking for third party reviews on the same issue. I think you're wasting everyone's time. This has been resolved. You just don't like the answer. Longchenpa (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not resolved, we have a RFC next in line. You welcomed this a short time ago. I believe ZenWhat has admitted to the Wiki Administrators that WP:NPF should apply. Why can't you?Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"... we should still be cautious and apply WP:NPF to the article, in order to avoid a libel case. Let me state that again: Even though Jetsunma is a public figure, we should still apply WP:NPF to the article." Zenwhat Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Still_problems_with_wiki-lawyering_and_a_possible_COI_on_Jetsunma

Considering Public Figure say's a fairly high threshold is applied (see ref *Legal definition of public figure via lectlaw). I don't find arguments convincing that a few press publications meet the threshold. Once again WP:NPF applies.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Zulu, I am the third party. This debate was originally between you and Longchenpa. Please, stop Wikilawyering (literally). There is more than a few publications. There was an entire biography on her, rofl.

If you are an advocate for Jetsunma and consider this article defamatory, write Wikipedia's lawyer and they can do an "office action" to fix this article if you actually have a case. You don't have a case, though, so you're just trying to argue the issue to death and edit war. That's not allowed here. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your views and involvement, precisely what's important is that the Wiki policy WP:NPF is adhered to through reasonable talk discussion. My intention is to prevent this article from being defamatory. I and you, should have no interest in escalating this to court, frankly neither of us have standing to take to court, we don't have a case in court. If you going to say Public Figure applies to this subject in the context of Wiki policies, I'll continue to disagree with you and seek relief. My first intention was to talk this over, not to edit war. I haven't begun to enforce WP:NPF. When I do, my first step will be to add citation references to where negative material requires duly collaborated sources. There may be "more than a few publications" and a biography and advertising however, there's not a sufficiently high threshold to meet Public Figure even when you consider the subject must have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved" to even be considered a "limited public figure". WP:NPF intends to included notable information and exclude tabloid editing, for the wiki readers benefit. I am sorry, if you don't like the policy, but it's there for the common good.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat, your proposal to contact Wiki's lawyer would have been non-productive see:Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer. Furthermore, is not our duty to promote legal threats Wikipedia:No_legal_threats Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Precedent Review

I've reviewed Wikipedia:BLPN for wiki precedent on how to proceed with WP:NPF enforcement. The discussions seem to support me in source requirements and public figure definition. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone adverse to me seeking WP:RFC "Request for Comment" on WP:NPF applicability? I don't want to unless it's not clear to folks that is applies. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Citation Qualifying

In reviewing Wikipedia:CITE#QUALIFY, I realized that much of material that can be considered offensive has not been properly qualified as to who said it, who is the subject and who is the object. I am considering that defamatory material, is specifically attributed to Jetsunma by a single primary source. There is controversial material in this article, that has not been specifically attributed to Jetsunma, and really reflects the policies of the organizations she's started (i.e. KPC administration). Material reflective of the organizations, doesn't seem entirely relevant to this biographical article's notability requirements. I don't want to be rash or to provoke an edit war, however I see a need to:

* better qualify some content as per Wikipedia:CITE#QUALIFY - I'll apply here

* improve citations to support keeping negative info as per WP:NPF - I'll apply here

* delete irrelevant and potential defamatory material as per WP:NPF - I'll delete this.

As far as material that's relevant to KPC, Let's wait to see what evolves before considering the next step.

I would appreciate comments on this approach.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This was settled back in December. If it's from the Buddha From Brooklyn it's well-sourced and not a libel issue. As Curious Blue put it at the time, Wiki assumes that publishers like Random House will have fact-checked and vetted information for libel. Alyce didn't sue Random House. It is disruptive to repeatedly bring up the same settled issues again and again on the talk page. It's a dead horse, Zulu Papa. Longchenpa (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, we didn't consider WP:NPF and article notability standards back then. 19:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Zulu Papa 5 (talk)

A response from Mike Godwin

I e-mailed Wikipedia's lawyer, Mike Godwin, asking about the legal application of the term "public figure".

He responded:

I don't think there is any serious question that Jetsumna is a public figure. But even if she were a private figure, that doesn't mean that statements about her are libel. So long as they're true statements, they're not libelous. If there are false statements, they may be libel if the editor was negligent (or worse) in including them.

So, no, WP:NPF does not apply here. As for your other comments, Zulu, this is really getting tiresome. I'm going to wait for Longchenpa to return and I'll continue this futile discussion whenever he is back as well. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Zulu Papa is raising an issue that was settled back in December. Alyce is a public figure. Beyond the AP articles, the numerous Washington Post articles, articles in smaller publications such as the Gaithersburg Gazette that aren't listed here, the book about her life from Random House, the interview of her in a second book, and articles in Elle and Mirabella magazine, Alyce acknowledges this herself. This dead horse has been thoroughly beaten. Longchenpa (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. it was not settled back then, we never looked at WP:NPF.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Mike has a WP:COI in this application

I appreciate Mike's response and largely agree with it. You're conclusion, ZenWhat, is hasty (maybe even reckless) and doesn't follow wiki policies. If there were a serious question about WP:NPV and Public Figure applying to Jetsunma, Zenwhat ... you could be leading folks astray!!

Because Wiki as an organization would be liable, it's in Mike's commercial interests to have Public Figure apply in court because it affords Wiki greater protection. I appreciate Mike's response however, I consider it to be a WP:COI as far as editorial application of WP:NPF, therefore only relevant from an educational viewpoint, and certainly not unbiased legal advice to editors.

When Mike says "If there are false statements, they may be libel if the editor was negligent (or worse) in including them." certainly leaves room that it's the editors that are responsible, and could be responsible for negligent application of WP:NPF or Public Figure. So Wiki under Mike's lead, would most likely counter sue an editor for violating Public Figure application and WP:NPF guidelines. Anyone reading this should be aware that your contribution to how Public Figure is applied in court could be used by Wiki to sue you. Please take caution.

Now with that said I agree with Mike, I don't think there is any serious question that Jetsumna is a public figure, specifically now because it's not in court and will likely never ever be. I have no interest in a court case application of public figure. There is very little chance of any lawsuit in this process, because we are having this discussion, which will likely lead to a fair WP:NPV application to prevent any issues.

Mike has an extreme WP:COI and the decision should be deferred to informed editors responsibility. Please ask Mike what is an editor's responsibility to prevent libel, that's the issue here with WP:NPV. This is what is most relevant now within Wikipedia.

Please side with the greatest caution ZenWhat and apply WP:NPF. Again, it's in everyone's best interest to apply WP:NPF to this article. Especially, after we've taken great steps to educate you as to the issues. As per policies, this issue may require a Request for Comment among editors for better resolution.

Would you have Wiki exposed to libel?

Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This is something not even Alyce would argue. As she put it in the Buddha From Brooklyn, "I have the karma for fame." She's a public figure and has been since she was enthroned as a tulku in 1988 was written about by Associated Press. Since then she's had a book written about her life, a second book with an interview of her, numerous articles about her in the Washington Post, Mirabella magazine. Information about her has been published to over two million people. We've gone over this before with other editors. I welcome an additional third party of this question if you so desire. Longchenpa (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and you intent to apply her quote for "defame". In opposition to her intention. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Jetsunma not found in "Public Figure" databases

I've checked the databases suggested in Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#NNDB_Notable_Names_Database and have not found a listing for Jetsunma. This suggests little evidence that she is a Public Figure. WP:NPF applies. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone would agree that Wikipedia is a work in progress and its list of Public Figures isn't complete. Look, not even Alyce would contest the fact that she's a public figure. We went over this last December. To quote her again, "I have the karma for fame." Longchenpa (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, I've contact the KPC leadership folks. They disagree and consider this a potentially "serious question". I had to tell them, based upon your talk page comments, folks were making decisions upon your edits. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'd assumed that you were a student and yet you grew irate at my "assumptions." I appreciate the confirmation.

It's irrelevant whether KPC students think she's a public figure or not. Obviously the press thinks she's enough of a public figure to write two books and numerous articles in the Washington Post, Associated Press, Mirabella, Elle magazine, and elsewhere. If I recall, The Buddha From Brooklyn mentioned that Alyce was making a documentary about her own life and sold the story to Hollywood as well-? You can't seek out fame and then only selectively call yourself a public figure when it suits you. Longchenpa (talk) 23:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It's entirely relevant to folks that may be also harmed by libel. You ignorance of the standards to be applied is beginning to offend me. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 01:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This Public Figure definition http://w2.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-defamation.php#7 should help you see that there's no evidence that Jetsunma "actively sought, in a given matter of public interest, to influence the resolution of the matter." To do such, might violate 501(c)3 restrictions on political activities (see 501(c)3#Political_activity). These rules specifically excluded her from being a Public Figure. So with this included, it doesn't apply. 02:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Zulu Papa 5 (talk)

Second verse, same as the first. Here you go:

This is not private information. It is widely known. It appeared in Mirabella magazine which has a circulation of 600,000 people, The Buddha From Brooklyn by Random House which has gone through two printings in both hardcover and paperback, and it was in Tricycle magazine (the main Buddhist review) circulation 60,000, and it also appeared in the Washington Post Magazine, circulation 750,000 people.

In magazines and newspapers alone this information has been made available 1,410,000 people. Random House is a very large publisher so two printings is no small run. Not to mention that Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo participated in the Buddha From Brooklyn.

On the one hand, I get tired of the repetition of the same argument that's been settled by third party review. On the other hand, it does save me some time when I've already answered the same question. Longchenpa (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I hear you, let me suggest making points that are supported by relevant standards. Your pointless repetition absent a standard citation is tiring.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Requires Conservatism in WP:BLP

Look, the argument to not apply WP:NPF is really quite risky. It's very clear in many cases and notices that Wiki Requires Conservatism in WP:BLP, see the two at the top of this page. Wiki even has special procedures for Politician's because they are public figures. By my judgment, not applying WP:NPF is not conservative. Given that there is a high Burden of proof required for Public Figure (possibly Burden_of_proof#Clear_and_convincing_evidence, requiring multiple sources as WP:NPF intents). None of us in a position to assert the "truth" because as far as I know we were not witnesses. Anyway, we must go by references. To be conservative about the "truth" WP:NPF requires a primary and secondary reference. I am a loss to provide better guidance to you, aside from reaching into public figure lawsuits to pull out precedent. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Case precedent, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. illustrates that mere negligence in applying WP:NPF could be cause for concern. Again I urge you to consider the "serious question" here.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Starting Dubious Material Enforcement

I've begun to "be bold" Dubious material enforcement with citations and "black lines". Unadressed negative material without original secondary source ciation will be removed to avoid lible. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop removing entire sections from the Talk page. Also, stop abusing the "dubious" tag for everything you don't like. Random House is not even remotely dubious. Longchenpa (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Longchenpa, you have excuted 1 revert in two instances to subvert this policy, and risk a ban. see Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. I am self-reverting your reverts. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL! You are not a moderator and you don't set policy on Wikipedia. Longchenpa (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Published by Random House means it's not dubious

Zulu, please don't abuse the "dubious" tag for everything that you don't agree with. The material is from The Buddha From Brooklyn. The book was published by Random House, and written by a reputable journalist. Hell, it has a blurb by Bob Woodward on the back and he even helped edit. The reputations of the publisher and editors involved are so far from dubious that it's hard to find anything less dubious. Longchenpa (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

One again, you may be Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging_in_incivility with Feigned incomprehension, "playing dumb" The material must be verified with 2 sources, (a secondary source) and the burden of proof is on you, to protect the truth. This was well announced to you here in this section, please don't fork this section's issues it's not civil. I am working on WP:NPF enforcement. You can rewrite the material with better qualification or cite a secondary source to keep it. Let's it be deleted. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to move this discussion down to the bottom, because it's hard to find it here. Longchenpa (talk) 00:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully refuse to engage at the bottom, it belongs here. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Acclaim section

Zenwhat, please explain which POV you are excluding by removing the Acclaim section? I was working toward matching Chögyam Trungpa which has similar Acclaims. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed WP:NPOV and really don't see much about obvious POV pushing. The Recognition and HHPR acclaim quote content are highly significant to this subject's notability. The Crucify quote is controversial, however like many of the other controversies, the subject is not notable for them. see "deleted content".Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

We need something meaty for a separate acclaim section. If it's just a review of her CD saying she has a lovely voice, it'll sound like damning her with faint praise. Longchenpa (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as using a blog for the acclaim section, as you yourself pointed out in March, we can't cite blogs on Wikipedia. Do you really want to do that anyway? What Lama Tenpa had to say about Alyce in his blog was damning. Longchenpa (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Blogs aren't reliable. I've heard that Tenpa was a fraud. I don't know for certain, but because they're both blogs, for all we know, both sites are fake. Neither should be used. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Neither should be cited because blogs just represent personal opinions. They're not fact-checked, and blogs are by nature highly biased.

Off-topic, I looked into the Lama Tenpa situation. I could find nothing to substantiate Lama Tenpa's recognition. On the other hand, I could find nothing to indicate he'd put up a shingle and announced he was a guru either. There's some personal altercation with a past girlfriend, so he sounds like a pretty ordinary Joe to me, except that he's been married a dozen times.

I spoke with some people who know the situation. The whole thing is classic KPC: Tenpa was running his blog and recommending this teacher and that, and was doing something with Tibetan medicine. Alyce has ongoing health problems (talked about in the Buddha From Brooklyn) and invited him to come to the temple to consult. His qualifications are zero as far as I can tell.

Within five months he and Alyce were engaged (not something mentioned on his blog and not uncommon for Alyce). He was asked to take over as CFO by Alyce after two students were arrested in Texas for driving Alyce's car with drugs in the back (turns out it was a mother and son, a pretty squeaky clean pair). After checking out KPC finances Tenpa pointed out what every other CPA has told Alyce (as published in Mirabella): that she could get in trouble with the IRS. He told her because of his past situation with his girlfriend (the girlfriend had shot him and then set the house on fire to cover up the blood. Against his attorney's advice he refused to press charges because she'd get deported. He ended up going to jail.) he could get into trouble being anywhere near KPC's finances. He called in an investigator and told Alyce to come clean and cut a deal with the IRS. Alyce then ordered the nuns to hold Tenpa hostage. One of the nuns refused and got Tenpa out of there. KPC students then descended on the nun's house demanding that she turn Tenpa over to them. She ordered them off her property. She then got Tenpa and drove him halfway across the country, fleeing KPC. It sounds an awful like like that other nun who ran, see The Buddha From Brooklyn. KPC then started leveling charges against Tenpa that he'd defrauded them, with no evidence that I've seen so far. They've also made claims on one of their many blogs that the nun was crazy, etc., with no evidence for that either, the usual slander against an ex-student. Sounds like revenge to me. Longchenpa (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting story, I wish I could believe it. The man works his way in to defraud, with financial implications, seems like an allegation, to be withheld for jury.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I have never met or spoken with Tenpa, although KPC students told me last winter that he was marvelous. When I asked what his credentials were, they didn't have an answer. It seemed it all came from Alyce praising her latest pet. *eyeroll* As far as the details, these are well-known among the "first wave" KPC students. You're a student of hers, so don't bullshit me. Longchenpa (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Longchenpa, I should advise you that meeting minutes can be considered private, and not to be published. I don't have these, and you consider me a student? I often wonder what your role as a student is, you have been studying this subject for some time longer than me?Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 01:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you wouldn't. They were posted publicly on the internet. As for my stance on KPC, I think it's no secret that I think the evidence very clearly that Alyce Zeoli is as corrupt as they come. There's complexity to the issue, which is what makes the story interesting. Longchenpa (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Corrupt is a really serious allegation from someone who should be holding a Neutral Point of View. What publications do you have to support your potential libel here? Seems like you continue to defame on this talk page which is serious breach of wiki standards. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me remind you Longchenpa, this section was intended for Acclaim, lest you corrupt it.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

1) She was arrested for physically assaulting her students.

2) She has a salary of $100,000 per year and no one knows what she does with it, given she has no rent or expenses and students pay for her houses (plural).

3) She has diverted temple funds intended for statues and monastery buildings for her own personal use.

4) She hosted a divorce party where she and her students abused her ex-husband in effigy.

5) She has taken one student after another as her consort, publicly vilifying them on the way out the door (Tenpa is merely the latest) and punishing students who say no.

You can call that what you like. Other than sit on a throne and get recognized, has she done anything good? Every time I've found anything good about her, it's her students who gave all the money or did all the work. I'm noticing that you're having trouble finding stuff not published by Alyce herself (i.e. Palyul Productions) for the Acclaim section. In 1995, Penor Rinpoche said that most of the harm in Dharma right now is being done by tulkus, while most of the good is being done by ordinary sentient beings. 75.172.79.127 (talk) 04:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Look you're getting out of hand. I apprecaite your agenda. However you are violating Wikipedia:BLP#Non-article_space with some of your discussions and by repeating blog material. I'll have to ask you to withdraw the dubious material. These claims are not fully substantiated as to WP:NPF they could be harmful. At best your Begging_the_question with circular logic to assume there is guilt where there is accusation. Any reference to these claims must meet WP:NPF and be citation qualified. You know the source would not like this here, is that not reason enough. I'll remind you that if administrators find concern they can block you. I would like to see you stay on. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 05:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's somewhat off-topic, but you and Zenwhat have both participated in the discussion of Tenpa, and you opened the discussion of blogs by using one to support your acclaim section. I note that you called Tenpa a fraud here (he's arguably not a public figure) without acknowledging pertinent facts like he was engaged to Alyce -- which complicates KPC's accusations all over eSangha. Konchog Norbu, a KPC monk and student of Jetsunma, was the person who made the accusations before the thread was frozen by eSangha mods back in March.

"I would like to see you stay on." rofl! This would be more convincing if you hadn't threatened in the past (was it February?) to have me banned. Longchenpa (talk) 05:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Tenpa's defamatory blogging is the most unreliable, not substantiated. By my research Tenpa was a fraud as far as the Ngingma are concerned. He was recently arrested for probation violation on ex-wife assault. It's in the pubic record. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Alyce has shown her usual good judgment in consorts. But knowing that Alyce and Tenpa were engaged changes the issue quite a bit. Longchenpa (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't continue in your tabloid discussion. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The point remains the same. You can't use a blog to support your acclaim section. Even if you could, you wouldn't want to, because you'd open the door to Tenpa's blog. And Captainsnark for that matter. Longchenpa (talk) 05:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

By the standards of Wikipedia, blogging in general is regarded as unreliable. Your own research is irrelevant here. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

True about blogging by it's self, I contend it supports that PP published the material. It matches. As far a Tenpa, I was researching for a article on him, and found no sources.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Palyul Productions is run by Alyce herself. It's her publishing wing. Longchenpa (talk) 23:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now please don't be evasive. How do you consider WP:SELFPUB to apply?Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 01:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you try for a new argument? Just to keep this interesting? Because we've down this road before, here let me get the link. ETA: Here we are. From four months ago. Longchenpa (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB is the standard that applies, I am sorry if you don't like it. I must remind you that continued effort to be evasive would not likely be looked upon favorable among commentators and administrators. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it your wikilawyering that's being questioned at the moment? Longchenpa (talk) 05:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The WP:WL issue was quickly resolved by experienced folks as an over-reaction. You'll see it's a pejorative term. I have not been making "ill-founded legal reasoning" for things like standing, or authority. Just simple reference for Wiki standards for dispute resolution which is OK. You might want to consider retaining a lawyer if you continue to press a POV that may include libel. This off topic talk is not OK for this section.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

In other words, it was your wikilawyering that was in question. That's what I read. Longchenpa (talk) 23:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggest removal of off-topic material. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you decided that you will not use a blog to support your new Acclaim section? Because until then, the discussion should stay. Longchenpa (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Teachers and Terton Acclaim

Longchenpa, the Terton and His Holiness teacher's acclaim, long life prayers, I wish to include are published by KPC and Palyul Productions with 1 other blog instance.

• http://www.tara.org/JALmoreinfo.html
• http://www.palyulproductions.org/

I heard you when you could find no good things to say, I assumed your bias (indicated by the long uncivil off topic discussion blinded you to the Tibetan Lama long life prayers. The off topic discussion above violates many and must be removed. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You cannot use a blog and self published material as evidence. Longchenpa (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't because you have a POV bias against the self-published material. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Petty insults and mean-spirited labeling are not conducive to a civil discussion.

The reason why blogs can't be used is that they represent one person's opinion. The reason why self-published material can't be used is pretty much the same. Longchenpa (talk) 04:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ngawang Tenzin wrote Jetsunma Longlife Suplication

As far as the other blog for Ngawang Tenzin, well you're right Longchenpa, however the Mandarava material in question is support by the Blog and Palyul Productions publication. It's also highly relevant to this subject and the Madarava relevance can be co-berated by many other publications cited in this article. Can you supply any specific reason to doubt His Holiness Ngawang Tenzin acclaiming Jetsunma? He's taught at KPC a few times. One of his followers was married at KPC.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The blog is a blog and doesn't conform to Wiki standards. Palyul Productions is Alyce's self-publishing wing and can't be used as a source. You'll have to find a source that's not self-published. Longchenpa (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do you chose to ignore WP:SELFPUB for PP, this is tiring? Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 01:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

See now both KPC and PP offer the material for verification in WP:SELFPUB see http://www.tara.org/JALmoreinfo.html. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Questions for Longchenpa

Longchenpa, what is the source for:

• "Only Orgyen Kusum Lingpa has confirmed this recognition" and "Other Lamas, including Penor Rinpoche, have remained silent concerning her second recognition"? If there's no specific source for that, then the sentences could be considered weasel words.

I'll check The Buddha From Brooklyn for a page number. Longchenpa (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• "More recently the temple has gone deeply into debt pay for her housing at "Liberation Farms."?

That could probably be considered original research and I accept it being deleted. I have a file on KPC 8" thick including various articles written about them, financial records, and in this case meeting minutes from last February discussing how the heck they were going to pay for "Liberation Farms." I'd have to go to Maryland to access the public records on the ownership of the property and it's not worth the trip. Longchenpa (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• How is "several years" untrue?

You yourself acknowledged on my talk page that the criticism of KPC is long-standing. "Several years" is in particular not true. Even if we just go by her arrest and when the scandal of her beating students spread, that was in 1996, twelve years ago. By no standard is twelve years "several." Longchenpa (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me but 2 source verification not truth is the correct standard here. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, now I see what ZuluPapa5 was trying to add. Palyulproductions.org is obviously not a reliable source on Tibetan Buddhism overall, since they are themselves biased. Similarly, you can't cite a Christian group's website on the overall truth about Christianity. That's soapboxing, Zulu. Cut it out. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Precision Case-by-case is what I say for Palyulproductions.org. Excluding whole hardly would not be beneficial.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Case-by-case is right. We can cite Palyul productions as a source for the opinions of Jetsunma and Palyul, but not as a reliable academic source on Tibetan Buddhism as a whole, which is the issue at hand here, since you're making a very specific claim about Tibetan Buddhist theology and just using a blog as a reference and "palyulproductions.org" as support. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I an not following you, I am making a claim that Tenzin wrote the supplication as PP published. I claim it's not harmful to third parties and not "unduly self serving" because it serves him and Jetsunma for the same purpose and harms no one else. I claim it highly relevant to this subject. The passage can be qualified as per Wikipedia:CITE#QUALIFY and be included as per Wikipedia:SELFPUB. It's not contentious to me. I don't see how the "academic" argument is relevant, any academic would begin research with this self-published souce.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, so then switch what I just said around: You're using "palyulproductions.org" as a reference and using a blog as support. You're still using unreliable sources. It doesn't matter which one is the main source if they're both unreliable. Please stop wiki-lawyering. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I am applying WP:SELFPUB sources and requesting that they be qualified. Did you miss that request? Please engage in relation to this standard.

Why are you offended by my rational discussion (i.e Wiki-lawyering)? I don't consider it a personal attack, however it does not seem appropriate, while I am working my best effort to be civil with you, in a standard course of dispute resolution. I must disclose, I've been trained by some of the best in the area. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 01:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hahahaha. Okay, then. I suppose we should seek mediation!

Please file a request here: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to file yet another request for mediation. At a certain point this is just wasting everyone's time. Longchenpa (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Mediation is not appropriate at this time, just like whining to the administrators, it's too early. RFC on the sections here on this talk page would be helpful. We should move stuff to the archive before inviting guests.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies is the best place to ask for help on WP:NPF and WP:SELFPUB. If these don't help then an RFC on user conduct in evading polices would be beneficial. This is not a waste of my time. Seems like if folks would like to avoid this, then they should abide by the standards. We can wait a few days.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"yet another request for mediation"? So there has been mediation between you and Longchenpa in the past? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 12:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution History

Formally we have one (1) third part review on one (1) subject, resulting in me disclosing my Conflicts and well, still waiting on Longchenpa. Informally, there have been maybe 1/2 dozen other editors involved in this article. Longchenpa recent three revert violations, started me down a dispute resolution path to clean up the article and prevent a coatrack. Overall, I appreciate Longchenpa contributions, they have been helpful, just seems to be very bias on a negative agenda, that now I realize is a question beg. They article can be citation qualified during rewrite to avoid this. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

What? I don't have a three revert warning. Please don't use the talk page to lobby against other editors. Longchenpa (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What's with all the "warnings" from you on my (talk) Talk page? You're not a Wikipedia moderator. Longchenpa (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Teaches Compassion and Bodhichitta (again)

I apprecaite your concern ZenWhat about "She teaches compassion and bodhicitta", these are very specific occupational characteristics for a biography. We chose this subject for her occupation as lama. It can be verified to KPC and Palyul Productions like any other employment issue. They are the primary sources for this information. It's not original research. It was made the most simple language to apeal to Longchenpa. We had an extensive discussion resulting in this language. see Talk:Jetsunma_Ahkon_Lhamo/Archive_1#Teaches_compassion_and_bodichitta 01:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Zulu Papa 5 (talk)

It's not a job description, Zulu. It's vague. Saying she "teaches love and peace" doesn't objectively describe anything she actually does. Now, if you were to say, "She teaches Tibetan Buddhism, and the value of love and the doctrine of bodhicitta are aspects of that teaching," that is actually describing a fact. In this case, you are not presenting a fact, just a ridiculous metaphor. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Zulu Papa, we went over this before, months ago. That's exactly what I said. It's not a job description. At best it's redundant and useless information. Longchenpa (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll look again, it sure sounds like a job description to me. Do you have a alternative job description proposal. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. "She's an enthroned Nyingma tulku and controversial American Lama of Tibetan Buddhism. She is the first Western woman to be named a reincarnate lama and she serves as Kunzang Palyul Choling's spiritual director" serves just fine. Longchenpa (talk) 05:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MOSBIO#Opening_paragraph item 4 was the best guideline I could find aside from other living Lama article examples. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Line 4 reads "what the person did." So, your argument here is that it should stay up, because "It's what she does." Wow. That is brilliant!!! ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 12:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, she has to have an occupation, right. We can add some specified x and y adjectives "She teaches x compassion and y bodhicitta" as long as they are not WP:PEA and are appropriate to reflect her teachings, yes? Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The argument's ludicrous. Her occupation is Lama. End of story. Longchenpa (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you find ludicrous about adding unique specifics as per style guidelines? Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait on this issue

OK for now, we have more important WP:BLP issues to clean-up. Longchenpa, you have changed your mind since the discussion you started here Talk:Jetsunma_Ahkon_Lhamo/Archive_1#What_Palyul_Productions_could_be_used_for I'll wait to address this later. I fear logical Fallacy going down Vagueness and Ambiguity for a Continuum fallacy or Slippery slope with Zenwhat.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 06:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Published by Random House means it's not dubious (Let's stop moving things around on the Talk Page so everyone can follow the order of discussions, eh?)

Zulu, please don't abuse the "dubious" tag for everything that you don't agree with. The material is from The Buddha From Brooklyn. The book was published by Random House, and written by a reputable journalist. Hell, it has a blurb by Bob Woodward on the back and he even helped edit. The reputations of the publisher and editors involved are so far from dubious that it's hard to find anything less dubious. Longchenpa (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

One again, you may be Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging_in_incivility with Feigned incomprehension, "playing dumb" The material must be verified with 2 sources, (a secondary source) and the burden of proof is on you, to protect the truth. This was well announced to you here in this section, please don't fork this section's issues it's not civil. I am working on WP:NPF enforcement. You can rewrite the material with better qualification or cite a secondary source to keep it. Let's it be deleted for libel potential. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Random House is a reputable publisher. We have gone over this many times. It is not dubious. You have had a third opinion who said Random House's book was legit. Longchenpa (talk) 00:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is only relevant to Talk:Jetsunma_Ahkon_Lhamo#WP:NPF_enforcement__relief requiring a secondary source to not be dubious. I will not continue this discussion in this section. You started the move with a section fork. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk page discussions need to be in date order so that other people can join the discussion and follow it. Longchenpa (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)