Comment I don't frequent DRV, so I may be misguided, but is this the right venue for the discussion? Wouldn't it be easier just to start an AFD for the article? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to nominate it for deletion at WP:AFD. While it was nominated and kept over 4 years ago, standards have changed significantly again and it's worth another shot. A deletion review isn't the correct forum. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, OK. I agree that AfD is the way to go, but as the admin who declined the speedy deletion of this article, I don't feel comfortable closing this DRV. Would somebody else set the wheels in motion? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
1 User Jclemens did not notify me on my talk page Rinpoche talk that the article was tagged for deletion (I was the contributor) 2 the reason logged for the deletion was "(G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP)" but the page is both notable and thoroughly sourced and it is not a BLP (biography of a living person) 3 I feel whatever issues User Jclemens had should have been discussed and I should have been given the opportunity to respond 4 It seems to me that the question of vandalism must arise in the circumstances and ask you to consider addressing this issue as well. Rinpoche (talk) 05:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI - Jclemens is the admin that deleted the page, not the editor who tagged it for speedy deletion (presumably). Traditionally, the editor who tags it is highly encouraged to notify the creator of the article (but is not required to do so). The admin who performs the deletion rarely, if ever, notifies the creator of the article. SnottyWongtalk05:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens deleted the article without anyone having tagged it or notified the contributors first (which is not at all unusual for a G10 deletion). --Mkativerata (talk) 05:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse You accused named people of sexual crimes without clear sourcing. Frankly, you should be prevented from editing BLPs until you understand our BLP Policy. SpartazHumbug!06:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't accuse anyone of sexual crimes. I merely listed known and uncontroversial sexual abuse. All of it was sourced and all of it is fully documented in both popular and academic literature. The article is not a BLP although it does reference living persons. It seems to me that you conflate'abuse' with 'crime'. So it certainly is in the context of sex with minors but abuse need not be criminal. No one today would argue that a religious teacher (any teacher) entering into sexual relations with a student is not guilty of abuse. That is why such teachers generally resign or are dismissed when discovered. However in the case of Ole Nydahl cited, who does essentially claim that his sexual relations with students are not abusive, I clearly recorded that defence and moreover referring to a criticism of Ole Nydahl's emphasis on the bliss of sex from one of his own root gurus (a very signicant matter indeed in that particulat lineage) I also recorded his defence. In a comment on the discussion page I suggested that persons persistently removing references to Nydahl might care to add a section defending such relationships but that I was unable to because I knew of no sources.
To repeat you conflate abuse with criminality and on the basis of this confusion you treat me as you have. Frankly I don't think that very admirable and I ask you to provide me with a more carefully considered account of your actions. Rinpoche (talk) 10:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I copy this remarks from your talk page and my reply here.
(You)The DRV will determine the consensus. The article lists living people who have not been convicted of an offence as sex abusers. That's why we can't host the article. A serious allegation of that requires proof. Can you prove with multiple concrete incontrovertible sources that each and every one of them was a sex offender? Also beware of SYNTH. If the sources do not say that they are sex abusers then you cannot list them in an article titled sex abuse. SpartazHumbug!09:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Me) First of all you introduce the term 'sex offender', once again conflating abuse necessarily with criminality. This really is very remiss indeed of you. I'm surprised you are seemingly unembarrassed by this persistent error you perpetrate.
Regarding your remark about sources, with the exception of Ole Nydahl all of the cases I cite are to be found sourced on the individuals' concerned own wiki pages, are adequately sourced by me and are entirely not contentious either because the behaviour had led to resignation or (in the case of Trungpa, Tendzin and Sogyal) is indeed multiply and incontrovertibly sourced. In the case of Nydahl the situation is unusual since he makes no secret of his sexual relationships with his students but justifies it as equipowered and this is noted by me in the article.
I don't understand your reference to SYNTH ('look and feel'?)but once again what is at stake I think here is your confounding of abuse with criminality. Not all abuse is criminal. It's not criminal for a teacher to have sex with an adult student but it is abusive and there is absolutely nothing misleading or 'SYNTH' about describing the relationship as abusive.
(edit conflict) Endorse. For non-admins, the article was essentially a list of Buddhists who had been the subject of sexual abuse allegations. Most were sourced although IPs have recently added unsourced entries. I'm endorsing because the page was clearly a hit-job on the people it covered. There no doubt could be a policy-compliant article on sexual abuses cases within the Buddhist clergy but this article was most certainly not it. Good deletion. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article was not a 'hit' job. I mention its origin on the discussion page. I had been looking at the page 'Catholic sex abuse cases' and wondered if there other such pages for other religions. The only religion other than Christianity I have any experience of is Buddhism. I did some research and was struck that in practically every emerging post 1960s Western Buddhism movement I could offhand think of there had been siginicant abuse scandals not just peripherally but at the very heart of their communities. I thought that notable and worth recording in an encyclopedia. But how can one write such a page without citing known abuse? Here's a typical example from Catholic sex abuse cases
You make a remark for the benefit of non-admins that the article was essentially a list of Buddhists who had been the subject of sexual abuse allegations (but they were not just 'Buddhists' but at the heart of communities they had founded and in each case the allegation was well-founded and adequately sourced). But also the article was not 'essentially' just that. It included a carefully sourced collection of references in the 'Literature' section which took me some to put together. But here we have the difficulty with Spartaz's action in removing even my userspace draft because no one is who is not an admin is now able to check claims such as you make here.Rinpoche (talk) 10:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed a userspace version of the article at User:Rinpoche/Buddhist_sex_abuse_cases as another G10. The basis premise is that this was singling out individuals who have been convicted of no crime in the context of sex abuse. perhaps we should save time and effort by including this in this discussion too? Endorse own deletionSpartazHumbug!06:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't follow this comment. What is a 'G10' in the context of a Wikipedia article? Again you conflate 'abuse' with 'crime'. Again I frankly don't find that very admirable. Rinpoche (talk) 10:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The deletion-without-tagging was based on this BLPN thread, and I'm entirely unsurprised that my actions have been sustained. Apologies for not responding earlier, but I *do* occasionally have a life. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this. I didn't know of the thread and I shall study it directly. You must be busy indeed. One is naturally so very grateful. I too am extremely busy with my own modest investigations into the nature of things but do nevertheless try to find time to participate in projects like this. I know just how you feel!
In studying the thread did you perhaps notice that the original article's contributing editor (me) had not participated and did you not think it at least courteous to let me know of its existence since you were minded to delete the article? Or did you not judge that I had contributed the article in good faith? Why not? Why do you sign off 'cheers'? Is that irony or in reality some sort of a challenge? Of course you haven't cheered me. On the contrary you have deeply upset me and I do feel myself very unjustly used by you. Rinpoche (talk) 10:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When there's an unambiguously inappropriate page in Wikipedia, the rule is "delete first, discuss later". Had there been an indication that the inappropriate content was created in bad faith, I would have blocked you as well, and we'd be discussing this in an unblock requrest. But there was no such indication, so you were neither blocked nor even immediately cautioned. "Cheers" is a shorthand way of saying, "I know you may not be in favor of what I've done, but I continue to Wp:AGF, bear you no ill will, and hope you have a good day despite being here at DRV." Jclemens (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but what I'm saying (concentrate now) is that the page wasn't umabigiously inappropiate and when it was discussed (and it was discussed) I should have had the opportunity to paticipate in the discussion. I haven't had time to look at the thread you quote I never knew about. I'll look at it tomorrow and give my reactions here. You were insensitive thus in your remark 'cheers'. Rinpoche (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I get the fact that you don't believe it was unambiguously inappropriate, but the community has not seen fit to agree with you at this point. You're free to take offense at my being nice to you, but it doesn't really help your cause: better to display sympathy for the people whose good name your article defamed on the basis of inappropriate documentation than to take umbrage at me being nice to you despite the deletion. Jclemens (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll address this tomorrow evening. Whom have I defamed? Is that why you deleted because you judged I had defamed an individual(s)? Sleep well. Rinpoche (talk) 01:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concluding comments by me
I have put off commenting on the BLPN thread discussion because I wanted to reflect a little on what really seemed worth stressing. In the end there are just two areas where I wish to make remarks.
In the first place it is suggested here that the article was just a 'hit' list and not in the spirit of Wikipedia's generally conservative approach to citing living persons, that the article was even defamatory. I've defended the article against these assertions in the comments here but further point out that in fact Wikipedia does publish articles containing similar lists of living persons involved in some scandal or other. An example would be List of Christian evangelist scandals where the sources provided are mainly newspapers, television programs and websites.
In the second place concerning the characterisation of sexual relationships between a teacher and a student as abusive, this is nothing more than what is universally felt about such relationships. You often see the eupehmism 'inappropiate elationship' used but what is mean is 'abusive relationship' in exactly the same as we commonly warn children of 'inappropiate touching' when in fact we mean 'abusive touching'. Abusive behaviour need not be criminal. In the case of the redacted Rinpoche singled out below by my negative critics as an example of a suspect citation by me, we find the word 'abuse' used in the two of the titles of sources cited to reference his behaviour in his wiki 1 'Best-selling Buddhist author accused of sexual abuse' 2. 'President McAleese distances herself from spiritual leader accused of abuse'.
Comment. Currently only admins and the creator of the article really know what this discussion is about. This excludes me, but that's fine, and I am not arguing for temporary restoration of the article. Reading between the lines of the discussion so far, it appears to me that the article creator isn't aware of the huge moral and legal difference between a Buddhist teacher sleeping with a student and a Catholic priest sexually abusing a child. It is problematic when teacher-student relations get mixed with sexual relations. Sometimes it happens anyway and it's easy to understand how it happens. In most jurisdictions there are no specific laws against, or if there are such laws, they only hold up to a certain age of the student. That's because such relations are not a priori wrong but everything depends on the specific situation. It gives reason for serious concern if a Buddhist teacher appears to defend such relations as perfectly proper. But surely even a teacher who is abusing his charisma to sleep with adult adult students is not comparable to a priest who engages in sexual activities with 10-year old boys. HansAdler10:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I'm surprised you think it's fine that you don't know what it is you're commenting on but it certainly isn't fine with me who should like to be heard fairly. Here are the opening remarks of the article
Buddhist sex abuse cases refer to abusive sexual relationships within Buddhist communities and especially a number of cases that have emerged in recent decades involving teachers within the emerging Western Buddhist community.
By 'abusive' relationships are meant especially relationships involving minors and novices as well as those cases of consensual relationships between adults where nevertheless (as is the case with minors and novices) there must be a presumption of abuse when one partner, typically a teacher, is plainly exploiting a position of power or trust within the community over the other.
I should be obliged were you to do me the courtesy of clarifying your comments in the light of the above.
The article was indeed a deliberate foil to Catholic sex abuse cases but it wasn't meant to be directly comparable nor sought to make any such comparision. It was also (originally) a stub. I hoped others might contribute. As it happens there was a long history of sexual relationships with boy monks in Japanese Buddhist monasteries until reforms were introduced in the 19th cenury monsteries, as also I believe so in China and, on the account of many travellers including cultural attaches from both Britain and Japan, in Tibet as well. There are hints of continiung such behavious in some monastic communities in SE Asia. Of course sex with minors is repugnant and criminal. But can you clarify why you don't think it abusive necessarily for teachers to enter into sexual relations with adult students? I did invite in the talk page a defence of such activity to be inserted in the article (but of course you weren't to know, nevertheless I am curious). Here it is
Regarding Changchub's position that sex between a teacher (in this context a religious teacher) and a student is not necessarily abusive, I think it would be a good idea to include a notable, sourced defence of that position if one exists. I don't know of one myself. A section 'Defence of teacher/student sexual relations' could perhaps be added.
Ideally, I suggest, the defence should address Sandra Bell's, June Campbell's and Piya Tan's criticism referenced in the article.
It is clear from your response that the article contained exactly the kind of inappropriate material that I commented about. We are generally very conservative in our reporting concerning living people. In case of suspected wrong-doing of individuals we tend to err on the side of understatements, not overstatements. "Catholic" sex abuse cases are a very notable topic that is concerned (almost?) exclusively with abuse of minors. What you have written about is far less notable and a lot more general. I don't have reason to doubt your claim about 19th century monasteries, and that can of course be written about. The problems arise when you put living people, specifically relations between teachers and adult students, into the same article.
"But can you clarify why you don't think it abusive necessarily for teachers to enter into sexual relations with adult students?" – Is this a joke? This is so obviously a borderline area, in which some relations are obviously abusive and others are obviously not abusive, that I simply can't believe you are serious. Some examples:
A 35-year-old male teacher at a German Gymnasium is teaching a 12th form. The students are all over 18 now, but the teacher has taught the same class in previous years, when they were in puberty. An attractive female student had an obvious crush on him at the time and is now hitting on him. Successfully. – Most likely a case of abuse, and criminal in a number of jurisdictions. Should typically lead to serious consequences when discovered.
A young trainee teacher straight from university moves to a new city before the school year starts and meets a nice girl in a discotheque. Two weeks after a one-night-stand he is stunned to discover she is one of his students. Both secretly fall in love with each other. After a year of everybody else making jokes about the situation they discover that the interest is mutual. During the summer vacation they start a relationship. They find a way to make sure they no longer meet at school. – No abuse. Although technically criminal in some jurisdictions, this is not what the law is intended to prevent.
An artist teaches painting at an adult education centre. He is very popular with his students, all of whom are bored housewives. It is widely known that he always sleeps with the most attractive of his students, and they are competing for the privilege. – No abuse, just immature behaviour. May be criminal in some jurisdictions with poorly crafted laws.
A 26-year-old PhD student at a university hits on her 45-year-old professor. They form a kind of symbiosis: She is his research assistant, young lover and companion and provides him valuable feedback about his lectures. He provides her with a secure university job, co-authorship of important research publications, the security of being attached to an authority figure, and is a not-too-time-consuming lover and amiable companion. The egos of both get an enormous boost and the scientific careers of both profit. [This is loosely based on a real case, unrelated to my own universities and my own subject.] – Definitely no sex abuse. Technically criminal in some jurisdictions, which is justifiable because of the element of favouritism.
You make the same error Spartaz does above in assuming abusive behaviour must be criminal. But relations between a teacher and student cannot be equal and these days are always regarded as abusive. FYI I am indeed serious about that, sorry to strain your credibility (you sound young to me) Rinpoche (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: I am a 40-year old German with a daughter and a PhD in mathematics, currently teaching and researching in Austria. With that out of the way, I must disabuse you: As some of my examples show, "relations between teacher and student", if you define it so broadly that it includes the case of a western Buddhist teacher and his students can of course be equal enough so that there is no question of abuse. The section Sexual abuse#Positions of power does not say what you seem to believe it says. It says sexual misconduct (not: sexual abuse) can occur where a person uses a position of authority to compel another to otherwise unwanted sexual activities. That's dramatically more restrictive than the criteria I used in my examples. The section speaks basically about a form of rape, not about asymmetric sexual relations.
If you don't have the competence to make such important distinctions when writing about living people Wikipedia will not let you do it. It's as simple as that. When you write hyperbolic accusations against a person, when you write about a living person's legal sex life for no apparent reason other than to disparage them or prove a political point or a point in a battle between religions, or whatever it is – then you are out. HansAdler18:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not so young then, but still younger than me anyway. I'm a mathematician too incidentally although I would be the first to admit that's no recipe for clear-sightedness in wordly affairs. I can only repeat a final time that I am indeed serious about characterising relations between teachers and students as abusive on the part of the teacher. My purpose (and not any of those you impute to me for whatever purpose etc.) in the article was to document this abuse in Buddhism which is certainly notable in emerging Western Buddhism. Which part of competence don't you think I understand (it's defined in the negative I see)? 'Factual competence' presumably but all the cases I cited were thoroughly sourced and already discussed in the wiki biographies of the individual concerned. Thank you for your time and attention (you may safely assume the question about competence you so obligingly raise to be rhetorical). I do wish we could have exchanged views before the page was deleted. Rinpoche (talk) 18:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - All we're here to do is evaluate the actions of the closing administrator, not have a debate about the topic itself. It is well within admin discretion to shitcan articles that are WP:BLP-related nightmares. Tarc (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I contributed this article in good faith and haven't had the opportunity to discuss the issues raised for myself. I repeat there are no WP:BLP-related nightmares in the article. Every single instance I cited is cited anyway in the wikis for the person concerned. Your use of the term 'shitcan' is an offensive slight on my effort. Rinpoche (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not terribly concerned about your feelings, especially about word choice, to be honest. That you have put a lot of WP:EFFORT into it and thought you were doing good still does not excuse a bad article. You seem to have a personal crusade here that you feel strongly about, but the Wikipedia really isn't a platform for issue advocacy, especially one that smears living people. Some of whom, judging by the back-and-forth above, were not actually found guilty of a crime. Listing such people in a "sex abuse" article is simply horrid, IMO. Tarc (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
I note you're not terribly concerned about my feelings. Thank you. But I should wish you to be courteous nevertheless and dismissing my effort as bumph for the shitcan was not courteous. Like others contributing here you premiss sexual abuse as necessarily criminal. It is not as the case of consensual sexual adult relationships between teacher and student indeed demonstrates. I repeat all the examples I cite were thoroughly sourced as in the example directly below. Why do you think I have a personal crusade here? Since becoming a contributor (but for not much longer I fancy, I am very disillusioned indeed) a few months ago I have contributed on a variety of topics in the Wikipedia ranging from mathematics through to women activism through to artists ranging from the celebrated such as van Gogh to the less well known such as Anton Mauve to the outrightly obscure such as Anton Hirschig (all these articles contribiuted mainly or entirely by me). I do not see why I should need to parade my religious convictions on wikipedia to showe good faith but I should have thought them evident enough looking at my userpage and perhaps my mountaineous monniker. I can add I went to considerable trouble providing a more carefully balanced and favourable discussion of Ole Nydahl, one of the Buddhist teachers cited in the article, in his Wikipage whose section 'Criticism' was overwhelmingly negative before I edited it.
It's absolutely horrid you useme like this and I ask you to desist whatever your private concerns about the way you feel about me. Rinpoche (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record for those that cannot read the deleted pages here is one of the entries on a currently living individual.
A $10 million 1994 lawsuit filed in California by Janice Doe (an agreed pseudonym) alleged fraud, assault and battery, infliction of emotional distress and breach of fiduciary duty. It also alleged that he had “seduced many other female students for his own sexual gratification”.[7] The lawsuit was settled for an undisclosed sum. Since then however allegations of abuse have continued. Apologists point out that ((redacted)) is not a celibate monk. Detractors reply that there must be legitimate concerns that he abuses his position, pointing out that he lacks credibility as a 'chick magnet'.[8]
If Rinpoche cannot see what is wrong with this text in an article about sexual abuse then then they really have to read WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:RS & WP:SYNTH really hard. The first source is a blog and the second is www.american-buddha.com which I cannot evaluate since it is blocked in Qatar. SpartazHumbug!19:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The individual concerned is notorious in Buddhist circles and the lawsuit was very widely publicised. In the Rinpoche's wiki page the following can be found
In 1994, a $10 million[1] civil lawsuit was filed against redacted Rinpoche. It was alleged that over a period of many years, Rinpoche had used his position as a spiritual leader to induce some of his female students to have sexual relations with him. The complaint included accusations of infliction of emotional distress, breach of fiduciary duty, as well as assault and battery. In December 1995, the issue was settled out of court through mediation.(refs cited: Simpkinson, Anne. "Soul Betrayal" Common Boundary, Inc. November/December 1996. and Lattin, Don. "Best-selling Buddhist author accused of sexual abuse." The San Francisco Free Press, 10 November 1994. and Brown, Mick. "The Precious One", Telegraph Magazine, 2 February 1995, pp.20-29.)
Subsequently, additional reports surfaced of students who "claimed that they had felt obliged to have a sexual relationship with their teacher."(ref cited Oakley, Richard (July 4, 2009). "Shock at lama redacted Rinpoche's past: President McAleese distances herself from spiritual leader accused of abuse". The Sunday Times. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)) In 1995, a young English woman said she had attended one of redacted Rinpoche's residential retreats and been led to believe she had been singled out for special attention. "At first I was flattered, and very open and trusting. He encouraged me to fall in love with him - but I realised he was toying with me. I noticed several other young, pretty women going in and out of his apartment; when I confronted him with this, he dropped me and ignored me for the rest of the time I was there." (ref supplied)
Supporters of redacted Rinpoche state that lamas of the Nyingma school are not required to take vows of celibacy, and indeed redacted Rinpoche does not claim to be a celibate monk.(ref supplied)
So what exactly is your problem with my entry for this individaul in the article?
I ask you to stop patronising me with all these WP:BLPs etc. you site. These are not at issue in this article. The article was thouroughly sourced and entirely competent. I ask you again to comment on the confusion you persistently make concerning abuse and criminality.
If you think a blog and that site are suitable sources for an article naming specific individuals in the context of sexual abuse then there is no point speaking to you further. SpartazHumbug!20:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's your view about blogs. What about the long quotation from the Rinpoche's concerned own wiki page sourcing the abuse I cite which you cited as suspect? What about your persistent confounding of abuse and criminal behaviour you do not address although that prejudice is what led you to delete my draft article from my userspace here? Are you walking away from that too? Will you in that case concede that you have lost the argument and restore my user space for me so interested parties who are not privileged supervisors can judge the issues preoperly for themselves?Rinpoche (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not just Spartaz' view about blogs. If you doubt it I suggest that you complain here and see how long it takes until you are blocked by the project's founder in person. Thanks for pointing to the other BLP-violating article. I think after my edits it now conforms to our BLP-standards. (It still has a lot of other problems, though, such as excessive use of the honorific "Rinpoche".) Perhaps an admin with access to the deleted article can make sure that the other articles you cited also conform to BLP. HansAdler22:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point about blogs is valid. Some of them are very good. I do understand (as ever I am obliged to you for instructing me) that in general they can't be cited but as I note below WP:V only says in general they can't be cited and you as a 40 year old something research mathematician studying in Austria will appreciate the corollory that some therefore are worth citing. As for your edit of the redacted person referred to here as the chickmag Rinpoche not to hurt his feelings or defame him whatever it's worth quoting I think certainly because it's so elegantly phrased
In 1994, a $10 million[1] civil lawsuit was filed against Sogyal Rinpoche. It was alleged that over a period of many years, Rinpoche had used his position as a spiritual leader to induce some of his female students to have sexual relations with him. The complaint included accusations of infliction of emotional distress, breach of fiduciary duty, as well as assault and battery.[2][3] The lawsuit was settled privately, but related allegations flared up again later.[4]
but mainly to point as the noted American poetess Sylvia Plath once more or less just as elegantly characterised so I do feel that this is just basically 'wanking a glitter' here (although I can reasonably ask why you deleted the significant assertion "claimed that they had felt obliged to have a sexual relationship with their teacher" which is supported by the inline quotation provided in accordance with WP:V and adds to the picture of abuse, because that of course is what it is, already described and why did you choose the legally meaningless phrase 'privately settled' over, what was originally given, the legally correct 'settled out of court' which was wiki-linked? I don't really undestand why you are satsfied your edit is superior).
I suppose I'd better add (now rather than later) that in English 'induce' and 'feel obliged to' have a quite different character as any brilliant a bit world famous so she or he might very well claim 60 something or other native speaker of English and distiguished arithmancer or something like that that can tell you. Are you a native speaker of English or perhaps just not quite as good as you fancy yourself?
It bills itself as "an Oregon non-profit religious organization dedicated to spreading the word that the American tradition, and our Western cultural roots, provide abundant resources for spiritual inspiration, ethical guidance, and the expansion of human understanding", but they host a lot of nutty 9/11 conspiratorial junk as well, like a rense.com. I wouldn't trust it an inch in terms of WP:RS. Tarc (talk) 19:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
American Buddha is a well known forum. I cited it because I didn't want to plagiarise it's witty characterisation of the Ronpoche concerned as an unlikely candidate for a "chick-magnet" which gets right to the heart of the issues about him and why I also provided a thumbnail image of the Rinpoche. Don't know abour conspiracy theories. Is there one for the Rinpoche? Clarification appreciated. Rinpoche (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not your personal blog where you can publish witty insults of living people. Such crap would never make it into Encyclopedia Britannica. What makes you believe that it is acceptable here? HansAdler22:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the reasons exactly I pointed out. It gets to the heart of the matter. What have you got against wit especially when it's as insightful as this? And it wasn't an insult. Nor crap. But how very robust of you, just like Mozart farting at the piano I am 'moved' to reflect. So Austrian (and I should know as well as anyone - I've slept nights enough in their mountain huts and lived to tell the tale :-}) Rinpoche (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as within admin discretion. Removing the worst, and listing at WP:AFD would've also been ok. Regarding justification for the delete, I can't emphasize enough the importance of reliable sources for any negative content about living people; blogs, forums, wikis, partisan groups and so on shouldn't be used. PhilKnight (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ReplyThe article was thoroughly sourced and competent. Why shouldn't be blogs be cited as a source? What's your POV on blogs? Some are okay, some aren't. The best are outstanding, the worst abysmal. Like books, pamplets, papers.
I repeat the article was throughly researched and competently sourced. Compare what I entered for the chickmag Rinpoche thought suspect by Humbug! and what is entered in his own wiki quoted above. The Rinpoche in question is notorious in Buddhist circles. If you're a Buddhist you would have to be currently engaged in a six year retreat face-down prostrate in a moon crater not to have heard of him and know about his very widely publicised issues. He doesn't need multiple spources. Rinpoche (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I shall look at these and perhaps comment. Thank you. I did look at what you put on my user page which I recognise was helpful and thank you for that. Appreciated. I have replied. Rinpoche (talk) 01:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at WP:V and especially at Wikipedia:V#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29. I don't see anything there that conflicts with the position I take above about blogs. It does say that generally speaking they're not acceptable. By implication some are and I would say American Buddha is one of them. I also note an inititial remark "in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly supports the material in question" but as pointed out the chickmag Rinpoche's issues are simply a matter of record, a matter of fact and can't in all honesty be credibly challenged and the same is so with all the example of abuse I cited.
I glanced also at WP:RS and didn't see anything there that I feel requires attention from me. I once again stress the article was not a BLP. Jclemens says I defamed the individuals I cited. I have done nothing of the sort and will address this claim tomorrow morning around 02:00 when I expect to resume these comments (and complete what I have to say).
Discuss on AFD without prior restoration, even if this means that only admins can participate in the AfD. The article is highly problematic with respect to WP:BLP, and I can't fault Jclemens for deleting it altogether as a precautionary measure. But it doesn't meet the G10 requirement of "serving no other purpose" than disparagement. Rather it seems like an earnest but very flawed attempt to write a sourced article about a topic that perhaps does not need one. But that (and whether the sources given are reliable) is for AFD to decide. If we decide to keep it as an article (which would frankly surprise me), individual problematic sections can also be removed editorially. Sandstein 11:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Sandstein. Not a G10, worth discussing the sources given that the topic itself is probably reasonable as long as the sources are golden when it comes to BLP issues. Hobit (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that per the BLPN thread, I have absolutely no objection to a similar article being recreated, with the non-problematic sources included, in a BLP-compliant fashion. However, since the title, plenty of past revisions, and much of the content was a relatively-intractable problem, G10 was the most expedient option. I disagree that the "serves no other purpose" clause in G10 was intended to prevent its application to such a situation, or that failing that I was inappropriate in IAR-deleting the article per BLP directives. Jclemens (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
If some reliable secondary source has written about the topic then WP could have an article on it. Just collecting information about people who are Buddhist, religious teachers, involved in a sexual relationship, and the other person in the relationship is one of their students would be considered original research. Wolfview (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. The Nydahl, Eido Roshi, Brad Warner and Dainin Kataghiri cases were all sourced with major newspaper colums or published books. 87.61.175.179 (talk) 00:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
As I said I did not start the Page, but I think the information is worthwhile. I propose an article called: Buddhist Teacher/Student Romances or something along those lines. Then go into these sections:
- What did Buddha say? - What is the tradition within the particular orders (Zen/Tibetan/Etc.) - Document what different teachers say about it. - (For example, Ole Nydahl acknowledged that he sleeps with students but adds that its ok.) - This way the article will be purely neutral and documentary. It should aim to document the controversies and let readers decide for themselves. 87.61.175.179 (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
It sounds like you might have the makings of a sourced article on Buddhist teachers who violate the religion's own teachings on sex. That's hardly sex abuse, and the funny thing about religions is that people are essentially allowed to make up the rules as they go--if they differ too much from another sect, no big deal, they'll just be catalogued as a different sub-sect. Jclemens (talk) 07:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok then. Is there any possibility of you emailing me the content of the now deleted page at coreheim |a| gmail.com and creating such an article for me? I'll re-write it in the manner stated, and you can see if approve of it or not. 82.143.250.221 (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
as I said, I was not the original author of the article, that was user:ripoche. I would not use the word abuse in an article such as this. 82.143.250.221 (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.143.250.138 (talk)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
To answer the IP's question, I think that's doable in part, (Yes, I absolutely can mail you the article...) but it's going to be complicated to get the revision history back without reintroducing BLP material into the history, and I am not inclined to directly help create such an article, although I suspect others here might. Again, if that's all that is desired, then the DRV is moot, because I already agreed that such an article can be created. All I did was G10 the existing article based on undersourced serious allegations, I have never said that a better article couldn't (it certainly can) or shouldn't (I'm ambivalent) be written. Jclemens (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. While there were some citations establishing that certain Buddhist teachers slept with certain students, there were not any citations establishing that these consituted "sex abuse," or that there was any basis for meshing them all into one topic. I largely agree with Hans Adler's comments above. It's clear that this was a BLP problem, and that the article was OR to advance a POV. postdlf (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've already addressed the question of the term abuse in these comments. To repeat for a final time it's perfectly well understood that sexual relationships between a teacher and a student are abusive on the part of the teacher. No other word, other than euphemisms, in the English language suffice to describe them. In the case of the redacted Rinpoche cited above, two of the references cited in his wiki (never edited by me incidentally) contain the word abuse in their titles 1 'Best-selling Buddhist author accused of sexual abuse' 2. 'President McAleese distances herself from spiritual leader accused of abuse'. Accepting that this catalogue of abusive behaviour at the heart of emerging Western Buddhist groups is notable and worth recording, what then do we call it? 'Scandal' is misleading. A precious Rinpoche may be cavorting scandalously in the bordellos of Lhasa without behaving abusively, or at least in a way that need concern us overly as to the moral safety of his community. Regarding Hans Adler, English is not his first language, as is evident from his editing of the readacted Rinpoche's wiki I mention above, and I suspect that's where much of the problem lies. I dare say he also opposes lists such as List of Los Angeles Police Department officers killed in the line of duty as POV nightmares and that may be in line with Wikipedia recommendation but the fact is that lists like these are popular. The list List of Christian evangelist scandals I cite above as roughly comparable to the section of my article where I list cases of abuse (but my article was not just a list, amongst things other citing and summarising a very significant and notable peer-reviewed academic study) survived a page deletion call - no consensus was reached. But in the case of this article, because it has already been deleted, if no consensus is reached then I suppose it will remain deleted. And of course it's likely that the deletion will be endorsed, or at best no consensus will be reached, because only admins can see the article and I dare say their canteen culture sniff at lists. The popular vote won't be counted save from those such as Hans Adler above who feels 'free' to take it upon himself to wade into an article he cannot read because he can clearly see that the author doesn't understand that 'sexual abuse' refers to Catholic priests buggering small boys (he uses the euphemism 'sleeping with' - Michael Jackson fans please note). That is not a happy outcome and that must be regarded as Jclemens's fault. Rinpoche (talk) 03:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the information of Hans Adler and others I cope below the definition of sexual abuse at Abuse#Sexual_abuse
Sexual abuse is the forcing of undesired sexual behavior by one person upon another, when that force falls short of being a sexual assault. The offender is referred to as a sexual abuser or (often pejoratively) molester.[5] The term also covers any behavior by any adult towards a child to stimulate either the adult or child sexually. When the victim is younger than the age of consent, it is referred to as child sexual abuse.
and here's a remark from a notable academic paper
If child sex abuse is society’s “best kept secret,” the second most covert sexual offense is that which is euphemistically termed “consensual sex” in the workplace and academia. Like child sex abuse, it extends as far back as Biblical times when David the King misused his power to gain access to the wife of one of his soldiers. Despite slow but steady progress in combating sexual offenses, it remains the most enigmatic and controversial behavior in a culture and legal system which too often dismiss it as a private matter between adults or minimize it by disbelieving or blaming the victim.
— Billie Wright Dziech et al, 'Consensual' or Submissive relationships: The Second-Best Kept Secret, Duke Journal of Gender Law and Policy Vol 6:83 (1999)
Of course language evolves all the time but I don't doubt for one moment that if an individual making the kinds of remarks justifying teacher/students sexual relationships as not necessarily abusive on the part of the teacher as I've seen here had tenure in a UK academic insitution he or she would have been called in by now to clarify their views. I would like to think that the underlying cause is simply a misunderstanding of how the word 'abuse' is currently used in the English language. Rinpoche (talk) 06:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While you appear slightly more sober now, I note that you are still responding to the nuanced arguments with which I tried to make you understand why this was far from satisfying our high standards for verifiability and fairness – by turning everything into simple yes/no, black/white questions and dishing out underhanded insult/threat combinations that are sophisticated elaborations of "I know where you work, you wanker, and I know how to make sure you won't get tenure". Seriously, it can hardly come as a surprise to you that the persona you are playing is prevented from writing about living people in an encyclopedia.
Some final words on the facts: An 'abuse' relation can only exist where one person has power over another. Teachers at general schools are in such a position with respect to their pupils. Employers and supervisors are in such a position. I have a number of Buddhist friends, but I have never heard of a western Buddhist who had similar power over his students, other than in the context of saying that this is something to avoid and a sign that things are going seriously wrong.
We cannot independently assess the quality of a teacher–student relation here in any individual case. There is also no reason for us to adopt a Buddhist view on this quality, which in any case will have arisen in a context in which the students are children and which is therefore of limited applicability to Buddhism as it is practised in the West. We must go by what the sources say. Precisely. If newspapers report that A has accused B of sexual abuse, and that B has admitted having had sex with A, then we may be able to report both facts (there are high relevancy bars, and any inconsistencies in the reporting can be a reason to leave something out entirely), but we cannot say that B has sexually abused A, and we must in fact make sure not to create that impression. HansAdler10:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Point of order. Can we stop arguing the merits of the article and start back on the merits of the administrator's action? As said admin has stated "I have absolutely no objection to a similar article being recreated, with the non-problematic sources included, in a BLP-compliant fashion" above, why don't we just call it a day on this particular version of the article and someone can start fresh if they wish, adhering to the above. Tarc (talk) 13:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I can agree with that and will unwatch this page. But by way of explanation: I think this is a natural thing to happen when an article by a relatively new user is deleted without getting its day in AfD. HansAdler13:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note further that the appellant has been blocked twice, first for 24 hours (which resulted in a brief break in the textwalling above), and now indefinitely for trolling and disruption. See the carnage for yourself at WP:WQA if desired. Jclemens (talk) 18:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lulz. Even I probably don't have the chutzpah to both tell someone to go fuck themselves and use an edit summary so offensive it had to be rev'deleted at WQA. That's an epic meltdown. Tarc (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
^ abFinnigan, Mary. "Sexual healing," The Guardian, 10th January 1995, p. 19
^Brown, Mick. "The Precious One", Telegraph Magazine, 2 February 1995, pp.20-29.
^Oakley, Richard (July 4, 2009). "Shock at lama Sogyal Rinpoche's past: President McAleese distances herself from spiritual leader accused of abuse". The Sunday Times. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
^"Peer commentaries on Green (2002) and Schmidt (2002)". Archives of Sexual Behavior. 31. 2002. Child molester is a pejorative term applied to both the pedophile and incest offender.{{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)