Talk:Brad Warner

Which is Brad Warner?

Strange to have only one picture, labelled "Brad Warner", but containing two zen priests. Is this some kind of koan? --Geronimo20 (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Brad is on the right, I believe. It is hard to find a picture just of him that is appropriate for the Wiki. I will look around more for one. KiTA (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

False Information?

I added information from Warner's own book on this site but some people keep reverting it without giving any explanations of why. Could these people please provide REAL explanations rather than blanket refusals? Thank you.

Here ia an example of what they wrote: QOUTE Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Brad Warner. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC) END QUOTE.

A)There is no way of knowing who you are or who you claim to be
B)Here's what you were trying to add -- not a reference or source, only a link to some other page on wikipedia. Unacceptable; since this claim is almost an attack and the person is still alive, you cannot simply throw in stuff like that.
Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

What the H... are you talking about? The info is there on p. 99 of his book. He says it himself. It would help if you oriented yourself with the matter before taking action. And I do not claim to be anybody. 82.143.250.221 (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears that Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 has some covert agenda here. He has reverted several edits without giving any specific reasons. Referring to the BLP-page does NOT refute what I contributed. Now Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 was right that my original edit needed a ref. So I provided a ref. But he still says things like "there is no way of knowing what you claim to know". But I don't claim to know anything. I am quoting from Warner's book. Under Ole Nydahl the criticism section quotes him saying that he sleeps with students, but its ok because he does not think of them as students. In Warner's book he says that its ok because he does not think of them as students but meditation buddies (p. 99). So by a neutrality standard it should be in tehre. Looking forward to somebody actually loooking into the matter instead of having Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 just blanket revert everything and accuse me of disruptive editing even after I accomodated his (initial, rightful) criticism. 82.143.250.138 (talk) 11:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Should someone wish to investigate, please take into account this related discussion on my talk page. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I don't need to refute, you need to reference. Any claim that isn't properly referenced will be removed. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You're doing it again. How is quoting from p. 99 of his book not a reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.143.250.138 (talk) 11:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

What book? author, title, edition if applicable, publisher, year published, place of publication. That's how we reference. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Happy now?

"I'd thought some about Leilani, the girl who came to my Zen classes who I had the big crush on. But she was my student. Though I never think of the people who come to sit with me as my students. They're more like "zazen buddies"." p. 99

"Having a strong relationship like this, even if it's with a student, can allow the teacher to be more real with everyone." p. 219

"I knew that embarking on a relationshipo with [my student] Leilani would open me up to charges of hypocricy and mususe of sexuality. ... But we knew what we were doing. [and] that was enough." p. 220

"I was doing my students right there in the monestary." pp. 217-8

1. Warner, Brad
2. Zen Wrapped in Karma Dipped in Chocolate: A Trip Through Death, Sex, Divorce, and Spiritual Celebrity in Search of the True Dharma
3. Paperback: 240 pages
4. Publisher: New World Library; Original edition (February 10, 2009)
5. Language: English
6. ISBN-10: 1577316541
7. ISBN-13: 978-1577316541 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.143.250.138 (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. So why don't you add it? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The anon IP's continued addition of this material represents a violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:BLP. There is no evidence in reliable secondary sources that Warner's stance on relationships with his students are in any way notable or relevant to his biographical article. Uncle Dick (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Why do you need secondary sources when you have Warner's own book, written by him? 82.143.250.221 (talk) 22:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Adding multiple qoutes from THE SAME book by the same author does not constitute WP:SYNTH. Please try actually reading throught the article before you edit. 82.143.250.221 (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear UncleDick you have not read what I added. First, I only added info from ONE source, not multiple sources as you imply. Secondly, other users accepted the edit as legit once the bibliographical info was added, so please stop referring to their previous disagreements. Thrid, how can quoting directly from a book be original research? Fourth, please try ACTUALLY arguing you point before calling my edits disruptive. For the other reasons mentions, it is your reprimand that is the result of not reading things through before you revert. If you have actual arguments, based on a real reading of the content I added, and the discussion with other users on the talk page, I will be very happy to hear from you. 82.143.250.221 (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)82.143.250.221 (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Your section entitled "Stance on sleeping with students" represents a synthesis of two apparently unrelated passages in Warner's book in addition to your own unsourced original research and analysis. There are no reliable secondary sources provided to assert any sort of controversy regarding Warner's admitted practices. Uncle Dick (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

First up, no the story runs through the pages of the book, from he first catches sight of her, to him contemplating taking her to bed, and to him finally doing it. These two quotes are part of the same rant and right next to eahc other in the book:

"Having a strong relationship like this, even if it's with a student, can allow the teacher to be more real with everyone." (New World Library 2009) p. 219

"I knew that embarking on a relationship with [my student] Leilani would open me up to charges of hypocricy and mususe of sexuality. ... But we knew what we were doing. [and] that was enough." (New World Library 2009) p. 220

Secondly, I never said that there was a controversy regarding _Warner's_ affairs. I said that there was controversy regarding buddhist masters who sleep with their students, and Warner chips in to that discussion. Which he says he does in his book. Since you are so busy reverting this article, why don't you pick up the book and see for yourself? Oh and thirdly, Warner himself states that the two other senior members of his school of buddhsim faults him for it calling him, amongst other things, the "porno buddhist". So please. Seeing as I am the only one who has actually read the book, try holding back on the assumptions. 82.143.250.221 (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, to include your proposed section in the article, there needs to be citations to multiple reliable secondary sources per WP:BLP. Warner's book is not a secondary source. If there is a controversy surrounding Buddhist masters sleeping with their students that specifically involves Warner, then it needs to be cited from reliable sources. Otherwise, it is likely a violation of Wikipedia's BLP policy. Uncle Dick (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Is citing what a person says about himself injurius and a violation? 82.143.250.221 (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It is when undue weight is given to particular passages in a book that are then synthesized to make an original argument that is not included in any reliable secondary sources. Once again, you have failed to assert (using reliable sources) why Warner's views on sleeping with students are notable enough to include in his biographical article. Are his views a source of great controversy in the academic or religious community? Has he faced any sort of academic or ethical censure for his views and actions? Have any reliable sources commented on Warner's admissions in his book in a way that would make his views notable? Those questions must be answered before the material can be added. Uncle Dick (talk) 20:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this should be added or have its own article under a heading of ALL buddhist teachers sleeping with and/or charging for students. This theme of scandalous buddhist "masters" is becomming more and more prevalent. 89.150.118.208 (talk) 23:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Glad to Supply Photos

I'm Brad and I have a whole lot of better photos for this page if anyone wants them. <email redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.75.240 (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brad Warner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbc.ca/tapestry/archives/2007/101407.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120728071804/http://midnightrecords.com:80/Joomla/label/dimentia to https://midnightrecords.com/Joomla/label/dimentia
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/author/bradwarner/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)