Talk:Triratna Buddhist Community/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

RfC:Removal of properly sourced critical material

Some editors are removing properly sourced critical material, resulting in a less neutral and less informative article.

Please review Wikipedia:RFC#Instructions. RfC descriptions must be neutral. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, this is the first time I have done an RfC and I was concentrating too much on how to get the template to work. I should have phrased the description something like: 'Is the removal by some editors of properly sourced critical material resulting in a better or worse article?'EmmDee (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

By "critical" I take it you mean they criticize the FWBO, rather than in a sense analogous to literary criticism. If the material is important it shouldn't be deleted, but of course the FWBO's response should also be given. Peter jackson (talk) 10:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I mean material which is critical of the FWBO. There is quite a long history of controversy in the editing of this article, which you will see if you glance back over the talk pages. Most editors seem to be either pro or critical of the FWBO, with relatively few neutral editors. There seems to have been an edit war going on intermittently since 12:46, 9 July 2004, when editor Mahaabaala deleted links which 'warn of FWBO being a cult', which had been added a few hours earlier by editor FWBOarticle.

The article did acheive a degree of stability and balance in the version uploaded by Rupa zero at 00:29, 10 August 2007, but since then it has degenerated IMO. I believe Rupa zero was attending the Cambridge UK centre of the FWBO, so in that sense she was sympathetic to the FWBO, but willing to follow Wikipedia guidelines on verifiable sources [1] and neutral point of view [2] : 'All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.'

Rupa zero began her version of the article as follows:

'FWBO stands for Friends of the Western Buddhist Order. It is a new religious movement that was founded by Sangharakshita in 1967 in the UK.[1]'

The cited source was: Barrett, D V (2001), The New Believers: Sects, 'Cults' and Alternative Religions, p. 307. On this page, Barrett States: 'The Friends of the Western Buddhist Order (FWBO) was founded in 1967 by an English Buddhist monk, Sangharakshita (born Dennis Lingwood in 1925)'. Barrett does not seem to refer to the FWBO as a 'Buddhist movement', and the title of the book refers to 'Sects, "Cults" and Alternative Religions'.

The current version of the article begins: 'The Friends of the Western Buddhist Order (FWBO) is an association of Buddhists, and others who follow its path of mindfulness, under the leadership of the Western Buddhist Order. It was founded in the UK in 1968, and describes itself as "an international network dedicated to communicating Buddhist truths in ways appropriate to the modern world". [1] '

The cited source is the FWBO's own website, which I don't think is really a reliable source according to Wikipedia guidelines [3]: 'Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.'

I had posted what I thought was a more neutral first sentence 20:17, 8 August 2008 which read: 'Some sources refer to the The Friends of the Western Buddhist Order (FWBO) as a Buddhist movement [citation needed], while others refer to it as a New Religious Movement [1].'

Note [1] read:'Academic books featuring the FWBO include: Barrett, D V (2001), The New Believers: Sects, 'Cults' and Alternative Religions ISBN=0-304-355925 Clarke, Peter (2005) Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements ISBN-10: 0415267072 Clarke, Peter (2006) New Religions in Global Perspective ISBN 0415257476 Partridge, C H (2006) Encyclopedia of New Religions: New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities ISBN-10: 0745952194 Dawson, L L (2003) Cults and New Religious Movements ISBN 1405101814 Chryssides, G D and Wilkins, M Z (2006) A Reader in New Religious Movements ISBN 0826461670 Arweck, Elisabeth (2006) New Religious Movements In The West ISBN 9780415277556

These references were removed by 83.244.194.132 at 14:29, 12 August 2008. They described this (and other changes) as a 'cleanup', and made a comment on the talk page at 15:40, 12 August 2008, that: 'To rake over this commentator or that commentator, I'd suggest is to ignore what thousands of FWBO friends do every day of the week.'

Some editors (whom I guess to be FWBO members or supporters) seem very keen that the FWBO should be described as a Buddhist movement, presumably because Buddhism has a generally good reputation, which they hope to benefit from. As academic Martin Baumann observes:

'As regards social reputation, being a member of a specific religious group vouches for quality, sincerity and honesty. Members of the FWBO are still striving for that reputation, however.' [4]

To find this quote in the above webpage, Ctrl-F brings up the Find dialogue box, enter 'As regards social reputation' (without the quote marks), and that will take you to the quoted section. This quote used to be in the Criticism section of the article, but was deleted some time ago.

However, AFAICS no editor has been willing or able to cite any 3rd party sources which describe or refer to the FWBO as a Buddhist movement. On the other hand, sources which refer to the FWBO as a New Religious Movement or similar get deleted, as above.

I am not suggesting that there should be no material from the FWBO, only that it should not predominate, or replace reliable, third-party published material when this is available.

After the short introductory section, there are four sections about the FWBO, which AFAICS contain no criticism of the FWBO. There is then a section 'Controversies and criticism' with an introduction and 5 subsections. I am happy that the four sections about the FWBO contain no criticism, but not happy that much of the criticism section has been deleted, and that there are also a number of usourced and possibly untrue statements which attempt to minimise the criticisms which do remain, for example: 'The FWBO-Files and the Guardian article are both based on one person's experience with the FWBO' (which I don't think is true, they both cite a number of sources) [5].

An example of criticism that has been removed is a comment on FWBO member Subhuti's statement on sexual relations between teachers and students as a 'medium of Kalyana Mitrata [spiritual friendship]' [6]. The removed comment was:

'To me this is totally contrary to the Buddhist precepts, it's totally contrary to the Buddhist scriptures, and it's absolutely contrary to any sort of good practice. It to me is a form of manipulation.'

This comment was made by Rev. Daishin Morgan, of Throssel Hole Priory in Northumberland, UK [7], and was broadcast as part of BBC East's 'Going for Refuge' TV programme about the FWBO on 12 November 1992. The BBC is a reliable source, but Rev. Morgan's comment was deleted (along with a number of other changes) by 83.244.194.132 at 13:11, 11 August 2008, with the comment 'Toned down deeply aversive POV'

There are a number of other properly cited criticisms which have been removed over the preceeding months, too many to list here. If I replace them, they get deleted again. I am not sure what to do about this. It seems this article is highly controversial. In that respect, it seems quite similar to the article on another Buddhist New Religious Movement, the New Kadampa Tradition (NKT). I understand that Jimmy Wales believes that two warring factions can never hammer out an article that is NPOV, and has said (regarding the NKT article, but it could just as well apply here) that:

'The philosophy that NPOV is achieved by warring parties is one that I have always rejected, and in practice, I think we can easily see that it absolutely does not work. I would prefer to have no article on New Kadampa Tradition than to have one which is a constant battleground for partisans, taking up huge amounts of times of good editors, legal people, and me. What is preferred, of course, is that thoughtful, reasonable people who know something about the subject interact in a helpful way to seek common ground.' [8]

Which is why I have made this RfC. Any thoughtful, reasonable (and neutral) people out there? EmmDee (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

While it's important that these matters are not personalised, I think that EmmDee's edits need to be considered in the context of his edits to Padmaloka. This is a retreat centre - physical objects - to which he has attached a mass of attack on FWBO, raking over ancient sexual contacts between members of the order (gasp!). As stated previously, the purpose of an encyclopaedia is not to wage personal crusades or grudges, but to give accurate, proportionate and neutral information.

On specific points made, it was Emmdee who felt he wanted to upset the consensus here to describe the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order as, well, a Buddhist organisation. He didn't like that (can't imagine why!), so now we have it described as as "association of Buddhists and others". I suppose he may now wish to object that none of the friends are Buddhists, but assuming he isn't indulged on that one, anyone concerned by this issue might look at the entries for any other religion or organisation to see if the opening text of the entry queries whether they are what they say they are. Of course they don't. Indeed, if you look at the Church of England you will see that its description even states that this is how the church sees itself.

There is no reason at all, under wiki guidance, why an individual or organisation can't be referenced to itself. If Elton John says he is a songwriter, singer and pianist, there is no reason at all why the fact that he says this can't be referenced to his website (I assume he has one). This is not to say that it is a FACT that John is all of these things, only that he describes himself thus. I accept that to establish this as fact, one would go to third-party sources.

The most important thing with this entry on the FWBO is that it is rendered neutral and accurate. If you look at the Roman Catholic Church, where there have been very serious sexual scandals, involving children and other minors, these are dealt with proportionately. No evidence has ever been produced of any serious sexual misconduct involving FWBO, although some individuals, some decades ago, do appear to have had sexual relationships with other order members, and subsequently regretted or resented it. Their complaints, which are, again, sourced only to themselves, and not to any third party verification, are strikingly prominent in this entry as it is. Arguably, they need to be toned-down even further, and arguably links to the anonymous attack sites deleted. I haven't done this, although other editors may wish to consider these issues.

As for the comments of "Rev. Daishin Morgan, of Throssel Hole Priory" dated to 1992, I have no idea what happened to these, and, to be quite honest, I don't think anyone would care what "Rev. Daishin Morgan, of Throssel Hole Priory" said in 1992. I dare say there are people out there - hey, I've decided that I'm one - who says "Rev. Daishin Morgan, of Throssel Hole Priory" isn't a Christian. I'm quite sure the only reason he was in this entry was because someone has raked over every sliver of abuse, no matter how old or trivial, to throw at FWBO. If that's your inclination, why not go edit the Catholic church, or the Southern Baptists, or any number of Islamic bodies. You could happily spend the rest of your life throwing mud at them.83.244.194.132 (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No indeed, Morgan isn't a Christian. He's a Buddhist. Throssel Hole is a Soto Zen establishment. I'm not sure whether his views are relevant here. In principle Wikipedia could include different Buddhist groups' criticisms of each other, eg Theravada & Mahayana. Indeed I'd go further & say that WP should not hide the fact that different Buddhist groups do criticize each other. Likewise Christian groups &c.

Whether the FWBO should be called Buddhist (since someone seemed to be raising the issue above) isn't a matter to be decided by applying some definition of Buddhism. It's simply a matter of convention, & I think the convention is that the FWBO count as Buddhist. As reagrds NRMs, it's blatantly obvious that FWBO is a new religious movement in the literal (lower-case) sense. Whether it's also a New Religious Movement in whatever technical (capital) sense the specialists use is obviously for them to say. As someone has cited a no. of such sources above that apparently include it, that would appear to imply that it is, or at least that some specialists say so.

For the record, the FWBO is a reliable source for any statements of the type "The FWBO claims ..." but not for any others. Peter jackson (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Claims of FWBO as "cult"

When one goes to the cited references previously deployed to allege that some sources claim the FWBO is a "cult", what one actually finds are people saying things like "it's more like a cult than a regular Buddhist group", or whatever. Similarly, when one goes to the "cult" websites, they state for the most part that inclusion in their lists does not necessarily mean the organisation is a cult. Thus, the previous blunt claims that FWBO is accused of being a cult is inaccurate. It is fair, however, to say that some have felt that it HAS HAD (we don't know about now, particularly since Sangharakshita is no longer leading it) features of a cult.83.244.194.132 (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of cleanup tag

Whether or not one agrees that this entry is now NPOV, it is plainly a lot cleaner. There seems no reason to retain the cleanup tag.83.244.194.132 (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sangharakshita's sex life

I've done something to clarify the allegations against the founder, and also located what seems like the best source of something of his apparent reply. The bot has rejected the link (as being a blog), but the site in question (which can easily be found through Google) is plainly an authoritative FWBO-operated discussion site. I feel it should be possible to clearly state what the fuss was all about without triggering an edit war between people who want to cram every last shred of criticism into this page, and those who would sooner these things went away. I feel that the sense of proportion is better, although I'd still like to know more about what makes FWBO different from other Buddhist groups.83.244.194.132 (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend reading the document 'The FWBO Files' [9]. This gives a good overview of the differences between the FWBO and Buddhist groups. EmmDee (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Letter to The Times

I've removed allegations attributed to a letter in The Times which, when one reads it, are not to be found there. This has been a common problem in getting this entry up to reasonable standards: very often claims are referenced, but, upon checking the references, it turns out that the claim was never made in the attributed terms. This leads me to worry somewhat about the claims referenced to books, since I certainly haven't had time to check whether they really say what editors here have claimed. 83.244.194.132 (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

the letter to the times was in the supplement,not the newspaper itself-you should therefore restore it if you are not intent on hiding the truth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.139.167 (talk) 10:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Please clarify which references you ccntest.AFAICS, all are properly sourced. Dont forget to put the letter to the Times back in-good main public libraries usually archive the colour supplements that accompany newspapers so you should be able to find proof of its existence there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.139.167 (talk) 10:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, you can find the letter via InfoTrac Full Text Newspaper Database. The full text of the letter reads:

'From Guy Jones. I was involved with the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order (FWBO) for more than ten years from my late teens (Karma Chameleons, February 9). When I joined I was desperate to feel better about myself and get free from the drug culture in which I was involved. The FWBO seemed to be a place where I'd get help and receive the "friendship" the order holds so precious. When I left I was suicidal and nearly hospitalised in a mental health unit. It has taken four years of psychotherapy to heal the damage done to me.

'Manchester

'Copyright (C) The Times, 2002'

Source Citation: "Readers' Notes; Magazine letter.(Features)." The Times (London, England) (March 9, 2002): 5. InfoTrac Full Text Newspaper Database. Thomson Gale. Thomson Gale Document Number:CJ83642670

http://infotrac.london.galegroup.com/default

You will need a username and password, which you can obtain from a subscribing institution, such as your academic institution or your local library. EmmDee (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Emmdee's conduct

User Emmdee has visited Wikipedia over many many months purely to make hostile, abusive attacks on FWBO and its centres, repeatedly attempting to challenge, without foundation, FWBO and WBO members' integrity, honesty and good intention. He has repeatedly sought to challenge that any of them are Buddhists, and has repeatedly sought to add scurrilous defamations, sourced only to anonymous, and possibly nonexistent critics on attack websites. I believe there are good grounds to believe that Emmdee operates at least one of these attack sites, and comes to Wikipedia for the purpose of pursuing a longstanding grudge against FWBO. He appears particularly interested in sexual matters from the 1970s and 1980s, which are historical issues more than generously discussed in this entry. Proportionality is important to an encyclopedia, and needs to be sustained.

As other editors have noted with regard to Emmdee, Wikipedia is not a place to pursue vendettas, or to cyberstalk. I'm reluctant to challenge the good faith of any contributor, but it is clear that Emmdee is not acting in good faith, but is seeking to pursue an unhealthy preoccupation with his one-person campaign of hatred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluehotel (talk • contribs) 20:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The above comments seem to be just ad-hominem attacks by editor Bluehotel. They claim that my recent edits are 'sourced only to anonymous, and possibly nonexistent critics' which AFAICS is untrue, they are properly sourced according to Wikipedia guidelines. Therefore I shall revert Bluehotel's changes. EmmDee (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I second Emmdees comments-the above is simply a list of personal attacks, clearly from someone within the FWBO. AFAICS The allegations emmdee points too are evidenced. it strikes me that, despite the FWBO claim that they are willing to learn/have learned from past mistakes, in fact they are doing everything they can to stifle free speech over the issue. If this abuse of Wiki continues I will certainly report it. In the meantime, I would suggest devoting a little more time to looking at evidence and a little less to partisan vitriol. In this way perhaps truth will prevail-either way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.139.167 (talk) 10:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

After thinking about this for a while, i have returned here to point to the underhand nature of this recurrent tactic of attacking the person (here, M Dunlop). Dunlop may well be dogged in his devotion to his chosen task, but at least he sticks to verifiable fact-FWBO sympathisers seem invariably to attack him as a person (as in the old scientologist 'fair game', 'attack the attacker' set up) rather than honestly considering his writings. Its just slag him off then revert his changes-very demcratic.Wasnt it St Paul who said 'We war not against flesh and blood but principalities and powers in high places'? Maybe you 'Buddhists' ought to try a bit of that???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.139.167 (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Mr Dunlop [I gettit now Emmdee=Mark Dunlop - Smart!] may believe he is entitled to determine the spiritual beliefs of other individuals and organisations, and that he is entitled to continue to smear others on the basis of his personal convictions. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an airing space for personal grievances, grudges or vendettas. There is presently a very considerable consideration of his allegations, set out in this entry, and a line of proportionality must be fairly drawn, in order to balance the entry, and to give fairness to what appears to be many hundreds or thousands of FWBO-affiliated persons on what appears to be five continents of the planet. There are no grounds to smear their integrity, intelligence or commitments on the basis of some half-assed gay affairs that went on twenty or thirty years ago. What may or may not have happened between Mr Dunlop and past or present FWBO-affiliated persons is something which, if he wishes to continue raising it, ought to be raised with them. No serious misconduct of any kind has ever been proven against FWBO. For example, no sexual abuse has ever been evidenced. No evidence of any financial impropriety has ever been produced. What has been produced, ad nauseam, are instances where individuals - all adults - had sex with each other, of their own personal volition, and one of them, evidently, has never got over it. I would suggest that, in the light of Mr Dunlop's crusade, the evidence strongly suggests that he had some kind of problem before he joined FWBO, and still has it now. 83.244.194.132 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC).

Dear Michael Once again, almost 100% personal vendetta. As 'evidence' I looked at http://www.ex-cult.org/fwbo/Yashomitra.htm which is from the FWBOs own Shabda.'So is the Shabda stuff at ex-cult.org, which repeatedly refers to same sex sexual activities portrayed as the Buddhist way, all nonsense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.139.167 (talk) 10:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys. All this is pretty generously discussed in the entry. So guys in this outfit had sex? Whoah, you kiddin' me? 206.205.176.3 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC).

No-people used positions of power within this organisation to dupe them into sexual actvitiy on the promise that it would benefit the participant spiritually=this is very different and constitutes sexual abuse, as opposed to just good ol sex-you cant see the difference? Whoah, you kiddin' me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.139.167 (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Also, this abuse was widespread (according to Shabda) and continued into the late 1990s (according to Shabda[august 98])-this is different from the party line stated in the wake of the Grauniad article which claimed that such behaviour was an aberration and happened in only one place. The issue may be a 'historical' one but the stench of it lingers due to the persistent cover-up.A recent weekend conference discussed how to present the 'problems' in a way which developed sympathy and understanding (and diminish the effect of the FWBO Files)-how about telling the truth? This is, after all, a fundamental Buddhist principle-it just might work! It certainly beats petty personal diatribe. the other question is how can there ever be genuine debate of these issues if those who know refuse to share the truth with those around them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.139.167 (talk) 07:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Campaign by Mark Dunlop

I have removed a link to an anonymous attack site, set up evidently to promote hatred and abuse of the FWBO. For example, on the site's index page is the following statement:

"In simple terms, FWBO public centres ostensibly teach Buddhism and meditation, but really act as a front for recruiting people to work voluntarily or for low wages in FWBO charities and businesses. Profits from the businesses are covenanted back to FWBO charities, thus avoiding tax. To a lesser extent, FWBO public centres are also used as a front to procure teenagers and young men for the homosexual leadership of the FWBO."

The source of such outrageous claims, which are evidenced nowhere, is not given. I understand that a Mr Mark Dunlop, a former lover of FWBO's founder, has for many years run a hate campaign against FWBO. He would now be a man in his late fifties, and who I understand posts here as "Emmdee".

I have again removed this site, despite Mr Dunlop's reinstatement of it. If he persists in his conduct, in breaching wikipedia policy over anonymous blogs and defamatory attacks, a great deal of time will need to be devoted to dealing with this campaign of smear and denigration, and Mr Dunlop's activities may become part of the FWBO issue.

See Wikipedia:Verifiability for the policy

Bluehotel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC).

Campaign by Bluehotel

There has been discussion of this issue since the beginining of this article about the FWBO - see archives. Esentially, presumed FWBO members or supporters such as Bluehotel (plus sockpuppets?) want a pro-FWBO article with minimum criticism, while presumed ex-members or others interested in Buddhism want a more balanced article which doesn't minimise the criticisms. For example, 'FWBOarticle' wrote in 2004 [10]:

So basically, FWBO deliberately lied (or fudged) in the response to the Guardian article willfully concealing about the fact that S's so called "sexual experimentation" went on for decades and probably involved dozens of young men and that other senior order members engaged in the same kind of behaviour. And you talked to these senior order members personally and you know a lot more than about S, Yashomitra and Mark Dunlop.And basically Yashomitra just like Mark Dunlop is no longer a member because he got nowhere even after he "came out" with his experience. Plus, you have been trashing Mark Dunlop for years before Yashomitra's letter made Mark Dunlop's account [11] impossbile even for you to deny. And you still trash Mark Dunlop here when you know that the reason he needed psychiatric help is due to his experience with S, subsequent expulsion from FWBO and the continuing failure by FWBO to acknowledge the truth of his experience and suffering. :Anyway, do whatever you want for the main article. Just leave my external links collecton alone. FWBOarticle 11:58, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Bluehotel states: 'I have removed a link to an anonymous attack site, set up evidently to promote hatred and abuse of the FWBO'. Bluehotel seems to regard criticism as equivalent to promoting 'hatred and abuse of the FWBO', which is a rather one-sided view. The site is not anonymous, it is part of the ex-cult Resource Center, and there is a link to the site sponsor on the index page [12]. There is also an email contact address on the ex-FWBO index page [13]

Admittedly the introductory paragraphs on the ex-FWBO index page are anonymous, or are at least not signed by their author(s), but there are links in the index to properly sourced material backing up the allegations in the introduction. For example, as regards the allegation that FWBO public centres 'act as a front for recruiting people to work voluntarily or for low wages in FWBO charities and businesses. Profits from the businesses are covenanted back to FWBO charities, thus avoiding tax.', there is information about the FWBO's Low-pay structure here: [14] and about the Low-tax structure here: [15] for example:

Until recently most [businesses] have been registered as co-operatives but some problems have arisen with this form of organisation - the main problem being that some businesses are making quite large profits! Transferring the profits from the co-operatives to the charities which run the Centres entails some loss through taxation and some quite complicated administration. The businesses therefore set up a committee to arrive at a new form of organisation which would combine maximum financial advantage with the greatest simplicity of administration - but all in conformity with the principles which underlie Right Livelihood. It was found that considerable tax advantages can be gained if the charities to whom the profits are transferred own the businesses which make them. ...

Subhuti, 'Buddhism for Today,' p 189-90, pub. FWBO/Windhorse 1983 rev. 1988. ISBN 0-904766-34-9

As regards the allegation that ' To a lesser extent, FWBO public centres are also used as a front to procure teenagers and young men for the homosexual leadership of the FWBO', there is plenty of evidence to support this allegation: in The Guardian Article; in personal accounts from Yashomitra and Mark Dunlop; in the 'Sexual Manipulation' section, and elsewhere, all linked to on the index page. For example, in one link from the 'Sexual Manipulation' section [16]

I know that a significant number of heterosexuals have, one way or another, found themselves persuaded into homosexual acts with more senior or experienced members of the Order during their involvement with the FWBO.'

(Tejananda, FWBO magazine Shabda, July 1998)

The real beauty of a sexual relationship between an Order Member and a Mitra is that if the OM is sufficiently mature then the other person stands to gain considerably from the experience. This was the basis for the famed Greek model of love between the older man and the younger one which served that society so well for so long. ...

Tejananda's final point is that we should be careful not to "alienate the vast majority of its (Society's) members by engaging in, or condoning behaviour which they would find morally reprehensible and utterly repugnant".... he is quite right to point out that such bigotry does exist and that we must be very careful not to inflame ignorant passions by introducing such radical concepts too abruptly and without the opportunity to carefully explain the context that surrounds these ideas and principles. Thus one would need to be discreet in negotiating these principles with the general public.'

(Jayamati, Shabda, August 1998, pages 58-59)

There are a large number of links to FWBO sites in the External links section, a smaller number of 'Outside views of the FWBO', and Bluehotel has now deleted the 'Critical views of the FWBO' sub-section of the External links. This seems wildly unbalanced. Therefore I shall reinstate this sub-section, with its links, and shall continue to do so, if it is again deleted.EmmDee (talk) 17:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the link is to a homophobic, self-published blog, and that wiki editors should look at this. If it is true that one person has run a campaign against this organization, then that does need to be dealt with. One person cannot hold wikipedia to ransom, no matter how bitter he may be about a past gay affair. I have removed one of the tags, as there is no suggestion from anybody as to what is supposed to be checked. If it is just more of the Guardian article of the 1990s, then that's now all over with. 83.244.194.132 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC).

Bias

This article has a clear undue weight placed on criticism as do most of the other articles relating to it. So far all attempts by others to edit the article to a more balanced perspective have been attacked by various anons and EmmDee. This article clearly needs a balanced re-write by an unbiased editor, neither pro nor anti-FWBO.--ObscureFruits (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh also see WP:Undue weight --ObscureFruits (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a member of this order, and do not know the people involved. But from researching on the web, the position seems to be that in the 1970s, a young man called Mark Dunlop, joined FWBO looking for love, had a long sexual relationship with its founder Sangharakshita, the relationship cooled, and after some years in the order, Mark did a kiss-and-tell job. Since then (and for more than a decade), he has run a one-man hate campaign against FWBO, which he has now brought here as "EmmDee". He has no wikipedia-standard evidence for any of his abuse, apart from one article in the Guardian 11 years ago. He now seeks to hold FWBO to ransom by posting homophobic tittle-tattle, and by posting a link to an anonymous homophobic hate site. Hate speech cannot be tolerated, for example:

"In simple terms, FWBO public centres ostensibly teach Buddhism and meditation, but really act as a front for recruiting people to work voluntarily or for low wages in FWBO charities and businesses. Profits from the businesses are covenanted back to FWBO charities, thus avoiding tax. To a lesser extent, FWBO public centres are also used as a front to procure teenagers and young men for the homosexual leadership of the FWBO."

This is from an anonymous site, giving itself a grand title, which anyone can do, but which gives no indication of who is behind it. I have repeatedly deleted this link. Mark repeatedly reinstates it. I have posted this issue as the forum for advice, and, at his next reversion, will post seeking dispute resolution. Bluehotel (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not a member either, however I have some knowledge of the topic. Also judging from previous events (edits, w/e) EmmDee (Mark Dunlop I assume) and an IP 94.192.139.167 (sockpuppet?) have made a concerted effort to "balance" the article by adding negative information. There can and should be a criticism section if criticism exits, but the scope it has been taken to on the FWBO and related pages is excessive and unbalanced, and in need of editing.--ObscureFruits (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you say why you think that the scope of the criticism in the FWBO article is excessive and unbalanced? To me, the article seems to contain too much material from FWBO sources, particularly since Bluehotel's most recent changes. IMO the article gives too much scope to the FWBO's view of itself, and to the FWBO's attempts to minimise or discredit the criticism. Bearing in mind this article has been controversial from its begining some five years ago. Personally I think the least unbalanced was RupaZero's version.EmmDee (talk) 00:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Because ~40% of the article is criticism. And if you think too much of it is from the FWBO, use sources that are neither pro nor anti FWBO. That would create a better balance than inserting negative material.--ObscureFruits (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Just removed a dead link and a link to a site that merely contained a link to FWBO files, making it rather redundant, this ok with you lot?--ObscureFruits (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Also ~10 sources are from the FWBO, of 69, so I think we can hardly say they have the advantage, especially considering they are outnumbered by critical sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ObscureFruits (talk • contribs) 18:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

A third opinion was requested at WP:3O. I have never interacted with the involved editors and have not edited this article before so am sufficiently neutral to comment. However, I would note that there are more than two editors involved here so a more suitable dispute resolution system might be a request for comment.

It is apparent that there are issues with the behaviour of this organisation in terms of financing and the controversy surrounding homosexual relations. However, it is not suitable for a group of editors to war over which sources are and are not suitable. WP:Reliable sources provides plenty of guidance on sources suitable for an encyclopedic article such as this. There is a noticeboard where the suitability of the various sources can be discussed.

It is important that we don't give undue weight to issues, and this is determined by the weight given in reliable sources. It is not for us to decide where the balance is, but to determine it from the coverage in those sources. There seems to be a large amount of internet discussion on the problems with FWBO but these are not reliable sources. Currently I would suggest that there is too much weight, in part due to the preference for quoting primary sources such as letters, which I've never seen in a criticism section before.

Finally, undue weight is also a problem with external links. WP:EL provides plenty of discussion of external links, and discourages linking to sites that could not eventually become reliable sources in the article.

I hope the above gives the involved editors some useful guidance. I will keep this page on my watchlist and will respond to comment. The conversations above seem to focus on opinions on sources, but we should be seeing how those sources compare to wikipedia's requirements and including or excluding them as appropriate. Cheers, Bigger digger (talk) 09:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Who else is involved in the edit war other than Bluehotel and EmmDee?--82.71.72.46 (talk) 10:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

My comment of involvement was in relation to the number of editors involved in the discussion - a WP:Third opinion is normally only given when two editors are involved. Bigger digger (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

All views here are helpful to me, and I accept that there is a need to bring the criticism of this organisation into verifiable properly-sourced form, and at proportionate length. For example, the lengthy extracts from a 12-year-old Guardian article either need to be removed (since people can read (an unverifiable reprint of) the article), or the entry needs balancing with excepts from countless supportive media reports in the Financial Times, The Times, and The Guardian.

On the specifics of the edit war, it is between myself and Emmdee, concerning a link to an anonymous attack website, which, among other things, publishes the following defamatory and homophobic allegation on the index page:

"In simple terms, FWBO public centres ostensibly teach Buddhism and meditation, but really act as a front for recruiting people to work voluntarily or for low wages in FWBO charities and businesses. Profits from the businesses are covenanted back to FWBO charities, thus avoiding tax. To a lesser extent, FWBO public centres are also used as a front to procure teenagers and young men for the homosexual leadership of the FWBO."

These allegations are sourced to nothing verifiable, have never been made by any recognised source, and have simply been made up for the purpose of promoting hatred of this organsation. I have repeatedly deleted the link to this site. Emmdee reinstates it, and has said he will continue to reinstate it. Bluehotel (talk) 11:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Per the front page of ex-cult.org - Opinions expressed here are those of the contributors and are not necessarily shared by the site sponsor. The sponsor makes no warranty as to the accuracy or correctness of any information contained here. This quite clearly indicates that the site does not meet the wikipedia requirements for reliable sources. I have asked for further opinion at the the Reliable Sources Noticeboard just so that it is clear. Once that is done we can see how we might improve the article according to the 5 Pillars of Wikipedia. Bigger digger (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: Opinion of ex-cult.org available here, which agrees with my interpretation.

Is the FWBO files an unreliable source as well then, considering it is a personal site it is maintained by "Verdex" and I know blogs and personal sites are frowned on and/or disallowed as sources...--ObscureFruits (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time to check, but have a look at WP:RS - there is a requirement for editor oversight, which it sounds like that site misses. If in doubt, ask at WP:RS/N. Bigger digger (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

IMO, while the anonymous site is off limits, the entry would need the FWBO Files site, not as a reference, but as evidence of the campaign. Maybe it should only be in footnotes, rather than as a reference source, however. It was the other one, - "ex-cult" - which I've deleted - which was plainly unacceptable, IMO.

We need WP:RS to report on issues, such as those brought up by FWBO Files. If it transpires to be a reliable source then it can be included, otherwise, ideally, another reliable source needs to discuss the criticisms. Alternatively if, for a balanced article the opinion of the editor's is that this needs at least a link, I see no reason why this couldn't be a candidate for WP:Ignore all rules. Bigger digger (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

On a more general note, I looked at Bill Clinton's entry. Sexual misconduct allegations against him run to 18 lines in what is obviously a vast entry. Bluehotel (talk) 13:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Good old WP:UNDUE again, as I said, there are a lot of issues with this article, I'll get round to helping you fix it eventually! Bigger digger (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In response to Bigger digger's first post above; thanks for taking the time to offer a third opinion. I did make a request for comment in about Aug 2008, but only one new person (Peter jackson) contributed fairly briefly, and AFAICS nothing was resolved or agreed. This RfC is still available to read at the top of this page, and I think the points I made there about the removal of properly sourced critical material, etc., still stand, and Peter jackson's points also.

I will try to give my perspective on this FWBO article. This article seems to have been controversial for about the last five years. There are broadly two camps, the (more-or-less) pro FWBO, and the (more-or-less) anti FWBO. A number of editors have contributed in what they see as balanced way, while others have seen their contributions as (more-or-less) unbalanced. There is quite a lot of discussion in the talk archives.

Currently Bluehotel and myself, EmmDee, seem to be the most active editors. But it seems we have wildly different perspectives on what constitutes balanced editing.

The objective of the currently active pro-FWBO editor, Bluehotel seems to me to be to use Wikipedia a soapbox and as a place for FWBO publicity material. What I see as my attempts to produce a more balanced article, with information both about the FWBO itself and also about the various concerns and criticisms about the FWBO, Bluehotel sees as an expression of hatred and homphobia. So there doesn't seem to be much common ground there. Not unknown in subjects like religion or politics.

It seems to me that Bluehotel and myself do not agree on the meaning or application of the Wikipedia guidance or rules on Reliable sources and on NPOV. Taking for example the case of the link to the ex-cult.org/fwbo index page (in the external links section of the article, right at the bottom), as I understand the guidelines, this particular page isn't RS, but it contains links to material which is RS, primarliy the 1997 Guardian article, as well as to other material of uncertain reliabilty.

So is it appropriate to provide an external link to this page? I think yes, on balance. My subjective criterion here is; would an independent scholar researching the FWBO wish to be made aware of this page? I think yes. Also, if the numerous links to FWBO webpages are allowed, even though these are not RS either (because they are not third-party sources), then it would seem unbalanced to dis-allow links to FWBO-critical webpages in External links. The guidelines should be applicable equally to both sides of the debate.

That's as regards the External links; as regards the main article text, the same principles should apply, but there are similar problems too. The same lack of agreement on the meaning or application of the Wikipedia guidance on Reliable sources and on NPOV.

I think the two introductory paragraphs in the article are reasonably balanced, but a bit short on RS. Then there is a (more-or-less) pro-FWBO section (parts 1 - 5), then a (more-or-less) anti-FWBO section, part 6 on Controversies and criticism.

I am reasonably happy about this structure, dividing the article into two sections, FWBO then Controversies, I think that is probably the easiest for people to read. But the two sections need to (more-or-less) balance each other for the article to be NPOV overall.

My opinion is that they don't. The first section to me reads like an FWBO brochure. There are some reliable sources (academic books mostly), but also unsourced material and non-RS material from the FWBO itself. I have some concern about cherrypicking the best bits from academic books, but don't currently have access to these books to check. Also, some of the material could probably be fairly easily found on the FWBO's own websites, so it may be a bit superfluous on Wikipedia. But I have left this section alone, and not edited it, as far as I recall. I am happy that it should be a pro-FWBO section, as long as it is balanced by the anti-FWBO section.

The main problem as I see it, is that Bluehotel has now embarked on a bombing raid on the anti-FWBO section, attempting to minimise or ideally obliterate critical material, and to obfuscate or put their own spin on material they can't obliterate. So not balanced at all, IMO. I don't really know what to do about this, other than to keep reverting Bluehotel's edits, which seem strongly POV to me.

I agree that there are a lot of issues with this article. Where to start?EmmDee (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you're coming awfully close to breaking WP:PA there EmmDee. Also as I said earlier I do not think the article should be balanced by using a mix of unreliable pro- and anti- sources, that's like making it a battleground, what we need are reliable neutral sources for the article. Also as I said earlier in the (ridiculously huge) external links section there may be a positive bias, however if you check the sources they are overwhelmingly negative views. Oh and I say we should remove all links regarding FWBO except those to actual FWBO sites/pages, the "retreat centre" and "Buddhist centre" ones are unnecessary.--ObscureFruits (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Mark, I think here is the heart of your difficulty in accomplishing what you want: which is to use this entry to continue your campaign against FWBO (the Padmaloka entry is the most glaring evidence (apparently you used to own this house)). You say above:

'I am reasonably happy about this structure, dividing the article into two sections, FWBO then Controversies, I think that is probably the easiest for people to read. But the two sections need to (more-or-less) balance each other for the article to be NPOV overall.'

In other words, you think that this entry - unlike all the hundreds of thousands of wiki pages that people work on - ought to give equal prominence to criticism. But this is not how encyclopaedias work. To help you get a sense of what is expected, go to any page for, say, a religious or political group, or for individuals. Even if there is SUBSTANTIAL criticism of an organisation (which there isn't for FWBO), it is still be proportionally subsumed under a neutral account of what the organisation is, does, believes, and so forth.

There has never been any serious scandal involving this organisation. There has been no suggestion of criminal or unlawful acts, say, sex with children (check out the Catholic church for proportionality on that subject). There is no evidence of financial impropriety. There have been no arrests, court cases, civil actions, physical violence, or indeed any other evidence of wrongdoing at all. Whether Buddhists should have sex with each other, whether monks can have sex and still be monks, whether the leader of a Buddhist group manipulated others to have sex with him, or whether they manipulated him to have sex with them, is all a good debate in a newspaper article. That article was, in fact, written 12 years ago, and is copiously referred to in the entry. To pull out references to people debating their views on sexuality, in the way that you have - suggesting this to be proof of some conspiracy - is a homophobic expression of your evident hatred for FWBO.

So what it boils down to is you - personally - and maybe two or three others on planet Earth, who have a thing about FWBO. Against that (and I don't know their numbers), there must be thousands of people involved in FWBO who are entitled to their reputations. Bluehotel (talk) 11:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

Per WP:No Personal Attacks: PLEASE COMMENT ON CONTENT, NOT CONTRIBUTORS. Emmdee and Bluehotel, I address this to you both. I have no problem reporting either of you to Wikiquette Alerts and furthering it if necessary. Please respect other editors and comment on the article, not the motivations, beliefs and attitudes of your fellow editors. You should also both read WP:Edit war and consider the ramifications. You might not be reverting the article every 10 minutes but it is still disruptive. Please accept that even if the article is currently m:The Wrong Version the way to fix it is not to revert it back but to engage in debate to make the improvements you would like to see. This would also underline your civility.

Emmdee, your contribution above indicates to me that you might not have read the policies and guidelines I linked to in my third opinion. Firstly, your "subjective criterion" for the inclusion of links is not applicable. Consensus is indicated by the policies and guidelines provided for editors to guide the content of articles. I have explained how ex-cult.org is not a suitable source, per WP:RS as I discussed above and supported by the reply from WP:RS/N which is also linked to above. Wikipedia is not a list and an independent scholar using wikipedia as their guide to comment is not a very good scholar... The weighting of an article is determined by the weight of available reliable sources, and if there is only one WP:RS discussing criticism, when compared against the number of books and other newspaper reports discussing other aspects of the Order, then that is how the article will be weighted. Please could you list further reliable sources of criticism? I think I noted a book quote about the financial issues? Are there any others? Finally, although I have no particular interest in your real-life name/interests/actions, others seem to have queried them. Please read WP:Conflict of interest and consider your position in editing this article. If you continue your potentially personal attacks and your reverting this could be considered disruptive editing - consider this fair warning.

Bluehotel, it would support your argument to quote the relevant policies instead of trying to assert them, but I guess maybe I'm the policy wonk?! Also, I don't understand your accusation of homophobia. Homophobia is the hatred of homosexuality. The criticism does not seem to be that homosexuality is bad, but that young men were purposefully manipulated into homosexual sex against their will. If it had been women manipulated into having sex against their will it might have been called rape, but there is no -phobia involved. Again, if the reversions and possible personal attacks continue it could be considered disruptive editing - consider this fair warning.

ObscureFruits, I think it might be appropriate for you to review the external links in the article. Have a look through WP:EL and then see how you can improve it.

There is no deadline for the completion of this article. Just because it does not currently meet your personal preference does not mean that it should be immediately changed to something you prefer. If it takes a week of discussion or 6 months or 5 years, the correct way to improve this article is through this talk page.

Thanks for taking the time to read this (I hope!). Cheers, Bigger digger (talk) 11:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Digger. I think perhaps you need to think your ideas through a little better. Let's take this part of what you say:

"The criticism does not seem to be that homosexuality is bad, but that young men were purposefully manipulated into homosexual sex against their will. If it had been women manipulated into having sex against their will it might have been called rape, but there is no -phobia involved."

Why did you even use the expression "homosexual sex"? And why do you make reference to rape? There are no allegations of rape - which is a very serious criminal offence - involving FWBO members. And the fact that sexual relations are between people of the same gender does not require you to flag them with any special vocabulary. Would you feel it important to stress that sexual relations were, say, between black people? Or old people? Or Presbyterians? Would that make them any more pressing for discussion in an encyclopaedia entry about a Buddhist group? I think not.Bluehotel (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If they were forced into it, it is rape, that is all he's saying, though that isn't really the same as being manipulated into it in my opinion (Have to see what the law says.) Firstly, I cannot see anything really wrong with what Digger said except for some questionable phrasing, and also I do not understand why you are hung up on "Homophobia" I've read most of the sources (Except the books) for this article, none are homophobic as far as I can see, paranoid, possibly, but not homophobic. And the use of "homosexual sex" is probably used by Digger because they were supposedly not necessarily homosexual but heterosexual. I think Digger would be able to explain better. Also, bear in mind Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks Again I think you may be coming close to the line. (Seems you are not the only policy "wonk" here Digger.)--ObscureFruits (talk) 14:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Fruits. Bluehotel, I think you grabbed the wrong end of the stick here. My point is not that it's specifically a homosexual issue, but the use of the word homophobic seems unjustified. As per my use of I don't understand before the part you're quoting. To my mind rape is forcing someone to have sex against there will. That can be by use of force or mental manipulation and reading one of the interviews made me feel that way. It feels like you're trying to make argument with everyone here! I'm trying to maintain some neutrality here (I seem to be succeeding as I'm attacked by both side of the dispute ;-) Fruits, have you had a chance to trim the external links? Let's start with small steps before tackling the bulk of the article. Bigger digger (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I just tackled it, all done. Is it satisfactory to everyone?--ObscureFruits (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

ObscureFruits, did you mean to leave two sets of External links? I presume you forgot to delete the first set [17] ? EmmDee (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

As requested by Bigger digger, here is a list of RS articles (that I know of) which include criticism of the FWBO, in descending order of critical-ness:

!997 Guardian article [18] and [19]

Tricycle magazine article 'Friends of the Western Buddhist Order: Friends, Foes, and Files' by Henry Shukman (Vol. VIII No. 4 Summer 1999) [20] (Need to pay $9.95 to obtain back issue)

BBC East's 'Going for Refuge' TV programme about the FWBO, broadcast on 12 November 1992 in the Eastern region of the UK, (as part of BBC East's 'Matter of Fact' series (Have seen a video of this, apparently DVDs exist)

Article by John Crook: 'Dangers in Devotion: Buddhist Cults and the Tasks of a Guru' [21]

Article by Ken Jones: 'Many Bodies, One Mind: Movements in British Buddhism'.[22]

---

Academic books - I don't currently have access to any of these books, they are not cheap, but according to editor Rupa zero: 'Most academics who write about the FWBO also examine it critically, and as such the movement's failings are well documented.'

Rupa zero wrote what I consider to be the most balanced version so far of this article on the FWBO, and uploaded it 00:29, 10 August 2007. Her comment quoted above is from this version, in the 'Criticism of the FWBO' section, 1st paragraph,4th sentence. Here: [23]

On her user page (last updated 31 January 2008) Rupa zero describes herself as: 'a first year student of Japanese Studies at Trinity College, Cambridge and a practising buddhist in the FWBO' [24]. So she can't really be accused of anti-FWBO bias, plus she had access to academic books. My concern is that there may have been some cherrypicking of the best bits from these sources since Rupa zero's version, and some discarding of critical extracts, but I can't easily check.

Other academic sources - There are some academic sources available online, as listed in the 'Outside views of the FWBO' section of the article here: [25]. I think that the article 'FWBO discussion' [26] which is a post to an academic discussion list could be added. Its author is Dr Laurence Cox of the Sociology Dept. of the University of Ireland [27]

The articles by John Crook and Ken Jones are included in this list of online academic sources, the other items don't AFAICS give much information about criticisms of the FWBO, though Baumann does make some veiled references to the existence of controversy.

---

Non-RS sources - There are other sources which are (more-or-less) non RS, but whose inclusion could possibly make for a more informative article. These include an number of FWBO sources (which are obviously not third-party), such as Vishvapani's article 'Perceptions of the FWBO in British Buddhism' [28] on the (more-or-less) pro side, and Yashomitra's article [29], originally published in the FWBO's internal order magazine, 'Shabda', on the (more-or-less) anti side. Both these are currently cited in the article. And there are a number of other examples.

I have probably tended to err on the side of flexibility in the interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines on RS. ISTM that there are instances when there are sources which strictly speaking are non-RS, but which can be included if they add useful information to the article. As long as a balance can be maintained. But I am not quite sure where to draw the line on RS versus flexibility/common sense.

The book quote about the financial issues that digger noted may have been from an FWBO book by Subhuti (Alex Kennedy), 'Buddhism for Today,' p 189-90, pub. FWBO/Windhorse 1983 rev. 1988. ISBN 0-904766-34-9 which I mentioned in an earlier post - it is quoted by the ex-cult.org/fwbo site in relation to the FWBO's alleged low-tax structure here [30] So a non-RS website quoting a non-RS book? EmmDee (talk) 14:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I would count Crook and Jones as essentially WP:SPS, since they are authroed but not peer-reviewed essays mounted on somebody's website. Unless the Tricycle article is both reliable and adding new info, it would therefore in terms of RS we have a group of academic sources making general criticisms of FWBO, and the Guardian article making specific criticisms. In this context that's all we need - readers will be aware that there is some controversy, and what it is, without the article having to decide how far it is justofied.Martinlc (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

They are not just mounted on somebody's website, Crook 's article is on the Western Chan Fellowship site [31]. This organisation seems like a smaller, uncontroversial version of the FWBO - well, it has UK Charity registration anyway. Jones' article is on the Buddhist Peace Fellowship's website [32]. The BPF seem more like a small-ish Buddhist NGO - they don't offer retreats and a Buddhist teacher like the WCF, but they do have Board Members. So presumably both Crook 's and Jones' articles have been peer reviewed within their respective organisations, so they are a bit better than just someone's opinion on their personal website. They might be referenced in some academic books.

WP:SPS says, among other things: 'Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.'

Don't know if Crook and Jones count as established experts on the topic of the article, but Crook. is described as the first Western Dharma Heir of the WCF's main teacher, Chan Master Sheng-yen of Dharma Drum Mountain in Taiwan [33] and Jones has had two books published, ISBN-13: 978-0861710621 and ISBN-13: 978-1897766064 So they might be as established and as expert as anyone in the field, not sure how this can be detirmined. They do not add to the reported facts AFAICS, but they do IMO add relevant context and interpretation.

The Tricycle article does add a little new info, if I remember correctly. I would see these three sources as possibly RS enough to be included in External links. But overall I agree with Martinlc that the main RS material is a group of academic sources making general criticisms of FWBO, and the Guardian article making specific criticisms. So I guess that ideally the main article text should rely on these sources only, if that can be achieved with consensus about balance and weighting. EmmDee (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

As you have not mentioned it I would say that FWBO files is not an RS, per WP:RS: Self-published sources. As it is maintained and controlled by one individual "Verdex." However I am also putting in a request for review at Wikipedia:RS/N--ObscureFruits (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It has been decided on Wikipedia:RS/N that the FWBO-Files are NOT a reliable source, therefore they cannot be used for sources in this article. (Although we should possibly keep a link in the criticism section.) Also ex-cult is not a WP:RS as we already decided here, and these sources should be removed as well. This will require a fair amount of rewriting so unless someone else wants to take it on, I will have to do it later.--ObscureFruits (talk) 10:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see my comments on Wikipedia:RS/N here [34] EmmDee (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

EmmDee the issue here is not that it is anti-FWBO, the issue is it's unreliable nature, we will deal with FWBO sources in due course, this is one step at a time. It is also clear you have an agenda for FWBO-files to be used in this article, this is an Encyclopedia with a supposedly neutral point of view, not a personal website, if it is included is should be in the critical links, not the sources. I'll wait for Digger's say on the matter though as he is more knowledgeable of Wikipedia policy.--ObscureFruits (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I was a bit concerned that discussion so far seems to have focussed on the two (mostly) non-RS anti-FWBO websites and not on whether the FWBO sources are RS or not. Also, did you see my comment above on External links - did you mean to leave two sets of External links? [35] EmmDee (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No I didn't fixing it now.--ObscureFruits (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I have taken the bull by the proverbial and re-written the sex in the sangha section. Plainly the RS is The Guardian report, and so I have made this central to it all. My hope is that this makes it possible to bring the section into proportional shape, as plainly the FWBO is not all about this 12-year-old scandal. Hopefully, we can find many more areas of debate within Buddhism, sufficient to sustain a "controversy and criticism" section. There may well be an argument for spelling out more of Sangahrakshita's thinking about "spiritual friendship", the family and women, in the first part of the entry, since FWBO has just reissued Subhuti's book. However, I see no reason to do this in any spirit of abuse or homophobia, since Sangahrakshita is entitled to his views. My personal opinion is that it's hard to separate his sexuality from his work in creating FWBO, but my own opinions are not encyclopaedic. Apparently, there are plenty of people who spoke up in support of their relationships with him, but IMO enough is enough, so I haven't tracked those down and put them in. Bluehotel (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a general thing, I think the FWBO sources used are perfectly acceptable, as although they are not exactly Reliable Sources, they are only used as references for "The FWBO says this" and things about policy. It is clear from the way they are used that the FWBO says this, therefore it may or may not be reliable. Whereas the ex-cult and fwbo-files are used in a rather different way. Also I only counted 7 FWBO sources[36][37][38] [39][40] ,and 2 related but seperate Buddhist sources[41] (Those left unlisted are books.) They seen mostly to be used in an acceptable context of outlining the FWBO's views on this and that. Which I see as fair.--ObscureFruits (talk) 10:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree that the non-RS FWBO sources currently used are perfectly acceptable, while the non-RS FWBO-critical sources recently deleted aren't. Seems like one standard for FWBO sources, and a different standard for FWBO-critical sources. EmmDee (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

They are all used in sections that clearly state "The FWBO states...." Seems fair to use the FWBO to quote the FWBO...--ObscureFruits (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Possibly it would be a good idea to check out the FWBO. This is a large, international organisation, with a leadership, offices, publishing companies, names to contact, and a reputation to maintain or to lose. That already puts them in a position quite different to anonymous attack sites set up wholly for the purpose of defamation, which Wiki editors agree are not reliable, or personal sites which merely recycle the same anonymous allegations. (Indeed, I note that two out of three of the Guardian's allegations are anonymous, which today wouldn't get past the Press Complaints Commission.) More importantly, the FWBO sources are primarily used to source information FROM or ABOUT FWBO. Thus, eg, tbe best account of what meditative practices are taught by FWBO, is, well, FWBO.

I've looked back through the history of this page. Other editors seem to get exhausted with it all and go away, which I why a few weeks ago I appealed in various fora for new independent voices to come and help sort out these anonymous attack sites. With the exception of one editor, who has been coming here for years, there was total agreement on the point at issue. In the end I think about six or even eight independent voices got involved. Revelaingly, it's all played out again at Padmaloka, which I think is where it all begins. IMO, somebody sold their stake in the house to the FWBO, and now looks back at the incredible surge in property values, and blames FWBO. Always the money. Deep Throat: "Follow the money".

Which brings me to my overall feeling about what is still a quite disproportionate amount of space devoted (even in my own edits) to attacks on FWBO. If one goes to comparator pages - say a religion or a person - one finds even major scandals and abuses covered in a line or two. And not with long quotes from sources. There have been NO significant scandals involving FWBO. None at all. ONE of Britain's 13-or-so national newspapers wrote ONE article TWELVE YEARS ago (which wasn't followed up by any other journalist - which is itself highly unusual). It made a good read, and raised some interesting points. Steeped as it was in homophobic assumptions, the piece raised no question of personal responsibility: men who have sex with men and then turn round and say they were "manipulated". If a women said she was manipulated into having sex with a professional footballer, or a rock singer, everyone would laugh. If she said she had been having sex with them for years, and only then realized she was being manipulated, she would get a slot on daytime TV.

In fact, I'm wrong about that. What she would get is an injunction served on her by the footballer or singer's lawyers, and another served on the newspaper, requiring they explain to a judge why someone else's private life should be intruded into in this way. The Max Moseley case, where he was accused of having a Nazi orgy, ended up with the News of the World paying out for breach of his privacy. The Beckhams' nanny coughed-up the other day for talking about their private life. But, my lord, Sangharakshita is a Buddhist! He wore a yellow robe! Yeah, tell it to the judge.

IMO, anyone who hasn't been manipulated into having sex has had a pretty unadventurous life. Unless one wants to make a homophobic point, that's the end of it. Is the origins of FWBO inseparably entwined with Sangharakshita's sexuality? Probably. Have experienced order members deployed soft tales of the dharma to get into the pants of straight boys? Looks like it. I'm sure the Buddha himself would suggest that such is the way the world goes round. Bluehotel (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Bluehotel states (above) that the 1997 Guardian article 'wasn't followed up by any other journalist - which is itself highly unusual'. Actually this is incorrect, I know of two follow-ups, there may be others. One follow-up was an article titled 'Friends of the Western Buddhist Order: Friends, Foes, and Files' by Henry Shukman, published in Tricycle: The Buddhist Review Vol VIII No. 4 Summer 1999. Among other things, this article stated:

'Late in 1997 the Guardian newspaper ran a long, damning article on the FWBO. No sooner was the article out than an Internet war began, with attacks reminiscent of the religious pamphleteering of earlier ages. But the real bombshell came with the Web posting of The FWBO Files. This seventy-page document, by an anonymous author who declared that he was never an Order member but who evidently had an axe to grind, is a catalog of allegations echoing the Guardian's: FWBO members are not bona fide Buddhists; at least one of their British centers operated under an autocratic and abusive regime; Sangharakshita himself has no real authority to teach Buddhism, and while claiming to be a celibate monk he was homosexually active; the FWBO is misogynistic, casting women as biologically predisposed to a "lower evolution"; and his followers are, at best, slavish dupes working in the organization's burgeoning businesses for little pay and, at worst, functionaries of an insidious cult. The most serious allegation of all is that Sangharakshita's heterodox approach encourages a culture of coercive homosexuality that has led to severe psychological trauma and even suicide.

'It was just the kind of cautionary tale to vindicate every parent who ever warned a child against the perils of exotic mysticism. But is it true?

'True or not, it's a tale that cuts to the heart of the most pressing problems attending the transmission of Buddhism to the West: How is the teacher's authority established; what is the role of the teacher; which aspects of dharma are cultural and which are essential? Even the most sanguine of Buddhist communities in the West are engaged with these questions. It seems certain that even when - or if - this story yields some degree of factual or moral closure, these bigger questions will continue to both irritate and energize the acculturation of dharma in the West.'

The other follow-up was [42]:

'The following report by Peter Unwin appeared in Student Direct, Greater Manchester's Official Student Newspaper on 24th November,1997.

'Two groups claiming to be Buddhists, who are in fact the subject of sinister allegations and viewed with caution and suspicion by many in the Buddhist world, are actively recruiting on the campuses of Manchester and Salford Universities, as well as across campuses nationwide. [...]

'Senior figures within the other group, the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order (FWBO), have been linked with a sex and suicide scandal which left at least 30 men psychologically damaged and one man dead. ...' EmmDee (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)