Talk:Shenphen Rinpoche

Possible conflicts of interest

Specialising in matters Tibetan I found this BLP recently reading like a hagiography and entirely devoid of independent 3rd party sources cited in support of what has been written in it. After adding 'citation needed' notices where appropriate, I researched the subject myself by googling Ronan Chatellier and found a large number of independent 3rd party sources which provided useful information on him and his activities, especially in Slovenia, none of which had appeared in the article; there were also some pieces written by the subject himself and posted on various websites which appeared to contradict what has been written about him in the article.

I therefore summarised the info given in these sources and added them, complete with citations, both 3rd party and written by the subject. I considered that adding this properly sourced information would add to the authenticity of the biography. After I had made a dozen or so edits, within 24 hours of the last edit I found that all that I had added had been summarily deleted wholesale, 6,767 bytes of it, by an unregistered editor called Balazs38, giving a rather unclear justification for this in his/her edit summary. What remained was only the unsourced, hagiographic material originally posted by 'Dharmaling', another unregistered editor who actually uses the name of an organisation claimed to have been established by the subject of the article himself, i.e. Dharmaling Buddhist Congregation.

This edit was undone, correctly in my view, within a few hours, by Freewasp.

All this points to the fact that both Dharmaling and Balazs38 have serious issues of confict of interest around them, by posting uncited and unduly reverent content of the subject, while deleting properly sourced material perhaps on the basis that it may not reflect positively on the subject. I suggest they declare whether they have a conflict of interest, whether they are the subject himself writing, or someone close to him such as a secretary, PR manager or student for example.MacPraughan (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: Balazs38 is also engaged in wholesale deletion of non-flattering content and legal threats on French and Slovene Wikipedias. I agree that the story doesn't look so innocent as the subject may want to, so we should be extra careful to keep it neutral and well supported by reliable sources. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Of course neutrality is paramount, Yerpo, and all my edits are made on this basis. If one posts material that might reflect negatively on the subject, it does not imply that one has a negative attitude to it. The content speaks for itself, the editor is merely a messenger. I am trying to improve a poorly-cited, flattering article like this by researching reliable and authentic published sources in order to add some independent, 3rd party-generated material. This affords a more rounded and complete portrait of the subject. We do not have to judge whether he is innocent or guilty, that is the job of the court and readers can judge for themselves. We just present all the facts and evidence that is available on the subject and let it speak for itself, whichever way. Let Balazs38 respond to the conflict of interest question. MacPraughan (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Balazs38: Could you clarify who is "we"? Please, participate in the discussion. Ignoring the discussion and continuing removing content unilaterally or proposing the article for speedy deletion is not going to help. --MarioGom (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@MarioGom:With regard to editing of the Wikipedia article about Shenphen Rinpoche, we would like to clarify some things:

• »we« (Balazs38) have been long time students of Lama Shenpen Rinpoche (the correct version of the name is Shenpen Rinpoche and not Shenphen Rinpoche as it is now written in the Wikipedia article). Please do not prejudice our knowledge about the matters in question just on the basis of this fact, but first weigh our arguments. We have quite some knowledge about the situation, some of us are also lawyers and are consequently familiar with legal aspects. “We” is not Lama Shenpen Rinpoche himself.
• In the following lines we would like to present some facts regarding Lama Shenpen Rinpoche as well as comment on the edits and assertions made by MacPraughan (i.e. the editor, who has recently completely transformed the English and French versions of the Wikipedia article on Rinpoche).
• We strongly believe that the articles on Wikipedia should exert excellence, i.e. verified information, which can educate and bring value to people free of charge. Wikipedia is by our understanding not meant as a platform for compilations of slanderous information from tabloid internet sources, or as a sort of tool for destroying people’s reputation. We believe and it will follow from the arguments listed below that the recent edits of the article in question have been incorrect, written in an insinuating tone, including plainly slanderous information. Perhaps this is due to lack of proper knowledge. But if one wishes to “expose the fraud”, his or her commitment to facts and truth can significantly lower, as the goal somehow justifies the means. Our effort here is – as mentioned – to present arguments and sources and to discuss the matter in a dignified manner.
• The article starts with: “Shenphen Rinpoche is an alias assumed by Ronan Chatellier…” The information is misleading, as if insinuating that an European has given himself a spiritual name in order to fool people. Rinpoche is a religious title in Buddhism and Lama Shenpen Rinpoche was recognised as Rinpoche in accordance with the tradition (see below). The name was given to him by Lama Zopa Rinpoche, when receiving Getsul ordination (this can be confirmed by a witness, who was present then). Lama Zopa Rinpoche is one of the most known Tibetan Lamas in the West, see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thubten_Zopa_Rinpoche and https://fpmt.org/teachers/zopa/ ). Later Shenpen Rinpoche received the Gelong ordination by His Holiness the Dalai Lama, who didn’t change the name given by Lama Zopa Rinpoche.
• Second sentence is “He claims to be a Tibetan Buddhist Lama” (about that also see below). And then “He claims that he was initially ordained as a novice monk in 1985 at the age of 16 by Geshe Tegchok…”. Why is the article formed as “He claims…”? First, known Teachers ordain a lot of monks (and these Teachers don’t make records, of whom they ordained) and it is not that difficult to get monk ordination by a known Teacher (which is commonly known among Buddhists in the West). Also, monk ordination by itself doesn’t signify any special achievement just that one took the vows. Hence, it is a bit unusual to cast disproportionate doubt regarding such fact. These information (regarding ordination) could be confirmed by the witness, who was present there or close family of Shenpen Rinpoche (and everyone, who knew him during the monkhood period), but please note that the ordination took place 33 years ago and Geshe Tegchok (also main Teacher of Shenpen Rinpoche) passed away in between. See other profiles on Wikipedia of Buddhist Teachers or Buddhist monks, and please explain, if it is a standard to request proof of that (or otherwise declare them as frauds).
• The current version of the article also included the claim that “the Dalai Lama's office could not confirm that Shenpen Rinpoche was fully ordained by the Dalai Lama.” Please note that there were two witnesses present during the ordination, who can confirm that it took place. The footnote, which is supposedly a source of this piece information refers to a Slovene article, written by journalist Peter Lovšin. This article doesn’t mention at all any statement of the Office of the 14th Dalai Lama regarding monk ordination. The article in question, which is tabloid in nature and full of other mistakes (but we are leaving that aside), actually asserts that the journalist turned to the Office of the 14TH Dalai Lama for Middle and Eastern Europe in Geneva to check, who recognised Rinpoche. A man called Tseten Samdup Chhoekyapa couldn’t answer the questions, as Rinpoche is not an official representative of the Dalai Lama (note that Buddhism is not organised in a centralised manner as the Catholic church, hence the Dalai Lama is not the pope and Buddhist Lamas are not “his priests”). This Tibetan man then added that he doesn’t know, who recognised Rinpoche. So, this has nothing to do with Rinpoche’s monk ordination. Just as a side note – the journalist in question, Peter Lovšin has been convicted three times in the last two years for breaches of the journalistic code by the honorary journalistic court (https://razsodisce.org/2018/02/drustvo-sos-telefon-za-zenske-in-otroke-zrtve-nasilja-pritoznik-proti-novinarju-petru-lovsinu-odgovornemu-uredniku-miranu-lesjaku-oba-dnevnik-in-matiji-stepisniku-odgovornemu-uredniku/ , https://razsodisce.org/2017/10/domen-savic-proti-primozu-knezu-petru-lovsinu-miranu-lesjaku-in-ingrid-mager-vsi-dnevnik/ , https://razsodisce.org/2016/07/m-s-h-proti-petru-lovsinu-novinarju-casnika-dnevnik-in-miranu-lesjaku-odgovornemu-uredniku-casnika-dnevnik/ ), and is widely known for relying on “unidentified sources”.
• Next sentence, again written pejoratively: “He quit acting as a monk in 2008, abandoning his ordination.” What does it mean “he quit acting”, that he was just pretending to be a monk? “Abandoning his ordination” – so here there is no longer any doubt that he was actually ordained? Please note that Rinpoche stopped being a monk as this was advice given to him through a melong divination by Lama Dawa Rinpoche, who stated that this would help to broaden Shenpen Rinpoche’s Dharma. As this is of course private communication between two persons, there is no tangible proof of that (and Rinpoche who advised this, already passed away), but there is no need to write negatively about it.
• Next two sentences: “According to a document in his possession, Chatellier has supposedly been recognised as the tulku of Lama Gendun Rabgye, of Karnang, an monastery in a remote area of China's Sichuan Province. Chatellier may be the only case of a westerner being officially recognised as the incarnation of a Tibetan Buddhist lama in this way, by a monastery in China.” Note that the previous version, as edited by MacPraughan ended with stating that Karnang is “an obscure monastery in a remote area of eastern Tibet.” (Revision as of 21:58, 28 August 2018). So, the first goal was to minimize the importance of the monastery, but then rather insinuation that Rinpoche’s recognition was somehow arranged by the Chinese authorities and therefore false, was added. Is there any prove for such insinuation? Is such writing in accordance with Wikipedia’s neutrality standards? Please see here e.g. photos of Rinpoche protesting in front of the Chinese embassy in Ljubljana before the Olympic games in Beijing: http://www.dharmaling.org/en/gallery (under: Dharmaling life). Secondly, the reference in the note is erroneous. The original documents of recognition are published (and not just in “Rinpoche’s possession”) with English translation: http://www.dharmaling.org/en/2-uncategorised/89-rinpoche-recognition-documents . Thirdly, Lama Shenpen Rinpoche was not only recognised by Karnang Monastery, but also by Sera Jhe Monastery (more accurately, by its relevant part Jadel Khamtsen – i.e. the part connected with his previous reincarnation). Sera Jhe is one of the most known Buddhist monasteries of modern time, due to Chinese occupation now moved to India. See Wikipedia’s entry on the monastery: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sera_Monastery . Fourthly, Rinpoche was not only recognised by both monasteries but was actually officially enthroned by each of them – i.e. he actually went there and there was a special ceremony in each of the monasteries – please see here the photos http://www.dharmaling.org/en/gallery (under recognition). So, to the recent edits of the article somehow overlooked all this.
• Here some knowledge about the Tibetan Buddhism is needed – as mentioned above it is not the Dalai Lama who always needs to recognize reincarnations of Buddhist Teachers (as he is not the pope of Tibetan Buddhism), but it is the monasteries connected with their previous reincarnation. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that when asked by Karnang Rinpoche, Dalai Lama himself confirmed that Lama Shenpen Rinpoche is the reincarnation of Gendun Rabgye Tulku from Karnang monastery. See interview with Lama Khenchen Rinpoche (from 7:42 on): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mXUcTn7Dt4 . Rinpoche also met with the Dalai Lama (after the ordination) as well as with the Seventeenth Karmapa, who is in charge of Karma Kagyu lineage of the Tibetan Buddhism (photos could be provided on request).
• Beside the formal evidence (documents and photos of the events), the authenticity can be shown also by informal sources. See e.g. here an interview with Lama Shenpen Rinpoche and Gomo Tulku Rinpoche (the latter being a Teacher of the former): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIMMurCWP1M. Gomo Tulku Rinpoche is one of the highest Lamas of Gelug-pa order of Tibetan Buddhism, current reincarnation, recognized by The Fourteenth Dalai Lama, being the 23st in a row (please note that even the Dalai Lama is “only” fourteenth in a row). He was also ordained as a monk by the Dalai Lama. See e.g. http://world.time.com/2011/07/28/beyond-the-dalai-lama-profiles-of-four-tibetan-lamas-in-exile/ . Is it clear from the interview linked above that Gomo Tulku Rinpoche has no doubt regarding the authenticity of Lama Shenpen Rinpoche.
• The article then continues with “Legal Accusations and Public Record in Slovenia”. What exactly is a public record? What does that mean – the reputation in public in one country? Even if that is the case and if this would be a category that Wikipedia regularly uses with regard to biographies (we didn’t find any), it is at least neutrally written? Is it mentioned that Rinpoche created the first Buddhist community in Slovenia, which was registered despite fierce and public opposition (note that Slovenia is a predominantly catholic country), that he introduced a proposal of religious law, which was entered in the parliamentary procedure by the then political opposition, caused great upset and public debate? Before that, he was in charge of the centre on Paros on request of Lama Zopa Rinpoche, he did humanitarian missions in India (http://www.dharmaling.org/en/gallery see photos under India/Nepal). Would mentioning that be propaganda, although it actually happened and there is plenty of evidence out there for it? See e.g. some of the media reports gathered here: http://www.dharmaling.org/forums/index.php?showforum=42 Why was all the information, which could appear positive, removed, albeit they are true and can be verified? As if all these information are non-existent the paragraph starts one-sidedly with: “From 2012 onwards, Slovenian newspapers have reported on problems Ronan Chatellier (a.k.a. Shenphen Rinpoche) has experienced with the authorities and others in that country.”
• With regard to the legal accusations two things have to be noted. First, one cannot just refer to some of the Slovene media’s tabloid past reports and therefore shed oneself of any legal and other responsibility for such content. Spreading slander originally written by another person is still slander. Also, there is another distinction to it. As long as the cases have had legal epilogues (since the quoted media reports) they should be treated accordingly.
• Please note that Lama Shenpen Rinpoche (who is a French and Slovene citizen) has an empty criminal record both in France and Slovenia (certificates can be presented on request). In France criminal record has three layers: what is accessible for oneself and common employers, what is accessible to state administrations, and a third accessible to the judges. Rinpoche has empty criminal record at all three levels. To allege otherwise is a blatant lie and a criminal offence which we reserve the right to engage in court. Hence, the presumption of innocence applies, as determined in national constitutions (See for example Article IX of the Declaration of the Rights of the Man and of the Citizen of 1789 (in connection with the landmark decision of the Constitutional Council, n° 71-44 DC from 16 July 1971: https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/France_2008.pdf?lang=en and https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/decision/1971/7144DC.htm. See also Article 27 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia: http://www.us-rs.si/en/about-the-court/legal-basis/constitution/) as well as in many binding international treaties (See e.g. Second Paragraph of the Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf), and last but not least – also in Wikipedia’s own rules. A person with empty criminal record is considered as innocent or to put it in another way: writing about an innocent person as a criminal is by itself a criminal offence of Slander or Defamation, and not just Gossip (See e.g. Articles 159 and 160 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Slovenia. Criminal Code of the Republic of Slovenia code applies in this case, regardless of the place, where the criminal offence was committed. The Code applies, if a foreigner commits a criminal offence against the Slovene citizen abroad (first paragraph of Article 13) and also if a Slovene citizen commits any criminal offence abroad (Article 12)). And legal responsibility for published slanderous content concerns not only the editor, but also the host (See Article 166 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Slovenia).
• Few years ago European court of Justice (ECJ) accepted a landmark decision in the case Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (es), Mario Costeja González, with regard to the right to be forgotten (Decision n. C-131/12 from day 13 May 2014). According to the ECJ’s decision the data that had to be erased could "appear to be inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant or excessive … in the light of the time that had elapsed". Even more – also accurate data that had been lawfully published initially could "in the course of time become incompatible with the directive." Ibidem, paragraph 93) As the consequences of this decision search engine Google has honoured about 800,000 “right to be forgotten” requests (https://www.politico.eu/article/google-loses-right-to-be-forgotten-case/).
• To simplify for non-lawyers – one cannot write about a person, as if the person is a criminal, by referring to old media articles, disregarding the empty criminal record and the progress of concrete cases. Or else one can be held liable for slander, as well as for consequent damages (as Rinpoche is also a Slovene citizen, the Slovene – criminal – law can also be applied).
• In the current version of the Wikipedia article there are several obvious factual mistakes. For example it is written: “It was also reported that he is alleged by the Slovenian police to have staged two phoney knife attacks against himself in Slovenia and of giving false testimony in order to have an excuse not to return to Slovenia to face additional legal charges made against him in the courts.” This is completely wrong. The Police indirectly accused Rinpoche of attacking himself twice (go and figure out, how that could be true – see also above about Rinpoche’s public role in Slovenia with religious law and opposing the dominant religious community). The first time Rinpoche was stabbed in the chest, while taking a walk with a friend, the attackers fled and the friend, who was present there, called the ambulance and the police. Later on police accused him of false crime report, which is an offence punishable only by money penalty (!) and it has nothing to do with false testimony. While this was pending, the second attack took place behind the house, causing Rinpoche 5 knife wounds and 12 stitches, some of them on the back (photo of the wounds can be provided on request ). So, while his then assistant called the police, the police later accused Rinpoche of the second false crime report (again an offence punishable only by money penalty!). Yes, the police concluded that he falsely reported a crime for the second time, while it was then already known that they accused him that he falsely reported a crime for the first time. What could be a motivation for such false reports, remains a great mystery. The case of the first attack was dismissed already by the state prosecutor, without going to court, so the presumption of innocence applies! The second case went to the court, but the time for it to become statute barred passed. And it is again not true, what is written by MacPraughan, referring to one of the old tabloid articles: “These reports also say that having left Slovenia for France he has pleaded medical reasons for not being able to travel to Slovenia to face the charges, while failing or refusing to provide medical certificates to substantiate the alleged medical condition which prevents him from doing so;” What is interesting that again the Slovene tabloid article doesn’t allege that Rinpoche provided no medical certificate, so the edits on Wikipedia were obviously based on false information. The medical certificates are in the court file. Even more, the court file contains many proposals by Rinpoche to be heard by the court through the videoconference from France, where he is currently living (even the tabloid article confirms that), but the judge refused them, despite the fact that the law allows for them. MacPraughan in his comment from August 13 at 8:39 (see history of editing) claims that Rinpoche “fled the country”. This is not at all true, as this implies that he left the country, while being wanted by the court. At no point was there a warrant issued against him.
• At one point MacPraughan published a photo from Slovene tabloid Slovenske novice (see the history of editing, the photo was removed by ImageRemovalBot at 15:56, 17 August 2018‎). Please note that this photo was taken in 2012 in a legal procedure that was later stopped by the court with the final legal decision. Even more, Rinpoche received damages from the state regarding the case in question. Hence, the inclusion of such photo with the usage of google translate, completely obscures the actual legal situation and was clearly meant to abuse the power of graphic image in order to give the impression of a criminal being brought to justice. It also makes one wonder, how can it happen that a tabloid media is acquainted with the exact timing of the police bringing a person to court, why did they put chains on a Buddhist Lama, would he attack the police otherwise? etc. etc. Given the final judicial result of this case the presumption of innocence applies and it shouldn't be reported as it is reported now: »the allegations … were withdrawn by the alleged victim at the last minute when the case came to the Slovenian court.« Note that the allegations were in the first place made when the alleged victim was under the effect of drugs and alcohol.
• What is interesting is that also Slovene tabloid source in the footnote n. 4 is misquoted, as it doesn’t mention charges, which again raises doubt regarding gathering of information for the purpose of editing the article on Rinpoche.
• Beside that there were several mistakes in previous edits (there is no space to go through all, but it is interesting, as it shows a pattern). Note, for example that MacPraughan wrote that Rinpoche claims to be “a security guard” (see e.g. the edit from 15:11, 14 August 2018) and “a doorman” (see e.g. revision as of 21:58, 28 August 2018), although Rinpoche is actually “a close protection officer”: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ronanchatellier . This is quite a difference (see Wikipedia’s own articles on both: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_guard and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodyguard). See e.g. that Rinpoche is also representative of IBSSA for France: http://www.ibssa.org/index.php?topic_id=25 .
• With regard to the case with a former Buddhist nun, the reporting is very biased. This is the story that is well known in the Dharmaling community. The nun in question wanted to give part of the money she got by selling an apartment to Rinpoche. Rinpoche asked, that the contract is made in front of the notary (the signing of the contract then took place in front of the notary on 6th of January 2012). Years passed and the nun never complained regarding the contract, while she participated in the activities of Dharmaling. She was highly problematic and was eventually excluded from the community (as the first member ever). This happened on January 2nd 2016. Four months later on 18th of May 2016 she filed a lawsuit, claiming that the contract is null. But note please that in her Ph.D. thesis, which she had to defend on 8. 12. 2015 https://www.uni-lj.si/aktualno/koledar_dogodkov/zagovori_doktorskih_disertacij/2015111612422473/Zagovor%20doktorske%20disertacije%20(Gedrih)/ , she thanked Rinpoche placing him even before the actual mentors of the thesis (the photos of the thesis could be provided on request). So, less than half a year before filing a lawsuit and few weeks before the exclusion, she had no problem with Rinpoche. Even more, the notary, who made the contract, didn’t support her claims regarding how the contract was signed. To summarise – she signs a contract in 2012, stays in the community and in touch with Rinpoche until 2016, highly praises Rinpoche at the end of 2015, is excluded in the beginning of 2016 and four months later she decides to file a lawsuit and asserts that she was swindled. This case is pending, so even greater care is needed in reporting.
• We were asked to answer, we did and we did it extensively. There is more to say, but already we are at 7 pages. Yet, we also wonder, how is it possible that the editor MacPraughan became so eager to edit the English and French versions of the articles on Lama Shenpen Rinpoche. Before this spree of entries, the English article was last changed on 23rd of June 2016 (while there have been no significant changes already since March 2010). Next change appeared on 3rd of August 2018 (i.e. more than 2 years after the previous change and more than 8 years since the last major change). MacPraughan then made 44 edits in next 10 days (and the edits are still appearing at a rate of quite some edits per day – e.g. 9 edits on 14th of August 2018 alone), currently he is at 47 edits. The edits were not positive – they were either adding negative coverage or deleting what could appear as positive, albeit true. They aim at presenting Lama Shenpen Rinpoche as a criminal and an immoral person. They also try to present Rinpoche as someone, who is not an authentic religious figure, but a fraud. Once the edits have been partially undone, this triggered not only immediate reediting, but also lead to even more nasty edits and more intensely hostile tone of new edits. Please note also, that these edits don’t concern new information (but information e.g. from year 2012), so the hastily done editing is obviously not due to update. As we showed above, the edits also failed to correctly quote Slovene sources. So, the question is – who is feeding this editor the information (anyone with legal interest in the matters?) and how come that out of nowhere such editing haste appeared?
• As mentioned before, we highly value Wikipedia and the information it brings. But it shouldn’t be above the law. And it should enforce just rules of editing. If an image of a person is being so intensely presented as negative, and counter-information appears, Wikipedia should revert the editing to previous version and lock it, until the matters are resolved. Otherwise irreparable damage will be done in the mean time and nothing else but legal means will remain so that justice is eventually done.
• Now that everything is explained in detail and documented, we request that a brief version of the article which we have now published is kept and locked to further edition, or the whole page is deleted and the names (Shenpen Rinpoche & Ronan Chatellier) blocked for creation.

-- Balazs38 00:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Obviously, the user Balazs38 has got personal interests on this Wikipedia page. He/she must be blocked, and the page must be set back to its truth. JerryEdgar (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@Balazs38:Thanks for the feedback, Balazs38 and for disclosing you are Chatellier’s 'long-term students' (plural). In this case, I must say, the ‘blind guru devotion’ you demonstrate is admirable! However, it is somewhat intimidating to see such a daunting “Wall of Text”.

It is also admirable that Chatellier is so transparent with you about his legal problems, but equally, regrettable that you cannot abide similar transparency in his article: your response is simply to delete whatever you don’t like, en bloc. This is not good.

File:Copy of page "Public Statement" from the website of Dharmaling Buddhist Congregation".png

Chatellier's "Public Statement" about the Buddhist nun who accuses him of swindling her out of €90,000

It is also regrettable that you follow the same tactics as Chatellier in his websites: bullying; making personal attacks; thinly veiled threats of legal action; and impugning the integrity of anyone who exposes him. I refer, for example, to his “Public Statement” against the unhappy Buddhist nun who is suing him for the return of €90,000 in Slovenia, now no longer visible in your website but reproduced here as a Snip.

Similarly you and Chatellier consistently claim that anyone who publishes whatever you may wish to conceal is corrupt, a slanderer and a liar. The journalists who write the reports about your criminal court cases, the photographers who take the photographs of you handcuffed by police and the newspapers who publish them, for you they all fall into this category.

Now I am also under personal attack, apparently for (A) improving the article by adding information about Chatellier published by reliable, independent 3rd party sources, or taken from his own writings like his CV and (B) deleting uncited, flattering content posted by you, after placing “citation needed” tags and waiting 15 days. --MacPraughan (talk) 13:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@Balazs38: BTW, after a further reading of your 'Wall of Text' defence of Chatellier, WP is not a courtroom and impugning the integrity of the editor (me, amongst others) who cite independent published material about the subject is not a tactic that reflects well on you as long terms students of Buddhism, and equally not as WP editors. Wherever you have repeated the subject’s claims taken from his own writings, I have added “He claims” or “he says” precisely because no independent source is cited to substantiate such claims. This is simply good WP practice.

Please re-read para 1 of my above post “Possible Conflict of Interest”. I have never met or seen Chatellier, but as a specialist in matters Tibetan I stumbled across this poorly-cited article and decided to improve it. I have maintained a neutral stance, giving credit where credit is due. On 30 August for example I added the positive sentence “Chatellier may be the only case of a westerner being officially recognised as the incarnation of a Tibetan Buddhist lama in this way, by a monastery in China” which, I think, goes a long way to substantiating his notability for WP.

In my defence, I have worked sometimes extensively on (or created) various articles on Tibet and its history, and this is the first instance of a attack on my personal integrity. Examples of my work can be found in: Dalai Lama, Barry Kerzin, Mind & Life Institute, R. Adam Engle, Sonam Rapten, Depa Norbu, Jaisang Depa, 2nd Dalai Lama, 3rd Dalai Lama, 5th Dalai Lama, 14th Dalai Lama, History of Tibet, Alexander Berzin, Jonang, Ganden Phodrang, Tashi Lhunpo Monastery, Kadam, Lungshar and more.

I have passed no comment on the content of the cited newspapers, neither have I accused Chatellier of criminality. The sources speak for themselves. I have endeavoured to reflect what is published about him accurately, whether it is independent or taken from Chatellier's own writings or for example the French Association set up to contest his criminal conviction (https://jo-association.info/v2/46140/19970011-COMITE-DE-SOUTIEN-POUR-M-RONAN-CHATELLIER.php). I referred to his own claims when they contradict material found elsewhere, e.g. on his own published CV: CV. Here, for example, Chatellier states that in 2011 he undertook “door supervisor training” with the UK security firm SIA – I did not make this up, as you imply. "Door Supervisor" is commonly known as a Bouncer. Chatellier's own linkedin.com account is not an independent source for what you claim. In any case "Close Protection Officer" is just another term for "bodyguard".

If I could find any independent, reliable and authentic 3rd party sources containing praises for Chatellier's record, qualities and attainments and so forth I would be delighted to include any such material in the article. Unfortunately, despite my efforts I have failed to find any such material outside of his own web sites. Any suggestions, any leads?

I trust this puts the record straight regarding my work on this article, my neutrality and my integrity as a WP editor. Thanks, again, for your disclosure and detailed response. --MacPraughan (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I reported this to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. But WP:BLP issues should be still considered, regardless of the conflict of interest. --MarioGom (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@MarioGom: Thank you for this. Please keep me informed. If nobody objects (apart from Chatellier and his long term students, that is!) I shall reinstate the deleted text. --MacPraughan (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@MacPraughan: The user disclosed COI and agreed to follow the policy by not editing directly and participating only in the talk page. Nothing more to do about COI. --MarioGom (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@MarioGom: Excellent result, thank you very much for your help and advice, much appreciated. --21:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Balazs38: dear students, if your master is 'completely innocent of any criminality in France' as you claim, then how do you explain the main purpose of the officially registered in France Association, "Comite de Soutien pour Ronan Chatellier" - https://jo-association.info/v2/46140/19970011-COMITE-DE-SOUTIEN-POUR-M-RONAN-CHATELLIER.php? Is it, perhaps, another different person of the same name? -- MacPraughan (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@MacPrauhan:The reference of Ronan Chatellier's public statement about the nun was quickly deleted (by himself or his students/secrectary?) Should the editor republish this image capture with a notice saying this is originally from the linked website? JerryEdgar (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@JerryEdgar: Thank you for your interest. Yes, Balazs38 deleted the "Public Statement" that Chatellier had published on his organisation's website about the nun (as soon as I drew attention to it and posted it as a reference in the article) since it shows Chatellier up in a rather bad light - taking €90,000 from a Buddhist nun on a promise to take care of all her needs, and then not only expelling her from the organisation but also blaming her and even abusing her with harsh words in a Public Statement on his Buddhist site! All in all, quite a move.

However, there is no problem, he cannot hide it, since all these kinds of websites are recorded and saved periodically in an independent archive ('The Wayback Machine') and anyone can retrieve them any time. When I saw he had deleted his statement from his website last month, obviously in collusion with Balazs38, I retrieved it from this archive and re-posted it in the article - this is the link: https://web.archive.org/web/20171227033953/http://dharmaling.org:80/en/public-statements/118-response-to-article-in-slovenske-novice-on-20th-of-june-2017. Now he has been blocked from editing the article for Conflict of Interest he can no longer freely delete anything that does not reflect well on him. So don't worry, there is no problem. He can run, but he can't hide! --MacPraughan (talk) 09:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@MacPraughan: Please, note that Balazs38 is not blocked. Not editing the article is not a punitive measure, it is just compliance with conflict-of-interest policy. Wording such as He can run, but he can't hide! is generally not acceptable working to use with other editors, even those who are in conflict of interest. --MarioGom (talk) 14:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@MarioGom: Thanks for the admonishment for making an inappropriate remark about Chatellier to JerryEdgar but I should add it was not meant to refer to Balazs38. I wanted to convey (but in my haste I failed to make it clear) that by deleting his "Public Statement" of 20/6/2017 recently from his website (when attention had been drawn to it), Chatellier had failed to hide it because it's still visible on the Wayback archive! Nothing to do with editor Balazs38.

About Balazs38 not being blocked, I appreciate the distinction made between being blocked and a voluntary undertaking not to edit made by an editor who's been made to disclose a COI. You said at some point that there was enough to have Balazs38 blocked but now I realise that was unnecessary, because the group of Chatellier's students disclosed their COI and undertook to follow COI rules; and, to reduce their number to one. Thanks for the clarification. Your ongoing oversight and advice here is appreciated. - MacPraughan (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Contested deletion

I feel in two minds about this proposal, made by Balazs38. I regret that he/she has not responded to my Conflict of Interest question on the 'Talk' page to the article. He/she, by deleting all the cited content and reinstating the original uncited content, has reverted the article to a BLP that reads like a flattering advertisement, apparently written by the subject himself or someone close to him. It seems to me that Chatellier is promoting himself in France, Germany, Hungary, Slovenia and elsewhere as a reliable teacher of Buddhism, seeking to increase the number of his followers and enhance his reputation.

The easily-made discovery (by Googling his real name of Ronan Chatellier) of various media articles about his legal problems, of his own CV as a Doorman and Security Agent, of his own public statement against the nun who has accused him of swindling her out of her property, and the newspaper reports about the outstanding criminal and civil cases made against him in Slovenia all expose a somewhat dubious character at odds with the portrayal now re-presented after Balazs38's most recent edit (August 29th, 9.20 AM CET). His actual record and his double life having been exposed, he now understandably requests speedy deletion.

This all brings the subject's notability for the purposes of Wikipedia into question.

On the other hand, if the article stands, comprising all the acceptable, cited content, and the uncited/flattering content is removed, then those who wish to research to check the subject's credentials will, in my opinion, be well served.

This opinion is also being added to the discussion for the proposal for speedy deletion for the decision to be made by more experienced editors than me. --MacPraughan (talk) 08:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

After further research, the subject's notability for WP rests mainly on the uniqueness of his position as the only western Tulku or incarnation of a Tibetan lama to have been recognised first of all by a Buddhist monastery in China. Kharnang monastery is said to be located in Sichuan Province of China. Recognition of tulkus ("Living Buddhas" in China) is very strictly regulated by the Chinese government and it is previously unknown in my experience that the government would ever approve a westerner being recognised in this way. It is also very unlikely that the local officials of the monastery would issue official recognition documents about Chatellier's recognition without the prior consent and approval of the Chinese authorities.

Other westerners who have been recognised as incarnations have, to my knowledge, only being recognised by the Tibetan diaspora outside China, based primarily in India and in Tibetan monasteries established in exile, for example Steven Seagal, Lama Osel, Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo and so forth.

So this is the first and only case of a westerner being recognised outside China by the officials of a Buddhist monastery in China.

This fact alone demonstrates the uniqueness of Chatellier's case, and his notability, in which case I would contend that the article should not be deleted. --MacPraughan (talk) 08:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Please, consider reading this: WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. --MarioGom (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Slanderous material should be removed also from the talk page. Or else double standard is involved. Personal information, even harmless, regarding any editor, who published such information voluntary and fully accessible on-line, cannot be mentioned on Wikipedia, even if it represents evidence for COI, while slanderous material about the subject (with far greater damage) that is removed from the article can be freely accessible on Talk page. Hence, deletion.Skywalker976 (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Ronan chatellier's suspected pedophilia issue

There were numerous reports in Slovenia about his sexual misbehave and pedophilia issue, plus he was accused of misbehave to young kids in 1997 in France. I call for a full medical evaluation about his mental health. Thus to provide himself a chance to demonstrate his innocence. JerryEdgar (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

DON'T FORGET, HE HAS THREE ADOPTED CHILDREN THEY ARE UNDER 15, INCLUDING ONE TIBETAN BOY. JerryEdgar (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@JerryEdgar: The very fact that Shenpen Rinpoche has kids under his care and custody in France shows that he is not convicted of pedophilia. He has also the licence for close protection from the French ministry of Home Affairs, which carefully checks the criminal record of each person. Furthemore, Balasz38 explained that certificates of empty criminal records could be provided. Perhaps an editor with some distance @MarioGom: or administrator should review them. Therefore, if an empty criminal record certificate is provided, the article should be corrected accordingly (certificates of empty criminal record are official evidence of no convictions)). And last but not least - if the article is short and true, it is also for the sake of the four children, whose friends could check their father on the internet. Skywalker976 (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@JerryEdgar: Please, share your sources. Note that we are not in a trial here and we don't need to provide himself a chance to demonstrate his innocence. It is up to each editor to provide independent and reliable sources backing the information. And if you say he is convicted, you should provide independent reliable sources proving that. This is particularly important in biographies of living persons (WP:BLP). --MarioGom (talk) 06:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@MarioGom Dear edit. It's true that I am not from government justice department. I don't have the excess to any criminal record. But I found this would be the indirect prof that the person who bears the name Ronan Chatellier had been convicted of certain crime. What was the use use of this organization?https://jo-association.info/v2/46140/19970011-COMITE-DE-SOUTIEN-POUR-M-RONAN-CHATELLIER.php JerryEdgar (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

In this web page, it clearly said "L'association COMITE DE SOUTIEN POUR M RONAN CHATELLIER a pour activitée principale de : s'engager pour la reconnaissance de la non-culpabilite de Ronan Chatellier ; retablir la lumiere sur les faits pour lesquels il a ete condamne.

L'association COMITE DE SOUTIEN POUR M RONAN CHATELLIER peut être contactée à l'adresse suivante : le Puits de Naude, 46140 Luzech. "

In English: The SUPPORT COMMITTEE FOR Mr. RONAN CHATELLIER's main activity is to: commit to the recognition of the non-culpability of Ronan Chatellier; to restore the light on the facts for which he was convicted.

The association SUPPORT COMMITTEE FOR Mr. RONAN CHATELLIER can be contacted at the following address: Puits de Naude, 46140 Luzech.

So, what was he convicted for? JerryEdgar (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

And this was happened in 1997 in France. 15 years later, there were more reports from Slovenia. Do I need to quote them again? I would if requested. JerryEdgar (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

By bringing this subject to the talk page, I do wish that his " student lawyers" and the justice department would consider the IMPORTANCE of this reasonable doubt. JerryEdgar (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Skywalker976: Who are you? It seems that you have close relationship with Ronan Chatellier. You know he has four children, he has a license of close protection, and you also have personal contact with Balasz38, saying he could provide the certificate of empty crime. Obviously you know so much about his private life, even better than his students.

Should I open another case of COI? JerryEdgar (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@JerryEdgar: Skywalker976 is evidently Chatellier using another ID, or a close associate of Chatellier. He has suddenly popped up to defend him, since Balazs38 was blocked. He may be one of the lawyers who were in the group of students previously using Balazs38 as their handle. He does not have any WP track record.

Skywalker976 registered as a WP editor on 4th September and the above knowledgeable and defence-lawyer-like reply to you is his only contribution to Wikipedia so far. I think that he has a CoI although the CoI notification above mentions Skywalker, who retired from editing in 2010, as having declared one. However the notice says Skywalker contributed to the article although I don't see anything except Skywalker976's defence of Chatellier on this talk page topic - his only contribution to Wikipedia so far, according to his user record.

He claims the fact that Chatellier lives with four children "proves" that he has no convictions for pedophilia. That is a bit like saying that Al Capone was "proved" not to be a mafia boss because he was only jailed for tax evasion. Lapses do exist in the pedophilia investigation system (see Catholic Church!), especially regarding offences made in other countries or closed down by out-of-court settlements - or due to the bullying, intimidation and manipulation of witnesses and victims - and the multiple, unconnected and independent accusations made against him in all the newspaper reports, the Support Group in France to contest his conviction and this article in a leading Slovenian newspaper - http://www.times.si/crna-kronika/budisticni-ucitelj-zlorabil-15-letnico--fe6881ce27a1882d1a49dabb2b8176098c1b379c.html - not yet cited in the article - when added up together give a detailed description of the history of some of the pedophilic allegations made against Chatellier in France as well as in Slovenia that is hard to deny.

There is also a great deal written about his pedophilia here and there on this Buddhist anti-cyber-bullying blog, including if you scroll down to "Afterword" under item 9.1: https://buddhadharmaobfinternational.wordpress.com/2010/08/01/universal-education-negative-karma-of-cyber-bullying-social-responsibility-prevention/ but personally I don't regard this source as reliable enough for WP although it provides multiple links exposing Chatellier.

I don't know whether ANY of this multi-sourced information has yet come to the notice of the relevant authorities in France. Perhaps if it had, Skywalker976 would have the opportunity to defend Chatellier in a more appropriate forum. -MacPraughan (talk) 09:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

In addition, more purely circumstantial evidence about his lifelong fondness for children is provided in his CV, which states that in 1996-1997 he worked as an educator in school for children with special needs - although he does not show any qualifications or training as a teacher of children in his CV - it is all about training as a security guard and doorman and a year of medical training for which we have seen no diploma. More is there about his work with vulnerable children, in Russia of all places: as a volunteer in 2001 he worked in a children's hospital for street children, St-Petersburg, and in 2003 as a volunteer in a children's orphanage (where the most vulnerable children are to be found) also in St-Petersburg; and 2004 he claims to have started work in childrens education in Slovenia, until (faced with court cases for sexual and financial offences) he left that country for good in 2012. Again, no formal qualifications or training for childrens education are mentioned but he claims one of his skills is 'active education' for children, another is setting up and leading summer camps. All purely coincidental and nothing to do with a weakness for pedophilia, we hope.

All this can be seen from his own CV document, up to 2012, which mentions zilch about Buddhism at any stage: https://www.closeprotectionworld.com/members-looking-for-work/66964-search-close-protection-missions-protection-humanitarian-diplomatic-missions.html. - 13:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@MacPraughan:www.times.si is not a leading Slovenian newspaper by any standard. According to the Alexa website ranking page it is not even in the top 1000 Slovenian websites. For comparison, three of the actual leading newspapers are in the top 10 Slovenian websites, and many more in top 40. Please do not make such false claims just to give more weight to your sources.Balazs38 (talk) 22:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Balazs38:. Thank you for your observations. I stated that Slovenske novice is the a leading Slovenian newspaper based on the following standard: because the Wikipedia article about it states, and I quote, "Slovenske novice has the largest paid circulation among all daily newspapers in Slovenia", and it gives two separate 3rd party independent, reliable and authentic citations in support of this unarguable and unequivocal statement. Also, the University of Novi Sad is cited as giving the daily circulation of Slovenske novice as 305,000 copies back in 2010.

Perhaps you would be so good as to list the certified daily circulations of all the other Slovenian newspapers that you refer to, and give their names, to compare with these figures and substantiate what you allege - and to give weight to your accusation that I have made a "false claim". Thank you for your attention and looking forward to your response. - MacPraughan (talk) 10:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@MacPraughan: Slovenske novice is the biggest tabloid newspaper in Slovenia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovenske_novice . Please note that according to Wikipedia rules material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons). You are refering in this talk above also to the website of a woman, who claims to be an emanation of Buddha Tara (buddhadharma...) To summarize: by your own statement, you don't speak Slovene, yet, quote Slovene tabloid sources and on the other hand doubt the official sources. As mentioned before, Shenpen Rinpoche was scrutinised by French Ministry of Interior before getting close protection licence. He also has certificates of empty criminal records (i.e. official evidence) both from France and Slovenia. Official sources should be considered as more reliable as opposed to the tabloid media.Skywalker976 (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Skywalker976: Thank you for your response given on behalf of my message addressed to Balazs38. Are you representing him/her/them, now? Can he/she/they not speak up for themselves? Are he/she/them paying you for your services? If we go on like this it will be quite a fee note. I am content to continue with this discussion ad infinitum, being retired such things keep me busy and engaged.

So anyway, what exactly is the point of your latest list of spurious accusations? The article in question has already been pared down to a bare minimum by other editors, all my posts have been subsumed and mostly disappeared. Am I your target now, whom you will continue to hound like lawyers do and cost somebody a packet; or perhaps are you working for him/her/them pro bono? Please disclose.

What, exactly has "the emanation of Buddha Tara (buddhadharma...)" got to do with anything being discussed here, please? Have I missed something? Please clarify.

Considering that you prefer official sources as citations, and considering that you maintain Chatellier has a clean record in France, then how, exactly, do you explain the stated aims and purposes of The Association Comite de Soutien pour M Ronan Chatellier? Just asking. Please be clear and specific in your answer, and thank you in advance for your hoped-for detailed clarifications of this contradictory puzzle which has all our readers on the edge of their seats, -MacPraughan (talk) 09:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Please, be careful about WP:OUTING. Skywalker976 has a conflict of interest, but I don't know if it's the subject of the article himself or not. Neither do you. And it does not really matter. --MarioGom (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you @MarioGom: I am not Shenpen Rinpoche, I am a lawyer and tried to declare a connection immediately but due to typos entered the wrong nick name (so no conspiracy here as it was alleged in this talk above). Thank you for reminding me. Having said that, sure hope that all others, commenting here, and especially editing the article (note that I didn't edit it), have no connection to the people with legal interests and are in general neutral, without any COI... --Skywalker976 (talk) 20:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Personal Messages for you on your User Talk Page, Balazs38!

The following discussion 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.

---

@Balazs38: I have just posted a personal message for you on your personal user talk page, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Balazs38.

There are also several other important messages for you there, which you do not seem to have replied to or noticed. Please respond as appropriate.

In case you are not aware, every editor has a User Page where you can write about yourself, describing your interests, your field of expertise and why you are a Wikipedia editor or whatever, and a User Talk page where you can receive notices and can discuss things in general with other editors not related to the content of particular articles (in which case you use the talk page of the article in question). I am explaining this as you do not appear to be very conversant with how Wikipedia editing works, I hope you don't mind. I also had to learn these things when I started off.

There is an important message, for example, about your WP:COI, and about WP:NOSHARING, and what you need to do about these matters to avoid being blocked in the near future. Thanks, --MacPraughan (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

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.

Request for a clarification for MacPraughan regarding his understanding of the cited sources

@MacPraughan: You are citing a lot of Slovene sources. Do you speak Slovene? If not, how do you know the meaning of these sources? Do you use automated translation tools like Google Translate? Please explain, because some of your citations suggest misunderstanding the content of the sources you cite. Thank you. Balazs38 (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Balazs38: Thank you for your query. My clarifications are happily given below.

The talk page of an article is not a chatroom, it is for discussion focussed on the content of the article with the intention of improving it. please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines

Unlike you I have posted the personal information about myself that I wish to share in WP on my User page so in case you are trying to identify me by asking whether I am a Slovenian speaker, this is not the way. You can please be transparent, email me, say who you are exactly, ask your questions openly and I will consider it.

I am citing Slovenian sources in this article because multiple long and detailed reports of Chatellier's legal problems published in the leading Slovenian newspapers are what comes up mostly, when one searches the internet for citable information about "Ronan Chatellier" that exists in the public domain.

Yes, as clearly stated in the relevant references posted, the Slovenian newspaper articles are automatically translated using Google Translate which I believe is the standard mode in such a case. We all know that these are not perfect translations, however they do suffice to get a working gist of the contents of the reports.

If you are a native Slovene speaker, and wish to give some examples of the translations that you find incorrect and offer your own preferred version, please feel absolutely free to do so; it would be very much appreciated. -MacPraughan (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@MacPraughan: WP:BLP states that "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity..." Thus, while Google Translate might be enough to get the gist for less sensitive articles, I think it is common sense that for BLP we should rely only on exact translations, and not on an automatic Google translation. Balazs38 (talk) 23:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Balazs38: thank you for your opinion, much appreciated. Action already taken and article already pared down to the absolute minimum some days ago. Any other service from me?

By the way, I still await a response about how to explain the stated aims of the above-cited Association 'Comite de Soutien pour M Ronan Chatellier' formed in 1997? Since you are so close to the subject I am sure he will be able to explain it honestly for our edification and information. Thanks. -MacPraughan (talk) 08:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

The current version of the article claims that Dalai Lama's office could not confirm that 14th Dalai Lama ordained Shenpen Rinpoche, and cites one Slovene article as a proof. This article doesn’t mention at all any statement of the Office of the 14th Dalai Lama regarding monk ordination. The article actually asserts that the journalist turned to the Office of the 14th Dalai Lama for Middle and Eastern Europe in Geneva to check, who recognised Rinpoche, which they didn't know. However, in one mail they explained that Office of the 14th Dalai Lama does not recognize all Rinpoches (for more information, see e-mail on this link http://www.dharmaling.org/en/2-uncategorised/89-rinpoche-recognition-documents "we do not have any difficulty in stating that all tulkus and lamas are not recognized by His Holiness the Dalai Lama." and also comment on this in this Talk, search for Extensive Explanation). So, this has nothing to do with Rinpoche’s monk ordination.

Therefore, I request that the sentence "although the Dalai Lama's office could not confirm this" and cited source is deleted.Balazs38 (talk) 23:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Reply 04-SEP-2018

 Clarification needed  

• Please quote from the reference you provided where it states that Shenphen Rinpoche was given full ordination by Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama, in 1980.
• Please clarify that "having clearly the signs and characteristics (for being) the recurring existence of Lama Gendün Rabgye of Kharnang Monastery in East Tibet, is trusted and accepted by both sections of the monastery" is an equivalent statement to saying that Rinpoche has full ordination.
• Please clarify that "the Jadel Khamtsen of the Sera Monastery recently on the 16th of December 2005 according to old custom and tradition Lama Gendun Rabgye also known as Shenphen Rinpoche made a general offering to the community of the khamtsen (monastic quarter)" means that Rinpoche has full ordination.
• Specifically, what is it about the two statements above that implies Rinpoche as having the blessing of the offices indicated? Please advise.  spintendo  02:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Spintendo:Thank you for answering. The reference I provided are not presented as a proof for the ordination (they are a proof of recognition, but this is completely another matter which I will address in another edit request). Here I wish to correct a mistake in the article about Shenpen Rinpoche, which says that the Office of the Dalai Lama could not confirm that 14th Dalai Lama ordained Shenpen Rinpoche. The referenced article given as a proof for this statement does not mention anything about the ordination at all.

Please note that monk ordination by itself doesn’t signify any special achievement, just that one took the vows. As such it is not a standard to have a proof for that. See for Ling Rinpoche or Trijang Lobsang Yeshe Tenzin Gyatso where it is stated that they were ordained by His Holiness the Dalai Lama without any proof.

See also my Extended explanation on this Talk page for more details (search for word ordination). Balazs38 (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Yerpo added this sentence, with a citation, on 13th August and it has already been deleted by Balazs38 and reinstated a couple of times. Yerpo, perhaps you would like to comment on Balazs38's request to have it deleted again? Thanks. -MacPraughan (talk) 11:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I see no reason to delete the sentence. I think it's an accurate summary of what a reliable secondary source reported. I'm willing to change my mind if another reliable secondary source provides evidence to the contrary, but Dharmaling's website is neither, as far as Wikipedia guidelines are concerned. — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Yerpo:Please write here the exact sentences from your source in which you claim that the Office of His Holiness the Dalai Lama talks about the ordination. They only mention the recognition, which is a completely different matter. Balazs38 (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

There may be some confusion here with this otherwise-unreported instance, taken from a Slovenian Buddhist anti-cyber-bullying blog (scroll all the way down to the last article). It alleges that, in Slovenia, he masqueraded as the official Representative of the Dalai Lama, whose office denied this when contacted for confirmation: "But Thubten Shenpen aka Ronnan Chatellier obtained Slovene citizenship without learning Slovene language and did not care about the laws of the country , claiming he is representative of HH the Dalai lama. We asked the Office of HH [Dalai Lama] about this and their reply was: << We never sent Thubten Shenpen [one of Chatellier's aliases in Slovenia] to your country. >> Still Ronnan Chatellier pretended to be this kind of personality, to attract members to his group." Source of this quote (includes multiple other links exposing Chatellier's record in Slovenia): https://buddhadharmaobfinternational.wordpress.com/2010/08/01/universal-education-negative-karma-of-cyber-bullying-social-responsibility-prevention/

Hope this helps, -- MacPraughan (talk) 16:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Balazs38: I see that the question is moot now, the article having been changed beyond recognition now (I've been away for a few days, so I couldn't reply). However, we'd need a reliable third-party mention of Chatellier being recognized - now, the claim is a good example of original research, which is not permitted in Wikipedia, so it would be better to remove it altogether. — Yerpo ^Eh? 18:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Yerpo, good question! After a quick search I got the following six links as potential sources of Chattellier being recognised as a Tulku, individually or in combination.

Please check and let me know if any are good enough to use as citations in the article in support of his unique status:

https://books.google.fr/books?id=EArF20mNGrkC&pg=PT114#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://www.chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php?title=Shenphen_Rinpoche

http://zagrebsummit.yoga-in-daily-life.hr/en-Rinpoche.htm

https://prabook.com/web/shenphen.rinpoche/1886649

https://ejje.weblio.jp/content/Shenphen+Rinpoche

http://www.ichacha.net/zaoju/shenphen%20rinpoche.html

Many thanks, -MacPraughan (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I think most of them aren't; the book comes closest, but it's an account of his disciple or close associate, so it isn't completely neutral, but it might be borderline useful. Other sites appear to be promotional or user-generated content (one even contains a copy of the Wikipedia article), so no. — Yerpo ^Eh? 05:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

pared

In order to conform with Wikipedia policies about all articles and especially about living persons. Collect (talk) 12:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

You did a great job. Thanks!. - MacPraughan (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Possible conflicts of interest - MacPraughan

MacPraughan failed to explain, how did he get resources for the article, as he is neither Slovene, nor his speaks the language nor is aquainted with the situation in the country, yet all of sudden was flooded with tabloid sources and haste to publish all but positive information about the subject.

As MacPraughan doesn't speak Slovene, yet is editing Wikipedia's article on Shenphen Rinpoche based on Slovene sources, it seems quite probable that he is connected with the nun, who filed a lawsuit, perhaps even being fed information by her - she is a person with legal interest in the matter. Note also that he keeps deleting any reference to her name in the article.

Furthermore, MacPraughan is editing all versions of the article: English, French, Slovene, Hungarian and German. Does he really speak all these languages or is he gathering people outside of Wikipedia for his attack cause with the aim to defame on Wikipedia?

MacPraughan also uses biased language in connnection with the subject of the article (see e.g. on the talkpage: "He can run, but he can't hide!") and is quoting tabloid sources (see e.g. Slovenske novice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovenske_novice ) in a manner that doesn't even reflect what is actually written in them (he misquoted the Slovene sources, perhaps due to lack of understanding Slovene; he e.g. claimed that one of the articles alleges that Shenpen Rinpoche provided no medical certificates, although the article doesn't state that). The tone of the Wikipedia article as edited by MacPraughan is far from neutral (e.g. stating that Shenphen Rinpoche quit acting as a monk - insinuating fraud of being a monk in the first place, furthermore, first, claiming that Shenphen Rinpoche was recognised by an obscure monastery, later on claiming that he was recognised by a monastery in China - in a manner, which is insinuating that the recognition was somehow fake without any evidence for that but mere insinuation). Although he quoted recognition papers, which are published on-line, he failed to mention that also well known Buddhist Sera Jhe monastery recognised Shenphen Rinpoche, which clearly follows from those papers etc. Please note that those documents are not a source from Dharmaling but from a third party i.e. from both monasteries, who issued them.

To summarize: MacPraughan actually actually turned the article in the textbook attack page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attack_page. Given the stated MacPraughan should be blocked from editing the mentioned article. Skywalker976 (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Skywalker976: Thank you for all your questions which I am happy to answer, being a great fan of accountability and transparency. It is a pleasure to dispel all your suspicions and casting aspersions on me, point-by-point, in your order, as follows. Conflict of Interest as a serious accusation so I am taking care to respond in detail, therefore, please excuse me for a wall of text that no doubt seems too long.

“I failed to explain how I got resources for the article”. This is just casting aspersions. As I've said a number of times, my resource for researching the material has been Google search engine. "Ronan Chatellier" was not mentioned in the article when I stumbled across it. However the first newspaper report that came up gave both names, Shenphen and Chatellier. It seems he avoids using his French name as much as possible, possibly because he finds it problematic in some way.

I also used Google Translate to obtain translations (admittedly poor, but one gets the gist) of all the Slovenian newspaper articles and other negative foreign-language information that comes up about the subject when one Google-searches “Ronan Chatellier/Shenphen Rinpoche”.

I have had no contact with the Buddhist nun who is named by Chatellier in his website’s Public Statement currently cited in the article as a source. I have only been ‘fed information’ by this Public Statement published by Chatellier’s website and on his behalf. More casting aspersions.

I first added the nun’s name in the article, but then I checked WP:Blp to ensure I was following the guidelines and found that WP:SELFPUB sources can be cited provided they do not involve claims about third parties, so I deleted her name from the article, just to be on the safe side, replacing it with “a Buddhist nun”. But on 8 Sept new editor CalyptoAletheia (interested only in this article) reinstated the nun’s name in the article.

I am not “gathering people outside of WP” who speak other languages, but using Google Translate as stated above. More casting aspersions.

It is a moot point, whether Dnevnik (Slovenia) and Slovenske novice are ‘tabloid newspapers’ in the sense or being ‘sensationalist’, or ‘serious’ newspapers using a tabloid format, as in other examples such as Libération. Wikipedia characterises Slovenske novice as ‘tabloid’, but not Dnevnik (Slovenia). Does this mean that the latter source is a good one? I think this needs clarification, maybe Yerpo, who seems knowledgeable about Slovenia, can enlighten us? In any case, Balazs38 and Skywalker976 who have both admitted CoI here, have said that they are tabloids and therefore inadmissible, so to be on the safe side I believe them and no longer use either of them as citable sources for the moment.

The comment about Chatellier’s failure to provide medical certificates to the Slovenian courts as his reason for not attending his trial was taken from these articles: 1 and 2 and others, which despite the poor quality of translation are pretty clear, alleging in brief that he left Slovenia, pleaded he was too ill to attend court and face trial; the court demanded medical certificates to substantiate this; he replied that his medical condition was secret; the court insisted; he sent some certificate that was not acceptable to the court, but he never returned; in the meantime, he was travelling to Germany, Hungary and so forth without any apparent problem. Hope this helps. In any case, for the moment all the cited content of all the Slovenian newspapers has been removed from the article, on the basis they are alleged (but not proven) to be sensationalist-type tabloids, which, hopefully, is going to be confirmed one way or the other in the near future.

I wrote that Chatellier 'acted as a monk' in the same way one says 'John Major acted as PM in the UK'. I wrote that he quit acting as a monk in the same way that one says Boris Johnson quit acting as Foreign Minister. I act as a Wikipedia editor, but I have not yet quit. Putting a negative spin on this wording, alleging I am “insinuating fraud” is simplistic and, sadly, typical of your wikilawyering approach throughout your comments - more casting aspersions.

The world map says Kharnang Monastery is located in Sichuan, China. Its officials are therefore Chinese officials. Thus, that Chatellier is a case (a unique one in my experience) of a westerner being recognised as a Tulku by Chinese officials is 100% correct, factual, plain and true. Your accusation that I am nevertheless “insinuating the recognition was fake” by stating this is simply beyond my comprehension. Casting aspersions, again.

Since I do not speak Tibetan, or read Tibetan script, I did not notice that scans of the Tibetan-language certificates Chatellier provided as proof of his recognition included also something from Sera Monastery in India. You or Balazs38 could have added this to the article, but since you are both prevented by CoI, I shall do it myself on your behalf. Thanks for your assurance that they are from a third party and therefore acceptable on Wikipedia. On this basis I shall reinstate the fact according to your preference. Many apologies for my unintended ommission which I did not realise was so crucial to your interests.

I have racked my brains about whether I have a conflict of interest here but have failed to come up with anything that would be valid enough to block me from editing the article. I certainly have a conflict of interest with you and also with Balazs38, since as the subject’s lawyer your brief appears to be to suppress all negative information about him. Judging by his edits and comments,Balazs38 who was ‘outed’ as a group of long-term students of the subject (later reduced to one long term student) seems to have a similar agenda. My interest, on the other hand, is to practice accountability and transparency and, as a WP editor, to help make the article more neutral, better-cited and honest by adding whatever citable information I can identify. Just more casting aspersions.

If some of my results seem negative to you, please don’t blame me, blame the sources I have cited. As I have already invited you several times, if you and Balazs38, being close to the subject, would kindly feed me sources providing what you might consider as citable and positive information, then I would be delighted to add it to the article on your behalf since you are unable to do so, being hampered by real Conflicts of Interest.

I also feel a conflict of interest when posting here any negative material I have found about Chatellier on the internet since frankly, I feel his pain. Nobody enjoys having negative things from their past revealed in public when they are striving to establish a good reputation, and newspaper links that show one in handcuffs, being escorted to the court to stand trial for unmentionable crimes, must be hard to bear; it is also a risk taken when a person with a past sets up a fawning WP article (the article was established by an editor with the name "Dharmaling" which is the name of Chatellier's organisation, and the main source cited was "Dharmaling Centre in Slovenia"). My sympathy for him is considerable and as a human being my heart goes out to him; but still, as Wikipedia editors we have a duty to be professional and report whatever we find published correctly and neutrally. My personal interest, in other words, is to help him out, if I can, but it is conflicted by his own past behaviour as reported and published, and hampered by the lack of positive material available.

As for yourself I should perhaps refer you to WP:GAMES, to wikilawyering, to WP:casting aspersions and to WP:HA with regard to your past and present harassment of me with serial but ill-founded allegations. -MacPraughan (talk) 13:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, Slovenske novice is indeed a tabloid, but Dnevnik is one of the leading broadsheet newspapers in Slovenia, and thus reliable. — Yerpo ^Eh? 13:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Yerpo: Such estimation is perhaps too simplified. First, from the fact that one newspaper is "leading", doesn't automatically follow that it is also "reliable". Slovenske novice are selling well, but are tabloid, as you also agree. Second, the Slovene (printed) media landscape is rapidly changing. Please note that Dnevnik is one of the leading newspapers in Slovenia - measured by loss of it's popularity. Nowadays it is selling almost 60 % less newspers than it did 10 years ago. Even more, before this fall, it bragged that it has best journalists in Slovenia (this was its advertising campaign then). Since then, it lost not only these "best journalists", but also many others. Therefore, Dnevnik today is a much different newspaper than it was 10 years ago. And, we are not discussing whole Dnevnik here, we are discussing only so-called crime section. Yes, despite everything, Dnevnik as a whole might still not be as tabloid as Slovenske novice and might have some valuable content (although less and less). But its crime section is quite notorious. One of Dnevnik's journalists quoted in one of the reverted versions of the article was condemned three times during last two years in front of the honorary journalists court. Therefore, it would be quite difficult to argue that crime section of Dnevnik is reliable. Not to mention that in the case of Shenpen Rinpoche, Dnevnik's crime section made a specific effort to report in a biased manner (this would deserve a longer explanation). But just to give an example - when Shenphen Rinpoche won a case, this was reported by Dnevnik in a place in the newspaper that was quite well hidden, no big titles... @Isaidnoway: @JimRenge:Skywalker976 (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@Skywalker976: With your bias, this opinion about a source is irrelevant. A "longer explanation" would be pure original research as well, so please spare us. I'm terribly sorry, but we have to stick to the sources: apart from Dnevnik, practically all national media reported on these controversies with approximately the same tone, such as Delo, RTV Slovenia, Večer, SiOL.net and 24ur.com. I chose Dnevnik simply because it best summarized what Chatellier was doing before 2012. — Yerpo ^Eh? 04:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Yerpo:If Wikipedia is meant to be a high quality source of information, no need to start the answer with "With your bias...". Instead, let's stay on the level of exchanging arguments. I declared a connection, because that is a fair thing to do, but that also means that I have knowledge about the situation - i.e. I am not only speaking based on what I received from dubious sources. And bias is not only limited to a connection to a person - something which can be easily discerned also in the process of editing this article. It is a broader notion. People can be biased, because an image of a person irritates them, or because they don't like religion or specifically Buddhism, or because they have some other bitterness to vent etc. But to get back to the discussion regarding the media. My point was - (printed) media have changed significantly in the last 10 or so years, not only globally, but also specifically in Slovenia - which represents a small media "pond". So, when discussing about something being tabloid or not, one cannot just simply claim that certain media is by itself always not tabloid, the discussion has to be on the level of a concrete article.

There was a case in a recent Slovene media history, which might not be known to non Slovene people, but was quite reported on for a short while in Slovene media. Some school boys taped the headmaster of one school having an affair with one teacher. They posted their tape on-line, it went viral and virtually all the media reported about it (including the ones you listed above). Some even reposted the tape. It had no real journalistic value, just spreading of dirt. Even more, the headmaster, who otherwise had a family, short after the publication committed suicide. Many lives were ruined in the process. And what happened? Did any of the journalists or editors loose their job (not to get in legal details of that matter - republishing of illegally made tapes etc.)? Nothing happened, just another day in the media world passed.

So please, perhaps non-Slovene people can be misled by referring to various media, but not someone who is familiar with concrete tabloid articles regarding the subject...Skywalker976 (talk) 09:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Skywalker976: no, your bias is crucial here - you benefit directly from how well you succeed to convince other people to think about your client, so it's understandable that you want to portray all the media in Slovenia as unrealiable, but it's, ultimately, just wasting everybody's time (not the least because your personal account cannot be trusted). Let's stick to Wikipedia processes, shall we? The relevant facts are:

1. Dnevnik as a whole is considered a reputable mainstream source by the community (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Dnevnik_(Slovenia) for some articles where it's cited). If you want to change that, open a discussion and gain a clear consensus like it was done in the case of Daily Mail.
2. The concrete article's claims stand until they are disproven in other reliable sources or taken back by the publisher itself. In this case, many articles by other journalists from Dnevnik, Delo, 24ur.com, RTV Slovenija and others corroborate the story. If more facts about the case surface, you're welcome to provide references, but again, those must be from reliable, secondary, published, third-party sources.

These are the only possible basis for discussion here, so again, please stop wasting our time with your allusions of guilt-by-association. — Yerpo ^Eh? 10:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Yerpo: Once more - to the people, who don't know the concrete case and how it was treated in the tabloid articles, what you wrote might sound as if it actually has come weight, but the evidence of empty criminal records in France and Slovenia should be considered as more valuable evidence as compared to the tabloid articles. It is somehow ironic that there is a lecture on disputing the sources, attached to this (as if there were no certificates of empty criminal record).Skywalker976 (talk) 11:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Skywalker976: Wrong again. Certificates of empty criminal record are primary sources which, according to Wikipedia rules, cannot be used to support claims. Instead, they should be put into context by secondary sources, which the cited articles did: in Slovenia, for example, it is argued by mainstream media that empty criminal record is a direct consequence of the subject avoiding the trial^[1][2]. But this is beside the point - Wikipedia article did not state that he was convicted, nor it is necessary. The controversy around him was sufficiently notable and widely reported in reputable sources to be reflected here. I believe my latest edit summarizes it adequately without giving it undue weight and without drawing firm conclusions. But censoring it completely? Sorry, this goes against everything Wikipedia stands for. — Yerpo ^Eh? 11:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Yerpo: How can certificate of empty criminal record be a primary source, if it is issued by the state? I think you are wrong. But, please use common sense, official document, issued by a state body is valid evidence. The judges refer to it, when determining sentences in their judgments. Or perhaps they should rely on secondary opinion of the journalists? Yes, we have the certificate from the official criminal record and it is empty, but there is this guy writing for the crime report section of Dnevnik... Slovene journalists wrote that Shenpen Rinpoche has a criminal record. And it is not true. Since when are journalists covering crime sections independent (legal) experts? You must be living in another country... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skywalker976 (talk • contribs)

"Subject avoiding the trial" - this is up to judiciary to decide, tabloid media can spin it as they wish. There are instruments the judiciary has at its disposal to provide for the presence. And on this talk page the casese were explained in detail, with all the accompanying non-sense. The way reporting was done in this case, is that one journalist, referring to "unidentified sources" spread something and other media copy pasted. Nobody verified anything. Which btw - is quite usual practice, for those familiar with Slovene tabloid media (or should I say independent "secondary sources"). Yes, you can use sophisticated language and refer to primary and secondary sources, independence etc. This is not about censorship, it is about common sense. Trying to put the dirt on someone, referring to tabloid sources doesn't liberate one from moral or legal responsibility for the published content. And this is not a legal threat. This is just the way it is. And in my opinion - being an avid Wikipedia user myself - doing that is also against everything Wikipedia stands for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skywalker976 (talk • contribs)

Skywalker976, we are not allowed to use primary sources, self-published sources or tabloid media in WP:BLPs. Do you try to convince us that all Slovenian mainstream media are tabloid media? If you need help understanding wikipedia policies and guidelines, please consider to visit the WP:TEAHOUSE and ask uninvolved, experienced editors. JimRenge (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Skywalker976: all your assertions are objectively false - Dnevnik, RTV Slovenija and 24ur.com aren't tabloids (although 24ur.com could be considered a borderline case), all articles mentioning controversies are signed, and they provide original content (even interviews with the subject!) based on journalistic standards (unless proven otherwise), completely in line with Wikipedia rules and guidelines. So it's clear that this is only you trying to spin facts for own personal benefit, which has nothing to do with "common sense". Please stop acting as a victim, rules I mentioned are clear enough for any avid Wikipedia user to understand, let alone a lawyer. I know hey might not be to your client's liking, but if you're unwilling to accept basic Wikipedia rules, then you need to reconsider your activity here. — Yerpo ^Eh? 06:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Yerpo: @JimRenge: As mentioned above, the question whether something is tabloid, should be debated on the level of the article not media. Yes, one can find non-tabloid content in Dnevnik (although less and less often), but their crime section is mostly tabloid, relying on unverified sources, often reported from one side only, not checking both sides and even more often with basic misunderstanding of the legal matters, mixed with maliciousness. This is how it is (if you really follow them and know the topics, that they write about), whether you accept it or not, is not my problem, but yours.

Your refer to the subject of the article as "my client". From where did you get this information, leaving aside your supposedly neutral attitude towards this issue; where are you secondary sources? I am a lawyer with a connection, and a neutral person wouldn't just jump to the conclusion that there is an attorney-client relationship involved. You wrote above: "it is argued by mainstream media that empty criminal record is a direct consequence of the subject avoiding the trial". First, it is ludicrous to conclude that for sure one judicial case would end with a conviction, before it even started (note that there are more levels of judicial decision-making, up to Strasbourg, see e.g. the Novic case, which was recently reverted by the Supreme court - and it was 25 years of prison sentence for alleged murder, which already started). This is pure speculation, serious media shouldn't do that. Especially, since Shenpen Rinpoche already won a similar case against him and they know about it. Secondly, Dnevnik's article that you linked, is full of mistakes. Let me list a few. First, it published a photo from another case, in which Shenpen Rinpoche won and got damages from the state. Yet, tabloid media used that photo to present him as a criminal through the power of a graphic image - the policeman holding him (although that photo has nothing to do with the case that they write about). But on purpose they reprint this photo each time they write about him. Not to even go into that, how the photo was made, what a coincidence that certain "journalists" knew exactly when the police will bring him to the court, although this cannot be known for sure (as only the final time limit is prescribed by the law), unless someone is leaking information to them (and why to use force preemptively, perhaps for photo-ops purposes...). Secondly, the author of the article doesn't understand valid legislation - even according to Slovene legislation the judges are not entitled to see the medical diagnosis, this is up to the doctors and supervision of the doctors (there is a whole system of doctors' controls established for the purposes of veryfing medical exuces in criminal procedure). The same in France - the judges cannot see the medical record, hence the author of the article writes completely erroneously that the mistake is on the side of the subject of the article. Then the author writes that Shephen Rinpoche proposed videoconference, but that this is not legally possible as he has to be present for hearing. Wrong again. The law allows for such videoconferences and they take place relatively often, especially, when a person is abroad (i.e. the person is present through videoconference). Note that the presence is prescribed by the law in favour of the defendant, and if he proposes videoconference, the judge shouldn't decline it - for what reason could they decline it - to protect the defendant against the defendant himself? So, it makes one wonder, why the judge refused so many proposals for such a hearing through videoconference, when this would actually push the case forward... But regarding the tabloid nature - the author of this Dnevnik article once went to a judicial hearing and then wrote an article, as if it was another case, not the one she went to follow. Perhaps just incompetence. And the second link that you provided starts with the threat of European arrest warrant. False again, such warrant is not possible to be issued in matters of minor importance (for false crime report in this case only money penalty is prescribed). I stopped reading there.

Of course, you can go on about serious mainstream media and my bias, but a reasonable man can accept arguments and consequently change his mind. Or perservere for the sake of ego battle.Skywalker976 (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

You still fail to understand the point here: your personal interpretation of media sources is irrelevant! Do you have any non-tabloid secondary published account that disproves what was written? If no, please stop abusing this talk page. Your conspiracy theories cannot and will not be heeded. — Yerpo ^Eh? 05:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

So, to sum up this discussion, then, after all that, there seems to be no evidence whatsoever that I have any conflict of interest here. Thank you for expanding your voluminous 'conspiracy theories' [acknowledgements to Yerpo for that succinct characterisation] here at such great length, Skywalker, though I have to admit I haven't read them all in detail, they are just too long, and the day is short. I must say, though, you have a fertile imagination. And as a lawyer, you must have few clients to have so much free time to spare writing such endless screeds in support of Balazs38. He must be a really close friend, if you deny he is your client. Admirable loyalty! MacPraughan (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Activity in Slovenia section

I have removed the content about the lawsuit pertaining to the nun and the content about the physical and legal attacks per WP:BLP. This content is poorly sourced and/or unsourced and can not be added back without a consensus. Please see WP:BURDEN - The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Please also review Identifying reliable sources and our policy on sourcing - Wikipedia:Verifiability. And also please review WP:BLPCRIME. These are all policies and guidelines we must be mindful of when editing a biography of a living person. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Isaidnoway: the content I added recently was properly sourced. It mentioned his status as a religious leader, the alleged crime against him (so WP:BLPCRIME doesn't apply here) and a very brief summary of his alleged wrongdoings, for which there are too many good sources to censor (and which WP:BLPCRIME doesn't forbid). You reverted in 5 minutes, which indicates that you haven't even read my edit in full, let alone reviewed the sources. So please restore the content that satisfies all Wikipedia rules and guidelines, then we can talk about subtleties of wording etc. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

It hasn't been established that he is even notable per WP:GNG, nobody has produced any independent 3rd party sources to establish that he is a notable and/or significant religious leader. Shenphen is a relatively unknown person per WP:BLPCRIME, so yes, it does apply here, therefore editors must seriously consider not including material that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. The content has been challenged per WP:BLP and you need consensus to restore it. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Your statement is untrue. Shenphen/Chatellier is widely known in Slovenia, as proven by the reliable sources I cited. As I said, you likely didn't even read all of my edit and review the sources before reverting, and I'm pretty sure the burden of dismissing them is now on you, not vice versa. I did seriously consider not adding material that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed a crime, but coverage of these events was so intense that they cannot be ignored. The short summary that was included more than satisfies WP:UNDUE, and is crucial for understanding why this person doesn't operate in Slovenia anymore. — Yerpo ^Eh? 10:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Some more sources for his notability as a religious leader, so you won't claim that he was only noted after the public controversy had started:

• [3], the national news agency reporting on his meeting with the Slovene prime minister.
• [4], [5], on the polemic he started about blessing of a warship by a Catholic priest and, more broadly, favouring of the Catholic church in an officially secular country.
• [6] (paywalled), interview in the magazine Mladina, on the subject above.
• [7] (paywalled), the national news agency took his statement on the occasion of a Buddhist holiday.

— Yerpo ^Eh? 11:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• We need more than just a mention, we need "significant coverage" that addresses the topic directly and in detail. In addition, there needs to be sustained coverage in reliable sources over a sufficiently significant period of time. WP:BLPCRIME does apply to Shenphen as he is not well known, if he was, then it shouldn't be no problem for editor's to find a multitude of reliable published sources with significant coverage. The sources you provided, and yes I've seen them before, do not amount to significant coverage. The entire lead of this article is completely unsourced, there is no inline citations or independent 3rd party sources provided whatsoever to establish that he "is the spiritual teacher of Buddhist Congregation Dharmaling", or that "He was recognised by Kharnang Monastery and Sera-Jhe Jadrel Kamtsen as the Tulku of Gendun Rabgye", or that "He was a monk for 23 years (from 1986 to 2008) ordained by Khensur Geshe Tekchog, Getsul by Kyabje Thubten Zopa Rinpoche and Gelong (Bhikkhu) by Tenzin Gyatso the 14th Dalai Lama". Do you know of any independent 3rd party sources that can verify any of that information? If you do know of such sources, please provide them.- Isaidnoway (talk) 11:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Did you even read my reply?! I found a multitude of reliable published sources with significant coverage!! He founded Dharmaling. His status within Buddhist hierarchy is not so clear, but that doesn't negate the fact that he was a notable religious leader in Slovenia. I started to source it before you reverted me with spurious reasoning, so your latest comment is beginning to cast doubt on your good faith. — Yerpo ^Eh? 13:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway:: since you didn't provide a relevant reason not to, I intend to restore the properly sourced content you deleted, with maybe a few extra details to satisfy WP:WELLKNOWN. Now is the chance to voice any relevant arguments against it, just please don't do it like before, ignoring what I wrote. — Yerpo ^Eh? 15:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@Yerpo: - I have not ignored anything you wrote, and I've given you Wikipedia policies - WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME and WP:GNG and also WP:ATTACK which is one of the main reasons I gave at the AfD. Here's another one for you - assume good faith because I'm tired of you casting aspersions without providing any evidence. If you look at the revision history of this article, you'd see I'm not the only one who has removed these allegations and accusations of bad conduct. So the way I see it, you don't have consensus to add those allegations of bad conduct back into the article. And no one is stopping you from adding anything relevant to him about being notable as a religious leader and adding sources to verify the unsourced information already in the article. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but yes, you have ignored all the arguments which made your quoting of those policies irrelevant. My addition was unlike the previous version in that

1. it mentioned other aspects of his notability,
2. it was sourced properly,
3. it didn't give undue weight to either aspect.

Other people who insisted on removing properly sourced mentions of accusations (so not counting the unsourced attacks, which I have no issue in removing) were editors with proven links to the subject, so they don't count as far as consensus is concerned. I believe that this addresses all your misgivings, so, again, please reconsider your position. Adding only content relevant to him about being notable as a religious leader would, in this situation, increase the problem of bias, so it would decrease quality. — Yerpo ^Eh? 17:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@Yerpo: @Isaidnoway: Please note that Shenphen Rinpoche hasn't been living in Slovenia since 2012 (i.e. since more than 6 years ago) nor did he come to Slovenia in this period. And no articles from other countries. Hence difficult to argue in favour of notability. Skywalker976 (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@Skywalker976: Can you please quote a guideline which states that articles from other countries are a requirement to establish notability? There's sustained coverage of his activities in Slovenia (first as a Buddhist leader, then mostly about his alleged wrongdoings, but serious newspapers never forget to summarize what he was doing before 2012 to attain notability), which is more than enough to satisfy WP:WELLKNOWN. — Yerpo ^Eh? 04:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Yerpo, I have searched for reliable, independent secondary sources about Shenphen Rinpoches status in Tibetan Buddhism and his religious activities but I found nothing in English. If reliable Slovakian mainstream newspaper articles show that he is WP:WELLKNOWN in Slovakia, please feel free to add more info/encyclopedic content to verify this. The google translate version of https://www.delo.si/novice/slovenija/govorim-o-ustanovi-ki-je-odgovorna-za-inkvizicijo.html looks promising, but it is hardly comprehensible. I do not speak Slovakian and have no idea of the reliability of delo and some other Slovakian sources. 15:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)JimRenge (talk)

@JimRenge:: I have added reliable Slovenian (not Slovakian) mainstream newspaper articles proving that he is WP:WELLKNOWN in Slovenia, but Isaidnoway reverted my edit. I'd happily add more sources like the Delo article you found (yes, Delo is one of the most prestigious newspapers in the country and I mentioned the same article above), but now he's claiming I "don't have consensus" to add anything about the controversy surrounding this person, which, in this case, would make the result severely biased. — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Seeking wider consensus

The following discussion 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.

---

I'm seeking consensus to restore this edit into the article Shenphen Rinpoche, with additional sources mentioned above to better establish notability. I believe this edit addresses all the misgivings expressed by other editors on this talk page and in the AfD discussion. In more general terms, I also believe that the article is relevant, and that the controversy about the subject should at least be summarized (supported by reliable sources, of course, and not presupposing guilt), so that the reader can make an informed choice about whom to believe. — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Not familiar enough with the sources to make an informed decision on their reliability. Some of the stuff in the diff seems relatively uncontroversial and could probably be added. However, I would err on the side of caution (WP:BLP applies) with adding the allegations, especially as they are written. It may all be moot as the article is currently at AFD and could potentially be deleted. AIRcorn (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Agree with Yerpo's proposal. I am fully familiar with all the sources (not the tiny handful that remain, but all those that have been repeatedly deleted en bloc by CalyptoAletheia, Balazs38 and others since 10 August) because Freewasp (with who I have a connection!) and I researched most of them, and so I do agree with Yerpo's suggestion above. He has shown himself to be fully familiar with all the Slovenian media and his comments are in line with my own assessment insofar as I've researched, translated and studied the Slovenian newspaper articles about Chatellier since 3 August. I think the edit he points to is fair and neutral.
• Furthermore, CalyptoAletheia has claimed that the subject's real name of Ronan Chatellier should be suppressed from his article 'because it has not been "outed" anywhere on Wikipedia', although it appears on this page and elsewhere numerous times and is common knowledge, apart from being his birth name and most likely his name as given on all his French papers such as passport, utility bills, medical records and so forth. What do other editors think of that user's reasoning given for this suppression? Interested to know if it can be a valid argument. MacPraughan (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I disagree with the suggestion to restore the edit because some of the sources are poorly written. To keep it short, see my comment here where I present a major mistake in them. Also, as Aircorn suggested, in case of doubt, and especially for WP:BLP it is better to err on the side of caution. Balazs38 (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

You have a declared conflict of interest, Balazs38, and therefore your opinion should not count here. You have also made legal threats in the past. MacPraughan (talk) 07:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

MacPraughan, A coi does not prohibit one from commenting on talk pages, per WP:COI.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

This is true, Farang Rak Tham, I did not say he could not comment here. MacPraughan (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Agree with Yerpo's proposal because the websites are reliable sources, but if Balazs38 has sources from governments authorities they normally should also be allowed, as they can often be considered reliable sources.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Edited.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Farang Rak Tham:I have this document and can provide it to an admin. This document shows directly that some of the suggested sources (newspaper articles) make false claims, and thus these articles can't be considered as reliable.Balazs38 (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's not so simple, Balazs38. In some narrow cases, primary sources can be considered along secondary ones, but they must be published, not shared privately. And in any case, a proof of an empty criminal record will not disprove the sources I found, because they don't deny this. Like I said, context is important. — Yerpo ^Eh? 05:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• I Disagree with Yerpo, and I think that the article should be completely deleted for two reasons. The first is that by its editing, the most motivated users have most likely do have a conflict of interests. The mere obsession with its edition of this article points to this. In particular, Mr MacPraughan, who I can not believe that, despite his illness, he "wastes" his rest of his life on the Wikipedia. But it surely is his life. The second relates to the fact that in the final form of the article, it will in no way be possible to ensure its impartiality, which means that it is harmful, since it does not reflect the truth.CalyptoAletheia (talk) 07:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

   Comment: I note that according to his activity, CalyptoAletheia is a single-purpose account devoted to presenting the subject as positively as he can, so his invoking conflict of interest and "truth" should be taken with a large grain of salt. — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

   Comment: I note then that Yerpo's comment should also be taken with a large grain of salt, I obviously disagree with him, but I do am a lover of truth... Maybe he is also, just I don't believe everything in the yellow pages. And I do see the conflict of interest. Sorry.CalyptoAletheia (talk) 08:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

  Really? What conflict of interest do I have? Please prove it (directly) or redact your statement. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

  Really, CalyptoAletheia? Who's obsessed? Unlike you, I haven't edited this article for nine days now. Just been enjoying responding to the daily barrage of personal attacks on me by yourself, by the interest-conflicted Balazs38 and by the interest-conflicted Skywalker976 - because I improved your precious article from being the uncited, fairytale hagiography it was on 3rd August! and helped make it a bit more fair and balanced, as in the edit Yerpo is pointing to. MacPraughan (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• If editors want to resolve anything here they need to stop personilising everything. If it is not about the content, then it doesn't need to be mentioned during the RFC. AIRcorn (talk) 07:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Aircorn I totally agree. CalyptoAletheia, Balazs38 and Skywalker976 please note. MacPraughan (talk) 12:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

• Disagree Yerpo´s edit did not conform with WP:BLPCRIME. We have to verify that Shenphen Rinpoche is WP:WELLKNOWN before adding allegations. A "multitude" of sources covering several notable achievements or events are needed to verify that a person is well-known. I propose to add well sourced encyclopedic content in a first step, following WP:BURDEN and WP:BLP. JimRenge (talk) 09:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

  @JimRenge: note that I mention additional sources to better establish notability, they are listed in earlier discussion and some already added to the main text. Thus, both WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:BLPCRIME will be satisfied (inasmuch they still aren't). Can you please specify what you think is still missing? — Yerpo ^Eh? 11:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

• Disagree - Leave out unfounded allegations per WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME as subject of article is not well known. The lead doesn't even establish that he's notable, it's unsourced with dubious and exceptional claims being made with no independent sources to verify that it's significant information, and it shouldn't be in the lead if it's not being covered in the body of the article. Adding another sentence with trivial mentions of him in another section (being friends with someone and acquiring Slovenian citizenship) is not substantive information about the subject. en:wp is not the place to set the record straight about whom to believe and right great wrongs. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
• Disagree - Contrary to WP:BLPCRIME. Discussions about the deletion of the article should be made on an AfD if somebody wants to start one. Anatoliatheo (talk) 10:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• Agree. Coming from completely outside this dispute I find the sources credible enough. I suggest that the material be restored and improved upon, rather than gross deleted. Jzsj (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
• Partially disagree The "some newspapers allege" material should get left out. North8000 (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

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.

Good sources, wrong texts in "Activity in Slovenia" section

The present citation number 3 which Yerpo has kindly provided, apparently in order to substantiate Chatellier “entering a proposal of law to establish a clearer separation of church and state in a predominantly catholic state [between 2004 and 2102]” is dated 13.1.2017, but its text actually translates into English as follows:

”Frenchman Ronan Chatellier, head of the Dharmaling Buddhist Congregation, was active in Slovenia for many years until he left Slovenia when accused of two offences in which the prosecution alleges that he harmed himself. The county court has been summoning him in vain since 2013 and he is therefore threatened with a European arrest warrant.”

I have absolutely no problem with Yerpo’s source, and as nobody has objected to it I say it should be retained as a source in the article, but I propose that (A) the text derived from it should be changed to something that summarises it accurately, and (B) “entering a proposal of law to establish a clearer separation of church and state in a predominantly catholic state” should be deleted unless a citation can be found that actually confirms that this is what Chatellier has achieved in Slovenia.

Similarly, citation number 2, also provided by Yerpo simply states that Chatellier was received by Pahor, so likewise, the text apparently invented by Yerpo bears no relation at all to what he has stated in the article.

Citation number 1, as noted by JimRenge is inadequate and has already been rejected as a source.

These questions all arise from Yerpo's edits and obviously need addressing. Suggestions? MacPraughan (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

To be precise, I provided those references to replace the unsuitable ones, not CalyptoAletheia. My stance on summarizing the whole story is clear. — Yerpo ^Eh? 05:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I stand corrected, and have changed the attribution. Apologies to all concerned. I have also agreed with your proposal, Yerpo, but since CalyptoAletheia has disagreed, how to get a consensus? MacPraughan (talk) 06:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

For controversial topics like that, the widest possible community should weigh in, that's why I opened an RfC. After a while, someone uninvolved should review this RfC and determine what the consensus is. Such review would ideally take into account revealed or otherwise obvious CoI and past behavior of editors to assess how credible their opinions are, but we'll see. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Just to recap this point, on 10 September, CalyptoAletheia per diff1 added this text:

“From 2004 to 2012 Shenpen Rinpoche was very active in Slovene public life, registering a Buddhist religious community despite opposition from the state, entering a proposal of law, establishing a clear separation of church and state in a predominantly catholic state.”

The references given in support have been tried, rejected, and changed again, but they still do not confirm this text, in fact they are irrelevant to the text. Yet, CalyptoAletheia's claims remain in the article. According to [WP:BURDEN], CalyptoAletheia as the editor who published the claims has to provide citations in support - otherwise it should be deleted; any objection?

Plus, the subject's real name Ronan Chatellier should be reinstated as it was before, one cannot say as a reason for removing it (as CalyptoAletheia has) that it has not been "outed" on WP (he is the subject, his real name Ronan chatellier is well known, appearing in dozens of articles and reports we have all seen, and after all his identity not protected as is that of an anonymous editor!) MacPraughan (talk) 09:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

As nobody has objected I have done the necessary and added the name used in the source and a "not in source" tag.MacPraughan (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)