Talk:Padmaloka Buddhist Retreat Centre

[Untitled]

This article has been kept following this AFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Criticism sections

CruiseControl108 wrote on article History page at 08:58, 27 May 2008: 'The Further Criticisms section has now been removed as is largely a critique of the FWBO which is covered in depth on the wikipedia FWBO page to which links are made from the Padmaloka page.'

It is true that the Further Criticisms section partly refers to criticisms of the FWBO which are also covered in the main wikipedia article on the FWBO, but it also contains critical material relevant to Padmaloka, from the magazine Tricycle, which is not available in the wikipedia article on the FWBO. It also contains the only material from third-party sources. The rest of the Padmaloka article seems to be from FWBO sources (ie. first party sources), with the possible exception of the material from the Network of Buddhist Organisations (NBO). However, the FWBO is a member of the NBO, and FWBO member Dhammarati is one of the signatories of the statement from the NBO refered to in the Padmaloka article, so it is not clear that the statement from the NBO is genuinely a third-party source.

Wikipedia guidelines are that articles should be based on ' reliable, third-party published sources' and be written from a neutral point of view:

'Reliable sources: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.' [1]

'All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.' [2]

So I will reinstate the Further Criticisms section. Also, the present Criticism section would more accurately be titled 'FWBO's Responses to Criticism' since three out of the four links in this section are to FWBO sites, and the fourth is to the NBO statement. It would also be useful to give more background to the NBO statement. I shall re-title the present Criticism section as above, and also re-title the Further Criticisms section to just 'Criticism'. EmmDee (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete?

Is there any point to this article, as most of its content seems to be a

repeat of the criticisms of the FWBO on the page of the FWBO, also a 

parody, which is listed as a parody, is not an allegation that a nuclear

bunker is being built--ObscureFruits ([[User 

talk:ObscureFruits|talk]]) 23:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Update on this, why do we have this article, it's mostly a copy of the

criticism on the FWBO page, it either should be cleaned up and made relevant to the centre, or deleted.--ObscureFruits ([[User talk:ObscureFruits|talk]]) 16:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I too think it should be deleted, unless they have any red bananas,

the existence of which I doubt.Bluehotel ([[User talk:Bluehotel|talk]]) 19:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the redundant material about FWBO, the upshot of

which really does make one think that this house fails the noteworthy test. Bluehotel (talk) 06:45,

25 June 2009 (UTC)

Padmaloka is just one of hundreds of country houses in the UK offering courses to the public. I can't see its particular significance, unless this article is essentially promotional; or, as often happens, it is written by followers of a religion with an inflated idea of their own significance. DaveP689 (talk) 10:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - of interest as intl HQ of org and sex scandal location.

Sex

This article should deal more with the sexual aspects of Padmaloka as reported in the Guardian. Padmaloka was a sex scandal location. It is also important in terms of gay sex history of FWBO where people were touched by Sangharaxita