This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Tibet Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tibet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tibet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TibetWikipedia:WikiProject TibetTemplate:WikiProject TibetTibet articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Buddhism Mid‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Women in Religion Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Longchenpa ( talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. ( declared here) Gyrovague108 ( talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. ( declared here and here) Gonpoyeshe ( talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. Dharmapath108 ( talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. Carbo337 ( talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

I moved the new recognitions material to the recognitions section to be relevant. Also added in a few new sections headers to help the readers. Best, if the intro should follow these guidelines. WP:MOSBIO Zulu Papa 5 ☆ ( talk) 05:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Need to be removed from this article or written in a neutral tone. As if the ridiculous photo wasn't enough, claiming to cure cancer with prayer is a standard red flag for nonsense and needs to be fixed immediately. Viriditas ( talk) 20:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I'll look at the claims and neutral tone. Apparently there are some new sections that have been added and I haven't been around in a while.

Her photo is fine, if you mean the main one. It's the same or similar to the one used in Associated Press articles about JAL. Longchenpa ( talk) 14:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Ridiculous as Remission_(medicine)#Remission. Zulu Papa 5 * ( talk) 02:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC) reply

I changed the wording to indicate that contrary to the prior text, there were other Westerners who were recognized and enthroned. In particular Vajracharya Ven. Peling Tulku Rinpoche, was enthroned by HH Penor Rinpoche in 2001 as the mind emanation of Padma Lingpa and the activity emanation of Karma Lingpa. He was the highest tulku ever recognized in a western birth.

Source: http://palyulcanada.org/wp/teachers/ven-peling-tulku-rinpoche

Geoff.zinderdine ( talk) 21:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Not sure about the claim of anyone being the highest western tulku recognized--how does one determine such a thing?--but most of the articles about Jetsunma refer to her as the "first western woman to be recognized as a tulku."

I like the link and the article about Ven. Peling Tulku Rinpoche. It's sad that he's gone. When did he pass away? The article doesn't seem to say.

We should include the cycles of teachings and empowerments Jetsunma's received; it's important and we haven't covered it. Preliminary list... the Kama in 1988 from HH Penor Rinpoche, Rinchen Terzod, the Nyingthig Yabshi and Ratna Lingpa cycle in 1990 from Yangthang Rinpoche, Chod from Ngakpa Yeshe Dorje in 1992(?), the various termas from HH Khenchen Jigmed Phuntsog in 1993, the Nam Cho from HH Penor Rinpoche in 1995, not sure about what came after that. The Chimed Tsogthig was in there somewhere. Longchenpa ( talk) 06:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC) reply

[1] for inclusion. Zulu Papa 5 * ( talk) 13:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Eh. I'd rather not include it. It's depressing, for one. Also, it's a current event and we don't how important it's going to be to the article. It might be important. Might turn out to be a passing blip. In the meantime I don't want to elevate some crackpot. Longchenpa ( talk) 06:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC) reply

It will take some other published sources to make it wiki significant and relevant. Zulu Papa 5 * ( talk) 01:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC) reply

CNN, Forbes, Ars Technica. It definitely passes the notability test and should therefore be included. - Hux ( talk) 07:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply

I looked at including it, but the case itself is The United States of America vs. William L. Cassidy. What it impacts is the cyberstalking law. The cyberstalking article definitely should be updated with this new decision. Longchenpa ( talk) 15:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC) reply

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2075332/Do-world-favor-kill-One-8-000-horrifying-death-threats-ruled-free-speech--author-posted-online.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Zulu Papa 5 * ( talk) 14:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Jude Order to dismiss https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/cassidy-order-121511.pdf

Zulu Papa 5 * ( talk) 21:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC) reply

I looked it over. The case is The United States of America vs. William L. Cassidy. I agree it's notable and should be added to the cyberstalking article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberstalking Longchenpa ( talk) 14:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC) reply

As I mentioned above, we should include the empowerments and teachings she's received. It's traditional, and other than the Rinchen Terzod, we haven't covered it. I have a preliminary list (above), though it's missing what she received in India in 1987 & 1996, and everything from '97-09. Not sure if it needs a new section or if we can include the info in some of the other sections. Longchenpa ( talk) 06:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Where are these published? Zulu Papa 5 * ( talk) 01:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Buddha From Brooklyn, as well as other sources. Longchenpa ( talk) 15:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply

I removed the recent string of edits which have disrupted the article with WP:BLP issues. There may be new sources to add controversial material, however they must be from reliable secondary sources and presented in a neutral tone to meet Wikipedia standards for inclusion. Zulu Papa 5 * ( talk) 20:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Apparently people need to be educated about appropriate sources. In a particularly circular example (which proves the point) one of the references used was an archived version of this Wiki article. Longchenpa ( talk) 18:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC) reply

The article states that "her Wikipedia page is kept scrubbed free of references to controversy and mentions of the word "cult," with all edits critical of Jetsunma being removed usually within a few hours of posting." This is obviously incorrect, since the page contains many critical statements. Indeed, given that the quoted sentence appears on the referenced page, it's self-contradictory. 35.16.4.82 ( talk) 19:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply

The WP:BLP issues have been hashed out thoroughly. People don't understand that Wikipedia isn't the place for personal opinions. Longchenpa ( talk) 08:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Secondary Sources in BLP

Apprecaite the contribution however, secondary sources may be required for this [2] to maintain WP:BLP and remain in the article. Zulu Papa 5 * ( talk) 01:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Hey,

I would just like to ask the mods to please make a search for "Catharine Burroughs" to link directly to her page. I couldn't remember this woman's real name or dharma name, just "Catharine Burroughs," and it took me like 10 minutes to find her page. (And yes, I know that this page is the first thing that pops up when you search using that name...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.212.83 ( talk) 03:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Hmm. It's a thought. But I'm not sure what that would require. The times I've seen it have been when two pages were combined into one. Longchenpa ( talk) 05:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply

The kapala image has been removed somehow. Looking for a new copy of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.141.74.63 ( talk) 22:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC) reply

It seems that most of the information about Steven Seagal should be deleted from here, or moved to the Steven Seagal article, if it isn't already there; most of it isn't relevant to this particular biography. Any thoughts or suggestions? Thanks. AD64 ( talk) 23:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Discussion of celebrities is definitely off-topic. I've removed it. Longchenpa ( talk) 03:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks for taking care of this, Longchenpa. Do you think that one line about Steven Seagal being the only other recognized tulku is relevant to the article? Appreciate your support. Best, AD64 ( talk) 03:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Another thought, do we have sources that confirm that Ahkon Lhamo and Steven Seagal are the only other recognized western tulkus? I think there could be others. Thus, deleting all of the material may be the best call after all. Best, AD64 ( talk) 17:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC) reply

There are numerous other recognized western tulkus, five mentioned in the film Tulku alone. Longchenpa ( talk) 09:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081229225510/http://www.tashicholing.org/gyatrul_rinpoche_bio.htm to http://www.tashicholing.org/gyatrul_rinpoche_bio.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120123452/http://www.sacredesignpdx.com/rinpoche_bio.htm to http://www.sacredesignpdx.com/rinpoche_bio.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply

It looks as if, over time, this article has become non-neutral due to the paucity of well-sourced criticisms and controversies coupled with sourcing issues such lack of RS or possible overuse of primary sourcing. I'll be chipping away at this with the aim of a neutral, encyclopedic article per WP:BLPSTYLE. petrarchan47 คุ ก 19:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Early Life section

NPOV needed fixing. The early life section is still too long. Longchenpa ( talk)

History of this page

A monk from KPC did in fact re-write this article, and I've largely been protecting the page from vandals and have been remiss in rewriting it to NPOV. But please respect BLP. This is a living person. I'm NOT a vandal so stop reverting my changes. Longchenpa ( talk)

User talk:Petrarchan47, you're going back to an old version of the article from 2007 that we can't use. While the tone of that version sounds more neutral, it's riddled with problems that caused a massive edit war 12 years ago (yes, I've been working on this article that long). One of the problems is that it's riddled with dog whistles that violate BLP. The really big problem is that the references aren't accurate. When you actually go back to The Buddha From Brooklyn and look for the page references, you can't find things like 'gradually shifted from using "Christ consciousness" to "Buddha consciousness."' Longchenpa ( talk) 14:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry: "you're going back to an old version of the article from 2007" - what does this mean? I haven't reverted to an older version, but have been editing the page as I found it. The page references don't align exactly with the copy of BfB that I have, but that doesn't mean these references were made up and don't exist. If you have a copy, please check before assuming this is the case.

Please elucidate the problems to which you're referring; your comment as written leaves me in the dark and unable to help. petrarchan47 คุ ก 06:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC) reply

The subject was referred to throughout the article as "Jetsunma." Jetsun or Jetsunma is a Tibetan title meaning "venerable" or "reverend." We don't refer to subject's by their title, only by their name. I've substituted Ahkon Lhamo throughout. Skyerise ( talk) 18:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC) reply

I noticed the change this morning. I've no objection, I think it's better for NPOV. I made a point of doing the same for the Khenchen Konchog Gyaltsen article. Longchenpa ( talk) 17:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Have done a complete rewrite of the article, revising hyperbolic language. Longchenpa ( talk) 22:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Please see this version of the article to get an idea of the thorough POV scrubbing that has taken place over the years. Readers are getting a promotional article rather than an encyclopedic one. petrarchan47 คุ ก 15:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply

This article will perpetually have POV issues, in large part because no one without a POV has any interest in it. An awful lot of what has been hacked out of it over time, however, needed to be, due to WP:BLP and libel concerns. We must take due care when addressing controversies and accusations. But even something as seemingly simple as whether to use Zeoli or Akhon Lhamo is going to see-saw back and forth forever as editors with different ideas of what constitutes "neutral" apply their particular points of view. — KGF0 ( T | C ) 22:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Actually, what's happened is that we had a chopped up mess that was the result of an edit war, that was replaced with a promotional version, that is slowly being edited for a neutral tone and updated with more recent articles. The Buddha From Brooklyn came out in 1999 which was more than 20 years ago. Zeoli is in her 70's now. Longchenpa ( talk) 02:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC) reply

This is a biography of a living person. Longchenpa ( talk) 02:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Some of what's in this article should be on the Kunzang Palyul Choling page (such as fundraisers -- they are for the temple, not her). Others should be re-written to indicate her personal involvement. Longchenpa ( talk) 19:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Started the re-writes. Longchenpa ( talk) 19:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Having never heard of this person I came here to find out why people are angry at her. Not a line. Talk page shows evidence of repeated scrubbing. Look brothers and sisters, I understand that rants and innuendo have no place here, but where there is significant controversy, that's both notable and necessary to the facts. In this case, controversy is such that readers like me are finding out about this public figure through that alone. In such cases, most of our articles include a line in the contents called "Controversies" or "Controversy over X". Those links may lead to just one or two sentences, but they cover our encyclopedic duty.

This article needs such a section stat. Anything less casts doubt on the objectivity and reliability of our service. Laodah 23:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply

No, thanks, that's troll bait. We tried such a section in 2008 and ended up in an edit war with both students and detractors. I doubt the Wiki mods want to referee another one. Longchenpa ( talk) 20:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC) reply

I agree and added a section that discusses the controversies with citations to respected newspapers and magazines like LA Times, Tricycle and so on. This way, there is at least some information about this controversial teacher here. Javier F.V. 16:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC) reply

I'm rewriting the charitable works section to focus on her actions. There is going to be overlap, however, because of the "follow the leader" effect typical of Buddhist temples: she adopts abandoned dogs, asks the temple to follow suit, then a dog rescue is founded, etc. Kind of impossible to separate it completely and still have an accurate article. Longchenpa ( talk) 23:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Deleted a section that was wildly biased -- recall this is a biography of a living person. We are not going through another edit war, dragging in three Wiki moderators. We went through that in 2008. Longchenpa ( talk) 13:16, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply

The references you removed are WP:RS, and a 2008 edit war is not sufficient justification for removing them. If you object to specific wording, please discuss the issues you have here. If there is a dispute about how these references should be included that can't be resolved here, a request for comment could be filed to get input from other editors. Dialectric ( talk) 15:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply

They are book reviews and not reliable sources. And we're not going back to the edit war, forget it. Longchenpa ( talk) 02:28, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply

At long last, we no longer have discrete sections, but rather a narrative flow using articles about her life that pick up from The Buddha From Brooklyn (published 23 years ago) through news reports in the present. Thank you for your patience. Longchenpa ( talk) 06:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Agree with the change. The citation must be leftover from other material removed from the article. Longchenpa ( talk) 19:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply