Talk:Dorje Shugden controversy/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Which is the primary "spin-out" article for this topic, this article or Western Shugden Society, or maybe something else?

I hope the question which forms the subject line of this section is clear enough as to the nature of the subject of this section. It is a not unreasonable question, as the latter article seems to be, for all practical purposes, a group, which could be called "heretical" by those who oppose it, or the belief which seems to be, so far as I can tell, more or less supported by that group, and, so far as I can tell, maybe no others?? So far as I can tell, as someone who has dealt with a lot of religious topics, it is generally the case that the new religious movement or group formed on the basis of a doctrinal disagreement tends to be considered, overall, the more central article, with matters of the beliefs of the group, the WSS, summarized in that article in one or more sections, and the bulk of the material on that topic included in the other article, this article. I could of course be wrong in my initial assumption that the WSS is the primary supporter of Shugden worship, and, if I am, please forgive me.

If I am right, I tend to think, given the comparatively few number of editors involved in this topic, that maybe filing an RfC for broader input might be an effective way of getting more people who are, we hope at least, aware of relevant policies and guidelines and not perhaps having their own opinions colored by their own opinions in the matter. Anyway, any responses to any of the above? John Carter (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I think this request for an RFC is a very good idea. I appreciate the help as it seems that editors like myself and the others involved here are still amateurs in this field and are learning. It appears that there are incredibly strong opinions on two almost diametrically opposing sides. I was thinking particularly on the subject of 'weight' as you had requested earlier in response to kjangdom. I think this topic, when looked at closely, would allow much clarity to come to the article.

I am not sure about the phrase that the WSS is the primary supporter of Dorje Shugden worship, as it appears to have arisen lately, while Dorje Shugden practice has existed for over 400 years. For instance, practitioners like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trijang_Chocktrul_Rinpoche , does not associate openly with groups like the WSS, but still is a practitioner of Dorje Shugden. Also, there are members of the New Kadampa Tradition who don't seem to be involved with the WSS, but are practitioners.Prasangika37 (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Please delete long Gardner quote

The long Gardner quote has nothing to do with Shugden, and interrupts the flow of the introduction.Heicth (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The only quote from Gardner I see is the one starting the "1930s-1940s Pabongkha," section. That whole section looks like it could use some substantial trimming, and rather looks like a quotefarm as per WP:QUOTEFARM to me. I could definitely see removing the quotation, but it would be reasonable to have the section, which seems to be more or less about Pabongkha's contributions to Shugden matters, have some sort of description of who Pabongkha was and on what basis he was able to bring about such changes in Shugden traditions. I have no real objections to removing that quotation myself, or for that matter many of the other quotes in that section, but it would be a good idea to maybe propose some alternate text, if there is to be text, for the quotes to be removed. John Carter (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The quote should be moved to the main Pabongkha article. Heicth (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality of Thurman sources

Hi all! I really don't think that Robert Thurman sources can be used in this article. He is far too close to the Dalai Lama to have an impartial view here, despite being a professor of Buddhism. Any other thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjangdom (talk • contribs) 21:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

There are basically two points involved here. One is whether Thurman himself is really "neutral" regarding this topic, and that might best be addressed at WP:NPOVN. The second point deals with how much weight as per WP:WEIGHT to give his opinions, and that also might best be addressed at the NPOVN. Feel free to start a conversation there, although I would recommed that, if possible, some evidence regarding the close nature of the relationship between the DL and Thurman be produced in evidence there to help substantiate the assertion that maybe he might be too close to the topic to be truly objective. John Carter (talk) 21:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Good point! I wonder if Thurman has ever said or published something that was not negative about Dorje Shugden. Most 'experts' would manage that at least. You say 'feel free to start a conversation there'. I am still new to this, so could you explain exactly where you mean and how I do this. Thank you Kjangdom (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPOVN is the link to the NPOV noticeboard, which has instructions on how to file a notice there. I should add that it might also be not unreasonable to ask there about how much weight in general to give to negative coverage of the controversy in general in this article. WP:WEIGHT deals with the matter of relative weight, or degree of space given to a topic in an article. John Carter (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Great, I'll check that out.Kjangdom (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

@Cwobeel, Heicth, and John Carter: Any more comments regarding what to do about the Thurman sources? Does anyone really think he is a reliable source given that he is a close personal friend of the Dalai Lama. Both of them are staunch anti-Shugden critics. Even though Thurman is a professor, he seriously loses his neutrality on the issue of Shugden. I would prefer to discuss here first before going over the admin boards. Kjangdom (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the first step would be to determine the amount of relative weight in this particular article to give "criticism of the Dorje Shugden movement" or whatever similar subtitle should be used, and then to determine which particular quotes, or other content based on those quotes, should remain. It would also be very helpful to see clear evidence indicating the nature of the alleged nonimpartiality of that souce. I don't know much about that matter one way or another, but it is probably a secondary matter to the question of WP:WEIGHT in this article, and it would make more sense to deal with the primary issue first. Maybe filing a request for comment as per WP:RFC might get more knowledgable editors involved. John Carter (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thurman is the Jey Tsongkhkapa professor of Indo-Tibetan Buddhist studies at Columbia university. He is the editor in chief of the Treasury of the Buddhist Sciences Series which translated the Cakrasamvara Tantra and other important works. He is a fantastic source. Please substantiate the material you copied from Truthsayer62, by providing quotes.Heicth (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Heicth, John Carter, and Prasangika37: Robert Thurman is a close friend of the Dalai Lama. He was ordained as a Buddhist monk by the Dalai Lama. He is far too close to the Dalai Lama and far too personally involved in this matter for his quotes to be taken seriously. This overrides his credentials as a professor of Buddhism. Heitch - can you provide any article or book that Thurman has written where he writes favourably or even impartially about Dorje Shugden? Calling Shugden practitioners the "Taliban of Buddhism" is not the work of an impartial academic. This is obvious.

Describing Shugden / NKT as a cult 12 times in the main body of the article is outrageous! This clearly shows the intention of the editors who have been defaming Dorje Shugden and the NKT in this article. Thurman is responsible for many of these derogetary cult quotes. In my opinion these Thurman quotes have to go. Kjangdom (talk) 02:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thurman's credentials establish him, without a doubt, as a reliable source. Any claim to the contrary is ridiculous. It is not necessary that a reliable source be an unbiased source or an uninvolved source. Academics are free to take sides. It is not necessary that every reliable source be "neutral". NPOV is achieved by summarizing what the full range of reliable sources say about the topic, giving due weight to the various points of view. We can mention his affiliation with the Dalai Lama. If a professor of Buddhist studies from Harvard or Cambridge or any reputable university comes to conclusions different from Thurman, then the article should also summarize those conclusions. So, bring forth other sources with credentials comparable to Thurman. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for explaining the difference between a reliable source and an unbiased source. However, I'm still unsure what a 'reliable source' means in the context of Wikipedia. It seems like you are indicating that 'reliable' means 'knowledgeable', which in my knowledge of English is by no means a given. Reliable = able to be trusted; predictable or dependable. Whether one can trust Thurman or not is debatable, but I do accept that he is predictable, very predictable in fact, at least in his polemic descriptions of the NKT and Shugden. Ironic since Thurman is reported as begging to receive a Dorje Shguden empowerment, before he became a staunch Shugden critic. Kjangdom (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I think you are right that Thurman is a respected scholar of Tibetan Buddhism, but it doesn't mean he is respected in identifying someone as a cult or not. In addition, it doesn't mean he is necessarily qualified to comment on things like Dorje Shugden Practitioners connections to Chinese authorities. These things are his own original research and not rooted in his specialty or scholarly focus. Isn't that sort-of like a scholar of Biology making comments about Canon Law, and it being acceptable because he is a scholar? Prasangika37 (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@Prasangika37:Thurman's speciality is Indo-Tibetan Buddhism as interpreted by the Gelugpa tradition, how much more specialised do you want to get? He has also written on Tibetan issues which he is in a position to know about through his many years of work with Tibet House, NYC. Also, in Religious-Studies terms, the worship of Dorje Shugden is quite properly called a cult. The Oxford English Dictionary defines cult as: "worship; reverential homage rendered to a divine being or beings; a particular form or system of religious worship; especially in reference to its external rites and ceremonies; devotion or homage to a particular person or thing." The first definition that the Oxford Dictionaries online gives is "A system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object"[2]. So, when a scholar uses the term is it improper? Chris Fynn (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Kjangdom's edits

• Stop deleting secondary references such as Bultrini, Dodin and Thurman
• Stop inserting WP:SPS, i.e. self-published material
• Stop copying old Wikipedia material from Truthsayer62 with its falsified references.Heicth (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

And, equally importantly, to Heicth himself, stop giving others obnoxious, arrogant, orders about what they can or cannot do. Instead of making such imperious demands as made here, it would be better if you started a discussion about whether such material should be included, why you personally think it should be included, and then attempting to arrive at some sort of generally agreeable consensus. I have seen little if any behavior of that kind from you to date, and, regretably, that apparent refusal to engage in appropriate behavior can in and of itself, as often as not, cause others to act in the same obnoxious, arrogant, imperious manner. John Carter (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC on restoring last stable version of this article

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.

---

Should this article be retored to its last stable state before recent flurry of editing? John Carter (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The specific version being proposed for restoration is [3]. This proposal is being made on the basis of the grossly unbalanced nature of the article as it stands today, with sections describing, of all things, the negative outside view of the group before the opinions of the group itself. The article in its current form seems to me so grossly unbalanced that trying to work on the basis of it to produce a reasonable article would be more effort than simply going back to before the recent flurry of activity and starting again from that basis. John Carter (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• Support restoration of previous version of the article as a starting point for further development. John Carter (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose you would undo months of work by @CFynn:, @Kt66:, and myself. You would delete massive amounts of academic info (with full quotes in the footnotes) from the top Shugden academics, Georges Dreyfus and David Kay, while inserting a massive amount of self-published Shugden websites. Lastly, you would completely invalidate the efforts of admins like @The Bushranger:, @Atama:, @JzG: and many others editors such as @MarnetteD: who dealt with an endless stream of Shugden sockpuppets and POV pushers. There would have been no reason to ban Truthsayer62 for example. Heicth (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose That older version begins with a sentence endorsing one side of the controversy, describing in Wikipedia's voice the favorable view of the deity. As well, it states that the Dalai Lama "banned" the practice, which he has repeatedly denied. It strongly implies that he is guilty of violating the religious rights of his opponents. I do not believe that version is superior to the current version, so I see no point in eliminating months of work. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The old article was dominated by Shugden POV pushers, as Cullen328 is saying. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• This would be a valid criticism if it were true of Dorje Shugden. It is not a valid criticism of an article on the controversies around Dorje Shugden, as far as I can tell. That said, why do we even have a separate article? Surely that makes it a POV fork? And is Dorje Shudgen related to Mollie? This is not, I think, the most mainstream of subjects. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support There has been, over the last few months, incessant editing with the appearance of making this more and more one-sided. It does not seem that even small efforts have been made with a hope to try to present both sides of the discussion fairly. The idea of talking about a "Controversy" implies there are two sides to a point. Its not a Dorje Shugden "Criticism" page though, which would then make sense to have the overwhelming majority of opinions be negative. "Controversy" seems like it should at least include what there is a controversy about! This is a huge problem in this page and makes it lack credibility. Prasangika37 (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
• oppose the former version was the result of manipulations of NKT editors that started in April 2008 with the removal of W:RS and the insertion of dubious and self-published sources. When WP:RS were used they were often misquoted, misrepresented and manipulated. ----Kt66 (talk) 11:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

This is an article about the controversy as opposed to an article about Dorje Shugden and the organizations that promote worship of that deity. Accordingly, it seems appropriate to center the article on the various factors that led to this split within Tibetan Buddhism. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Wholehearted agreement, in much the same way that articles about the Reformation should relate to the historical period itself, rather than perhaps "Calvinist perspectives on the Reformation" or "Catholic responses to the Reformation". I would think, on that basis, the most neutral approach would be to basically present the history that led to the controversy, specific relevant events to the development of the controversy, and then material on the various theological positions relevent to the controversy. Even so, the current structure, which presents the "opposition" material before the "support" material, and so far as I can see rendering some of the material in "conclusive" language. In the same way that I, as a Catholic, wouldn't want the Catholic "conclusion" about the Reformation and the various entities that arose from it to be the "conclusion" of the article on the Reformation, this seems to be at least in the short-term about a similar schism, even if it might turn out to be a short one, and if that is the case presenting the early history in a manner which favors neither side first would seem to be most neutral, and then the opinions of all sides once the dispute became active, and developments since the alternative groups were formally or informally constituted. But I really don't think the existing article can be seen even remotely to meet those standards. I could myself even see stubbing it for a while and starting over from scratch, given the non-neutral nature of the extant content, but that probably shouldn't be necessary. John Carter (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I certainly don't think the first sentence of that version: "Dorje Shugden is a Dharma Protector of the Sakya and Gelug traditions, who has been worshipped for over three hundred years." is remotely neutral, and the first reference is to a pro-Shugden website whose home page is sharply critical of the Dalai Lama. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Remember, I said that the restoration would be to that as a basis for further NPOV development, not that it would be taken as gospel. And, of course, if you can think of a better earlier version to revert to, by all means do so - that was chosen only because it was prior to the recent flurry of activity. And please read the existing article, specifically the completely disproportionate amount of material given to present one side as opposed to the other, and the regular use of "conclusion" words in the text, and consider whether it is any better. It may well be that changing the first sentence would be the starting point of those subsequent changes.

By the way, as I think I said above, I have acquired pretty much everything available to me from article web banks available to me about this matter, and would be more than willing to e-mail them to anyone sending me an e-mail and thus giving me an e-mail address to send the material too. I haven't read it all yet myself; there's a lot of it. And, FWIW, personally, I think the controversy is more than a bit of a tempest in the teapot myself, and that political factors may be involved. I wouldn't think that material should be removed from the article, but the current structure, with both perjorative language and what seems to me to be numerous NPOV violations regarding relative WEIGHT, is almost certainly no better overall. John Carter (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I suppose I should read these articles. I have a friend who is on first name terms with Suu Kyi and the Dalai Llama stays with the owner of my favourite Tandoori when he's in England, according to the local papers. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

In response to @JzG:'s question in the above section, the article seems to have been created maybe before the now-existing groups like the Western Shugden Society were formed or prominent (maybe, I dunno, I haven't checked), and that the WSS article seems to cover the activities of the groups since they were formed, with this about the controversy which led to their foundation. Personally, I could see myself merging this article and the WSS article into one article, if all the relevant information could be included in one article. Having said that, at least in various Christian reference books I've looked at, it is often the case that a theological or other dispute which led to a schism of some sort has a separate article in those reference books, sometimes a short one admittedly, and it might be reasonable for a similar separate article here on the basis of the schism as well. So far as I can tell, at this point, most of the information on both the WSS and the controversy is of a news-y rather than scholarly sort, if that matters. John Carter (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2014 (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.

Article Deletion Proposal

Per admin Guy's comment, I propose the article be deleted, and the content be merged into Dorje Shugden. For example, Wikipedia:Criticism states:

• "Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies"
• "Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies".
• "Articles dedicated to controversies about a topic are generally discouraged" VictoriaGrayson (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose deletion The essay linked to above (good advice, but neither a policy nor a guideline) says "If reliable sources - other than the critics themselves - provide substantial coverage devoted to the controversies or criticisms, then that may justify sections and sub-articles devoted to the controversies or criticism. For example, the sources that discuss the 2008 Summer Olympics often describe its controversies in detail, as an independent topic. But the main article is very long and therefore it is not practical to integrate all the controversy material into the main article. Thus, the summary style guideline was used to create a sub-article Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics, and the main article contains a small summary overview of the controversies."

Regarding "Philosophy, religion, or politics", it goes on to say: "For topics about a particular point of view – such as philosophies (Idealism, Naturalism, Existentialism), political outlooks (Capitalism, Marxism), or religion (Islam, Christianity, Atheism) – it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section or "Criticism of ..." subarticle. Integrating criticism into the main article can cause confusion because readers may misconstrue the critical material as representative of the philosophy's outlook, the political stance, or the religion's tenets."

This is a significant dispute between one of the most famous people in the world and his followers, and another group of Tibetan Buddhists who have a radically different point of view. This article should be based primarily on what fully independent academic sources say about the dispute. Sources affiliated with one or the other side should be limited strictly to expressing their opinions, clearly stated as such. No factual statements should be cited to partisan sources on either side. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The NKT wants to make it about Dalai Lama vs Shugden. However all the other schools like the Nyingma, Kagyu and Sakya always viewed Shugden as negative from the very start. So the issue is really about all the 4 major schools vs Shugden. And confusions like yours is why I support article deletion.Heicth (talk) 05:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I have never claimed to be an expert on Tibetan Buddhism as I am a generalist and an encyclopedist. Accordingly, my "confusions" have nothing to do with whether or not this article should be kept. Please feel free to introduce referenced content about the views of those other schools of Tibetan Buddhism. By the way, articles are not deleted based on talk page discussions. This article would have to be taken to a full debate at Articles for Deletion. The dispute is notable, so in my view, either this article stays, or the material gets merged into Dorje Shugden. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if the issue is, at it seems to be, within the branch of Tibetan Buddhism headed by the Dalai Lama and the Shugden supporters within the branch headed by the Dalai Lama, honestly, the other branches of Tibetan Buddhism are no more relevant to this discussion than would be Lutheranism or Anglicanism regarding a disagreement specifically within the Roman Catholic Church. Being limited to being a disagreement within one group, however, does not necessarily relate to its notability or appropriateness for an article, or lack of same, any more than it would a dispute within the Roman Catholic Church, Sunni Islam, Orthodox Judaism, or any other denominations within the broader faith groups. John Carter (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree: in my view you need a pretty compelling reason to have an entire article devoted to a controversy, and that would need to include significant attention to the controversy outside of its own walled garden of interested parties. I venture to suggest that this is not a controversy that is significant other than to partisans. It's not like the Protestant reformation, for example, which has a lasting cultural significance well beyond the sects involved. Guy (Help!) 10:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

First, I am not so much sure that this article, despite the title, is about a "controversy" per se, but rather about a decision by the Dalai Lama which caused uprisings leading to several Tibetan Buddhist monks being expelled, numerous protests (some of which might broadly qualify as notable in themselves for breadth of coverage, if not necessarily depth of coverage), and on that basis it seems less likely to be about a "controversy" than about a cause for dissent.

Second, for the most part agreed with JzG above, although there might, maybe, be a bit of WP:CRYSTALBALL issue here one way or another, depending on the viewpoint. Personally, ideally, I'd look to find an encyclopedia on Tibetan Buddhism and see how much weight it gives the topic. But I don't know any encyclopedic sources on Tibetan Buddhism per se which would be recent enough to be able to discuss this matter one way or another. Perhaps, some sort of article on "Criticism of Shugdenism" (if that's a word) might be better, which could also describe the reception or lack of same of Shugden in other schools of TB. At least the expelling of the monks, however, seems to be prior to and somewhat unrelated to the WSS, so I'm not sure the early history of the Shugden controversy could reasonably be included in the WSS article. Just some opinions, anyway. John Carter (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, all that makes sense, but it doesn't really settle the question. Perhaps a better way to view it is: if one wished to deliver a series of short talks on the subject, what might they look like and how might they be arranged? I think the problem here (for me anyway) is that we seem to be separating some content out into this article in a way that might not really help in establishing the history and significance of things. Of course I know bugger all about the subject, so this is an outsider's superficial view, but there is something not quite right with the arrangement of the articles here, and I think that's why we've seen so many admin board discussions on it over recent weeks. Partisans will always be partisans of course but if there is dispute about the fundamental way in which a subject is represented, then we get much louder arguments - I wonder if this is the problem. Or, you know, not. Guy (Help!) 18:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

If this were to be a group of short talks, I would think the most easily understandable might be (1) who is/was Shugden (historically and theologically) (2) what happened to make him unpopular now, like his, well, allegedly killing people who stop worshipping him and the reasons for those developments, and (3) short-term reaction to those changes indicated by the Dalai Lama from within the TB community, (4) establishment of the protest groups and their activities, (5) internal developments, like the Tibetan high court. Of those, it seems the one which might most reasonably be spun-out separately would be (4), given there have been at least a few noted protests. That would leave (1), (2), (3), and I guess (5) for this or a similar article. Maybe a History of Shugden worship or similar article might be preferable to the existing title, and with the new title maybe establish a clearer idea that includes the relevant content which doesn't so obviously belong in the other two articles. John Carter (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Renaming the article to "History of Dorje Shugden" is a good idea.Heicth (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the idea of the History of Dorje Shugden, it seems like that the article would have to change a bit. This seems FAR more like an article like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Catholic_Church than https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Catholic_Church . Of course there is criticism of the Catholic Church, but to say the criticism is the history is making a very big claim. Maybe the criticism is an aspect of the history, but an overt history would make more sense to be 1. What the practice is 2. How the practice came about 3. Criticism of the practice. It doesn't seem that #3 would be the main section, as it seems to be here, as its not really in the development of the practice and how Dorje Shugden exists presently in this world. If we even look at something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy , the weight is far different than the weight here.Prasangika37 (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for all your work with this everyone. Just a few ideas.

1) We already have a 'Dorje Shugden' article. Why do we need a separate 'History of Shugden worship' page as well? Can't the latter be included in the former? Do other deities in Buddhism like Tara have 2 similar pages?

2) There's no universally agreed history for Dorje Shugden. For example, some people believe it was started in the Gelug school 300 years ago, some only 100 years ago. So I think it would be difficult to have an simple, straightforward article, I think it would have to have lots of different viewpoints. I can see lots of arguments coming up without producing something beneficial for people to read.

3) The Dalai Lama and the Central Tibetian Administration are involved in religious discrimination against Dorje Shugden practioners. For example, on the Dalai Lama's website, on a section for the Tibetian Youth Association, it says ' If anyone in the youth congress membership is found as still worshipping Dholgyal that member will be immediately expelled from Tibetan Youth Congress membership;' (from - http://dalailama.com/messages/dolgyal-shugden/tyc-resolution , near the bottom of the page). There are other example of discrimination elsewhere. Where should this information be shown in Wikipedia? It's not really anything to do with the history of Dorje Shugden, as it's to do with the Dalai Lama and the Tibetian in Exile political institutions. Would we have another article called 'Discrimination against Dorje Shugden practioners'? Thanks March22nd (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I said above that I thought the information could be merged to the Dorje Shugden article, if that would not make that article too long. I also proposed above that a History of Dorje Shugden worship (sorry for not exclusing "Dorje" earlier) would be preferable to this existing article, both because, as a theological entity, the very existence, and thus history, of Dorje Shugden is open to question, while his/its worship is not, so the second title would be more NPOV, and because an article of that title and apparent scope would provide, at least in my eyes, a more complete "bridge" article between the Dorje Shugden article and the Western Shugden Society article, and could more clearly cover the content relating to the recent restrictions and subsequent developments, all of which are more or less of a historical nature. John Carter (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Update or Deletion of Dead links

Hi, I've noticed that the links from the point of Tai Situ Rinpoche etc. on the Dalai Lama's webpage (citations 52-54), http://dalailama.com/page.157.htm , are dead. Is someone willing to find the correct link for these? Maybe we can try to have citations here that work. If we can't find support for these links and verify them through some investigation, it will be best to remove them.Prasangika37 (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Utilizing Explanations from Practitioners of Dorje Shugden

Hi everyone. I think its very important for this article to have proper weight to both sides of the controversy to utilize explanations from writers who are proponents of Dorje Shugden. I think in the past there have been accusations of self-publishing as a reason to not use Tharpa Publications points, but it does not seem like this is a valid reason to not include points that really give depth to this article.

Particularly, its important to explain what the expressed reason is of modern Dorje Shugden practice. That is, why people are doing it, why they say they are doing it, and what is the presented function. If we can't have this explained because of some criticism of self-publishing, there is just one angle expressed of what some people conclude is being done, while it is evident the Dorje Shugden practitioners explain and say they are doing something very different. There are countless sources to explain the reason of Dorje Shugden practice in the modern world and why people rely on Dorje Shugden and it is never in line with what is presented by others as their reason.

This of course does not mean we shouldn't use these points of views of scholars, as we want to keep the explanation of the controversy, but that we want to convey both sides' reasoning and let people objectively interpret the controversy.Prasangika37 (talk) 02:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Any sources we use should meet our standards as reliable sources, which varies according to the context. Self published sources are not prohibited, but their proper use is very limited. We can use Tharpa Publications as a source for what Tharpa Publications says about its own view, for example. We can count on high-quality academic sources to describe both points of view accurately, and we should place greatest reliance on sources that don't advocate for either side. Relevant external links in a separate section at the end of the article can take interested readers to places where they can read advocacy at length rather than a neutral presentation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you think in this case, it makes sense? I think when we need to understand what a side is explicitly promoting, its best to cite from their publications themselves. There are points alleging what Dorje Shugden practitioners are promoting or doing, but where better to investigate this then in the book about the practice itself? It does seem that the academic sources that are utilized in this article otherwise hardly ever explain in detail what practitioners themselves are taught and practice. Its a lot of "We think they are doing this" or "in some article long ago someone alleged that they are doing this". Therefore, utilizing a Tharpa Publications text would be most appropriate to fill in this gap? What do you think? I appreciate the dialogue!Prasangika37 (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

There is on JSTOR an article from I think Indian Anthropologist (written in very bad English) which describes to some extent the reasons for Shugden worship. One of the reasons we have reservations about self-published sources is that they may be representative only of small groups within larger groups, and we want the most balanced view possible. I think it might be preferable to use it, and/or newspaper articles and other independent sources first if possible and then fill in any missing information from dependent sources. John Carter (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I see the point of trying to get a neutral third party to explain the whole of the explanation of the practice. But if we examine the sources used in this article, it seems though that we are only using scholars who are evidently, virulently anti-Dorje Shugden.

A better step I would think is to utilize a primary author of practices relating to Dorje Shugden practice (and widely respected and revered amongst mainstream, modern Dorje Shugden practitioners). Geshe Kelsang Gyatso is widely recognized as an authority on the subject and is deeply respected amongst modern Dorje Shugden practitioners. Also, if you look at criticism of the practice, the New Kadampa Tradition is generally singled out or focused on and he is the head of the tradition. Therefore, if people are going to use them as a primary representative of the practitioners of Dorje Shugden, it would be sensible to have them represented in some capacity.

Maybe it would be nice to also have other, more reasonable explanations of why people engage in the practice, though? Perhaps we can include an article like the one you referred to and the explanation that Geshe Kelsang Gyatso gives. I'll try to find a more 'neutral' explanation out there! Again, thank you both for the guidance on how to properly edit the article/why we have certain parameters here. I'm learning and trying to do a job that doesn't offend others and doesn't break the guidelines of Wikipedia. I'll do some good research over the next few days. If I can't find anything we might be backed into a corner using just the Heart Jewel text, but hopefully there is something that is more suitable!Prasangika37 (talk) 12:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I've downloaded two articles from JSTOR onto my computer and will also try to look at the book Prisoners of Shangri-La: Tibetan Buddhism and the West by Donald S. Lopez, Jr. later this week. That book is also said to contain some useful information on the "controversial SAhugden cult" according to at least one review. John Carter (talk) 19:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

If possible it is best to avoid primary sources - certainly they should not be given too much weight. Better if the article simply outlines the views of Shugden practioners and those who oppose the practice (as well as the history of Shugden and the practice) as documented, stated or summarized in reliable secondary and tertiary sources from main stream academic publishers. Chris Fynn (talk) 10:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 03:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Dorje Shugden controversy → History of Dorje Shugden worship – For example, Wikipedia:Criticism states:

• "Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies"
• "Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies".
• "Articles dedicated to controversies about a topic are generally discouraged"

. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi VictoriaGrayson. I would think this page needs to be highly edited for it to be seen as an objective 'history' of Dorje Shugden practice. Currently it seems to be more focused on Criticism than on facts about the practice itself. Would you think that the material would be altered for this name change to occur or would you want to keep the same material, but just alter the title?Prasangika37 (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you should not bring up self-published books, simply because you feel scholars "are evidently, virulently anti-Dorje Shugden."VictoriaGrayson (talk) 05:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I am confused. I'm sorry I said or did something you thought wasn't appropriate. It seems like you are not happy with something I said somewhere else, but here, I am asking you if you think the material needs to be changed for a proper title change or if you think it appropriately represent the 'history'. Lets make sure we are trying to have dialogue as opposed to pointing out perceived faults of a separate point and maybe answer questions directly :)Prasangika37 (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose move The essay you quoted goes on to say:

"Philosophy, religion, or politics

For topics about a particular point of view – such as philosophies (Idealism, Naturalism, Existentialism), political outlooks (Capitalism, Marxism), or religion (Islam, Christianity, Atheism) – it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section or "Criticism of ..." subarticle. Integrating criticism into the main article can cause confusion because readers may misconstrue the critical material as representative of the philosophy's outlook, the political stance, or the religion's tenets."

Accordingly, there is nothing improper about the article title. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The part you quoted doesn't use the word "controversy" anywhere, or say that "controversy" is a proper title. I actually have no idea why you even quoted it.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - This article was apparently originally created by an anonymous editor either connected with or having sympaties with pro-Shugden groups who wanted to seperate material on the Shugden Controversy, which that person seems to have considered "political", from the main Shugden article. Now it appears that some people in the same camp are not happy with the article as it stands at present since it no longer reflects their particular point of view. This proposal to move the article simply looks yo me like an attempt to change the whole focus of the article to something more palatable to thus group. I would however support a proposal to merge this article back into the main Shugden article as there is so much overlap — and I feel there never was a good justification for having two separate articles in the first place, Of course any re-merged article would need to be based primarily on secondary academic sources and reflect the balance of academic views on the subject. Chris Fynn (talk) 10:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The idea is John Carter's.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Self published sources

There seems to be a misconception here that self published sources are completely unacceptable on Wikipedia. That is incorrect, as a careful reading of WP:SELFPUB will show. Self published sources can be used, within careful limits. They can't be used for factual assertions, or judgmental statements in Wikipedia's voice. But they are perfectly acceptable as references about people's beliefs and opinions. So, sources published by Dorje Shugden worshippers, quoting the leading figures of that group, are perfectly acceptable as sources for either direct quotes or neutral paraphrases of the opinions and beliefs of those leaders. As Kelsang Gyatso is the most notable advocate, of course his views should be reflected in this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB- 2.it does not involve claims about third parties;

1.the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;''VictoriaGrayson (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Certainly stuffing the introduction with self-published material and falsified references, cannot be proper Wikipedia policy.Heicth (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Instead of mass reversion, the solution is to point out what is "self serving", or what makes an "exceptional claim" and particularly what is "falsified", with specific analysis of the problems. I fail to see how a quote from Kelsang Gyatso is inappropriate in this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 14:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

A whole paragraph of self-published material in the LEAD, is appropriate? There is no indication that the self-published books accurately represent Kelsang Gyatso's views either. In Tibetan Buddhism (not that NKT is actually Tibetan Buddhism), books are usually written by English speaking disciples, who have a lot of unfortunate leeway. Heicth (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that asserts these published works do not represent Kelsang Gyatso's views. Thst is an extraordinary claim. I am not saying that all the material belongs in, but rather that the article must be balanced. Be specific here, point by point. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

How is it extraordinary? Tibetan teachers don't speak good English. Books are written by English speaking disciples. I can provide many examples of that. I know you are new to this article, but CFynn, Kt66 and myself have been discussing this stuff repeatedly. CFynn is equally or even more knowledgeable about Wikipedia policy as you are. Please don't take the attitude that you are the only one aware of Wikipedia policies.Heicth (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

It is extraordinary to claim that the translations of his words were not carried out and vetted and checked and approved by people capable of translating accurately, and in the end, approved by the original author. If someone has published a critique of the accuracy of the translations, then please bring that forward. Otherwise, we can presume that the translations are accurate, and it is original research to posit otherwise, since they were published by the company devoted to spreading his teachings. CFynn is an experienced editor, and knows vastly more about Buddhism than I do. But I am an experienced generalist editor, and am quite familiar with policies and guidelines in many areas. The participation of experienced but uninvolved editors is often helpful in resolving disputes, which I am attempting to do here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I personally did not view this as a dispute. I viewed it as New Kadampa promotion.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 03:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

This is very confusing. Can you explain, for example, how including an explanation of what Dorje Shugden practitioners say that they practice and an explicit example of encouragement on how to rely on Dorje Shugden, is 'promotion'? Its completely logical to include both explanations. Any objective article that was dealing with a controversy or two different points of view would include, equally, both points of view. To not explain one side is actually promotion for the other point of view, that is the view that Dorje Shugden is a 'spirit'. I would love any clarification. Prasangika37 (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be anything self serving about the quote. It is just explaining why a massive amount of people practice Dorje Shugden practice. There can't be better material for the introduction than something like that! It is not saying people who engage in the practice are better than others, special, or free from blame or that any other claims against Dorje Shugden practitioners are false. Its just an explanation of why people would want to do it and why many people do continue to do it, even when doing so leads to harm, criticism, and being ostracized from family and community.

Regarding alleging he hasn't written the book or the book does not reflect his views, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oUhBgBuH4k Here, Geshe Kelsang explains clearly who Dorje Shugden is. He explains at the end, around 5:30, that through relying on Dorje Shugden people can receive blessings, progress along the path to Enlightenment, and so on. Prasangika37 (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi anyone involved in this talk. Would love to hear if anyone has a counter point to what has been spoken about here. I also was reading a bit on the no original content page, and there is a great point on Primary Sources: "" Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent or third-party sources. An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources.[3]"" This seems to be a perfect explanation of why we would use Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's explanation of why people practice Dorje Shugden practice, or else it makes no sense why there is even a controversy in the first place. While it isn't a secondary source, it still works in this content and adds a unique contribution.Prasangika37 (talk) 03:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Based on this research on Policy and Cullen328's points, I have included a quote from Geshe Kelsang in the article. It seems pretty clear that this is acceptable. Prasangika37 (talk) 11:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Is there an issue with Weight in comparison to other controversy articles on Wikipedia?

Should we make efforts in the introduction and in the body of the article to correct the weight to both sides of the controversy? Prasangika37 (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Based on John Carter's advice to have an RFC earlier in the Talk Page, re: Through examining four other relevant religious controversy pages on wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karmapa_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist%E2%80%93Modernist_Controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesychast_controversy it seems that this page is lacking in trying to explain via comparing and contrasting both angles on this controversy. It seems more just that it is a critcism of Dorje Shugden practice, as opposed to an explanation of the controversy, which should imply there are two sides to be explained. This seems the point of an article like this. It is less about just criticizing one side or the other, but about explaining a controversy and all the many nuances of it. Through examining all four of these controversies, which are quite good articles and can serve as precedents, even if one point of view thinks it is obviously right, there is more than adequate explanation to the other point of view. Prasangika37 (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

There is plenty of scholarly reliable secondary material on Kelsang Gyatso's view on Shugden (see the other article). However, you only want to use self-published primary material. The problem is your sourcing. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, can we please stick to the topic at hand? It would be much more beneficial in this section to talk about the issue of weight as opposed to the concern regarding which sources to use. There are plenty of other spaces in this talk page where we can discuss some additional sources. I do appreciate you directing me to other sources that can be helpful. Thank you for that. Feel free to delete or relocate your own post as to not take up space in this area, and feel free to delete mine, too, if you decide to do that.Prasangika37 (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the issue of weight, feel free to add scholarly reliable secondary material on Kelsang Gyatso's view on Shugden, which there is plenty of.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 21:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Please furnish links to the best academic sources that, in your opinion, describe Kelsang Gystso's views, VictoriaGrayson. There is nothing wrong with a brief direct quote from an authorized translation of his teachings, in my view, although secondary sources should also be used. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The best academic source on Kelsang Gyatso's views on Shugden is David Kay's Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain. I already copied some of this material from the other Dorje Shugden article.

VictoriaGrayson (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I have just examined this text. It hardly ever explains explicit reasons for practicing Dorje Shugden and essentially no quoted explanation from Geshe Kelsang for this practice. There is no offering of the benefits like those mentioned explicitly in the book "Heart Jewel" or in Geshe Kelsang's teachings elsewhere. Also, the text reads largely like a polemic and as if it is ideologically charged, which makes me surprised it is used in general in the first place. Kay almost never presents positive aspects of the NKT in this text and almost always focuses on negative aspects. Finally, would you be okay if Kay or some scholar had directly quoted the book Heart Jewel in the explanation of the practice? Prasangika37 (talk) 03:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

While I can see the reason for this RfC I do believe it to be maybe a bit premature. To my eyes it makes much more sense and is likely more neutral to say why Shugden is worshipped first rather than starting with the opposition to Shugden worship. After all people have to do this for a reason and it is worth knowing what the reasons are first. Having said that I think that there might be greater immediate priorities. The article as it stands has I think too many "(x) says" statements which can probably be removed particularly for recent historical events. Removing some of the unnecessary "(x) says" first might make sense. There are several other problems with the article. The use of the word "majority" in a section title so far as I can see is unsourced and I think really kind of irrelevant. It could be argued that Roman Catholicism which claims over 50% of the total Christian population is the "majority" of Christianity but I don't see such terms included in articles or sections about for instance Methodist or Orthodox beliefs. FWIW I am looking at the Prisoners of Shangri-La book I mentioned earlier which has some substantial content on the Shugden matter and will try to get together in userspace some useful material from it in the next few days. John Carter (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Is that book a good source? It is old (year 1998) and I don't see it referenced at all by Kay who wrote quite substantially about Shugden in 2004.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The author is a professor of Buddhist studies at the University of Michigan and the book was published by the University of Chicago in 1998. It probably isn't the best source, but the comparatively short section on Shugden might be a useful indicator of what material to that time might be covered here. And in general, the more sources we use the more likely an artice becomes for GA or higher consideration. John Carter (talk) 23:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

And there is disagreement with Lopez in this year 2005 journal article.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

If there is disagreement in the academic world, it is our obligation to indicate that, at least regarding the matters of disagreement, except in rare circumstances, like when new more accurate sources are discovered or presented since some sources were written or whatever. There is a short piece in the 2014 Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism which I am copying with a slew of other artices today, which doesn't have much in the article but what it has is probably the best indicator of current opinion. John Carter (talk) 23:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Any thoughts comparing these two different introductions? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dorje_Shugden_controversy&diff=613451852&oldid=613381050 VictoriaGrayson immediately deleted my revision here and accused me of POV pushing. Lets please interact civilly instead of calling names. Also, a certain amount of flexibility is going to be needed for us all to work together well. I think we both have a good intention here and trying to make the article as good as possible.

Does anyone else think that the proposed change seems to better function as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section ? I know its not perfect and the final paragraph re: demonstrations could use a touch up/slight fattening, but the current lead has 1. those two large paragraphs that are almost identically replicated immediately in the overview. At the very least these should be removed. 2. Has polemical words like 'cult' thrown around repeatedly, which are not words that are remotely neutral. 3. Its generally choppy. The first paragraph is good, but the following three are lacking in style and content and seem to just be haphazardly put there. Prasangika37 (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Warning Templates included

I included two warning templates. The article is heavily biased towards a Shugden proponent view that does not accord at all with scientific research and WP:RS. The article also distorts WP:RS, e.g. when misrepresenting David Kay: "Kay continues "Proponents of this view maintain that the deity has been worshipped as a Buddha ever since, and that he is now the chief guardian deity of the Gelug Tradition. Opposing this position is a view which holds that Dorje Shugden is actually a 'jig nen pa'i srung ma (a worldly protector)." Kay says that Shugden as enlightened protector is a marginal view of relatively recent origin. I think all those editors who manipulated the article again should be blocked from now on to contribute to it. If anybody removes the warning templates without having corrected the bias and the misrepresentations I will note that person on the Admin Board for vandalism. We had been on that point already, I hoped this period is over. Kt66 (talk) 11:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

HI Kt66, its great that you included the point on the disputed neutrality, because it definitely seems this is true, except in the opposite direction. I see that you feel that the view that Dorje Shugden is an Enlightened being being 'new' makes it marginal. This is like saying "Germs can be prevented by handwashing" is marginal because it is newer than the view that believed otherwise. In addition, this portrayal of 'new' is limited because the opinion that there wasn't much Dorje Shugden practice basically is from 1680 to about 1900. Then from 1900 to about now there has been much, much support. Particularly, the 'newer' proponents of Dorje Shugden are such important figures in the history of Buddhism, like Trijiang Rinpoche, Phabongka Rinpoche, and Song Rinpoche, that the weight of their consecutive support makes this a position that is not marginal at all. This is a 300 year old question, and for (at least!) 1/3 of it, these incredibly important and prominent teachers have engaged in the practice and taught it widely.

If your point just that there are not many people who believe this, we know this is not the case as Phabongka Rinpoche, Trijiang Rinpoche, and Song Rinpoche had many, many students and people who they influenced. And their students had many students. We can tell that the fact that the Dalai Lama was practicing Dorje Shugden means that this was no marginal practice. Prasangika37 (talk) 12:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

So I've added another template to the article to indicate that the article may appear to give undue attention to the opinions of individuals who have little if any direct relevance to the topic of the article. If others wish to modify the phrasing of the nature of the comments there they should feel free to do so, so long as the general nature of the complaint expressed remains unchanged. John Carter (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Prasangika37, your overview of the controversy, is clearly not the academic view of the controversy.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Kt66, that bit of Kay was added on May23rd (almost a month ago) by a user called "Jsdoijem". Shouldn't you have brought objections at that time? What do you want to do about it now?VictoriaGrayson (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Victoria, I dare say that most of those whose life does not focus on Dorje Shugden cannot watch this article on a day by day basis. AFAIK there is usually no time requirement on Wikipedia except for things like votes. Chris Fynn (talk) 14:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Prasangika37s and John Carter's mass deletion without discussion on talk page

Can someone explain Prasangika37s and John Carter's deletion of two whole paragraphs from the introduction? VictoriaGrayson (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

That is bold editing, which is part of the well-established Bold, Revert, Discuss editing cycle. Feel free to revert, if you are prepared to defend the content on policy grounds. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

(e-c) Yes by your removing a template added by me without even acknowledging the same in the edit summary you engaged in edit warring yourself. You also gave no indications in your own edit summaries of your own actions other than regarding POV pushing of a POV pusher which is both inherently obviously judgmental and of no particular use. I regret to say that there are other things beyond simply things being reliably sourced and that they include WP:WEIGHT. Now please refrain from prejudicial preemptive dismissal of the concerns of others and misleading edit summaries and perhaps rather provide reasons why you believe the material in question meets all our policies and guidelines. Thank you.

You seem to have come to the conclusion that you as an individual are free to engage in misleading edit summaries and should be allowed to engage in such edit warring. If you wish to engage in such reversions please at least indicate such in the edit summary. Also I personally agree that the article as a whole including the introduction is grossly unbalanced and would welcome actual discussion of appropriate matters such as WP:WEIGHT a topic which has been raised before but never that I can remember actually responded to significantly. John Carter (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Why would your template be necessary if the introduction was reverted? Your template was clearly for Prasangika37's new introduction. Kt66's template was still valid, hence the reason why I kept it. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

You continue to make multiple mistakes without even recognizing them in the above. Neither you nor any other individual have the right to the sort of (dare I say) arrogant, unilateral reversion of others without discussion. The purpose of such templates is to allow editors to indicate their own opinions not to allow others to on their own determine the validity of the opinions of others. Also may I suggest that you read WP:ES which indicates you are supposed to actually indicate what it is you did in your edit summary rather than use it to make judgmental statements about the actions of others which is what I saw in your edit summaries. John Carter (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I thought your template was only for Prasangika37's new introduction, since you only inserted it at that point. You did not insert it previously.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Can someone undo Pransangika37's and John Carter's mass deletion?

Can someone undo Pransangika37's and John Carter's mass deletion? There was no discussion at all on the talk page.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Lets discuss! I started the discussion in the talk about Weight above if you would like to have it there, where I was comparing the two different options and brought the three points I raised regarding the previous version. If you would like to discuss here, then please lets continue! Thank you for responding with a desire for inquiry as opposed to just reverting it, though. It is appreciated.Prasangika37 (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

You did not discuss before deleting a massive amount of reliable sourcing.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

No one is necessarily obligated to. WP:BRD is a page which you should perhps read as well. The fact that one editor in their own opinion has come to conclusions about others is not in and of itself generally seen as legitimate basis for reverting them on the basis of those opinions alone. John Carter (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)c

Okay, VictoriaGrayson. I see that you want discussion before the change, even though that has not been much of a precedent by many editors here in the past. Either way, can we discuss then? What is the issue with the change? Why is your option better than the introduction I proposed? Even if the sourcing is fine, the three points I brought up above (in the Weight RFC) are concerned with the material, the placement, and the function of the introduction in general. Prasangika37 (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Your removed a ton of academic material and atleast six sources to the point Kt66 said "The article is heavily biased towards a Shugden proponent view that does not accord at all with scientific research and WP:RS."VictoriaGrayson (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it is true but there have been comments in the past so far as I remember that that individual may not him/herself be necessarily objective. I do believe it makes sense to include at reasonable length only that content which specifically relates to the worship of Shugden directly. The fact which I don't think anyone disputes that other forms of TB do not venerate or worship Shugden is perhaps worthwhile for brief mention but probably only brief mention, much like the minimal discussion of one Christian group's practices in articles about other Christian groups. Another point worth raising is that we are not necessarily obligated to present all academic theories or scientific research at equal weight in our articles Immanuel Velikovsky was an academic and scientist, but his theories get rather little coverage in a lot of potentially relevant articles here. Also they probably meant "historical" rather than "scientific" research. Personally as someone with no dog in this fight, we are not supposed to necessarily try to present all marginally relevant opinions at equal weight anyway. Content about non-Shugden worshipping TB groups probably primarily belongs in the main Dorje Shugden article as there is no apparent "controversy" about their lack of worship of him. The controversy to the extent that it exists is within one TB group. so it should receive the bulk of attention here. To the extent academic viewsw really effect religious beliefs they should be included but I have never seen that to be a particulary important factor in most forms of worship. The section on "history of worship" would reasonably be of significant length, but the controversy over that history is probably like with several Christian restorationist groups whose views deviate significantly from the often overwhelmingly supported view in academia and it is probably less significant overall than the fact of the worship itself. John Carter (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

VictoriaGrayson, removing properly cited material doesn't mean there is a problem with the edit. That isn't a reason to undo someone's edit. It was replaced with equally scholarly sources and properly cited material. One can properly cite something that is completely out of place and it doesn't mean it is beneficial, accurate, and so on. What I removed also doesn't take anything from the page as a whole, as 2 of the paragraphs are practically replicated in the 'overview'. I made sure to leave these as they are evidently important right now in conveying an explanation of the controversy and to represent both points of view.

Instead, I inserted a more accurate overview of what the controversy has consisted of (The Dalai Lama practicing, then deciding he didn't want to, then speaking up against the practice, then demonstrations occurring). This seems like an appropriate, brief explanation that we can work with. The specific details of additional reasons why the denouncement occurs is found in the body. Does this seem reasonable?Prasangika37 (talk) 03:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Who said Kt66 isn't objective?VictoriaGrayson (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: Kt66, examining his talk page, it doesn't seem far-fetched to say his objectivity should be (at least) questioned. It doesn't mean he doesn't have valuable things to share or that he doesn't have a good intention, but that he is not free from stain based on having an extremely focused and busy user and talk page primarily focused on this topic (going as far back as 2006!). Prasangika37 (talk) 03:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@Prasangika37 Your own account only seems to back to May 6 of this year and, so far, it seems your own contributions and edits also have been primarily focused on the same topic you are saying Kt66 is primarily focused on. If you are challenging the objectivity and motivation of Kt66 then may we enquire about your own?. Chris Fynn (talk) 11:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

You may wish to review the history of User:Heicth as well. John Carter (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Happy to inquire. I am doing my best to be as objective as possible by even keeping a lot of material here that I think is highly inaccurate and not properly representing the case.. This is for the sake of offering both sides of the explanation and to try to work harmoniously with the other editors. It is of course obvious that I have a different interpretation of this controversy than others like yourself and a few others, but am trying to allow a bit of 'give and take', which I think is what we should all be trying to do. We allow things we might not personally agree with for the sake of the article, for harmony, and for trying to get the most objective explanation. And anyway, its helpful though for our talk to be productive that it is known that certain people who like to call foul (by calling names or by reporting to moderators) on people like myself or on the article (like in the example of kt66's point regarding the neutrality of the article), have a certain bias present. Therefore, its not necessarily coming from a point of view that isn't charged. Once this is understood, we can allow people who are doing a very good job at being neutral 3rd parties (e.g. John Carter, Cullen328) to weigh in and we can trust that they probably will have the most objective angle ultimately.Prasangika37 (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson After the extensive revision and re-write by John Carter, a very experienced Wikipedia editor and former administrator who has contributed to Wikipedia on a very broad range of topics, the article is clearly in much better shape than it ever has been before. It no longer full of long quotations from non-neutral primary sources inserted in attempts to push particular POVs, and instead properly relies largely on solid secondary academic sources all of which have been exceptionally well referenced by John. Chris Fynn (talk) 13:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The only thing John Carter ever added were templates at the top of the article.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@CFynn:I think you are confused on what happened here. John Carter hasn't rewrote anything in this article at any time whatsoever.Heicth (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I think I should point out that a lot of the encyclopedic content relevant to this topic will not necessarily be able to be referenced from academic sources. There are several "current events" type areas of this topic which like other current events topics will only be able to be sourced to news sources and the like. Our primary obligation is produce a good comparatively comprehensive overview of the topic and if that means we will have to use sources like the New York Times or Newsweek or the like for relevant current information we should use them. And yes even some of those sources particularly if they are written by specialist academics are still very useful to us for the material they contain. We prefer academic sources to nonacademic sources where they are available but that is a secondary concern to producing a good encyclopedic article. And a good encyclopedic article which can and in several cases does mean that we use the sources available and at the same time to not overburden the article in possible violation of WP:WEIGHT just because that material comes from academic sources. John Carter (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes I'd agree that the mainstream press, such as the NYT and Newsweek in the U.S., are good sources for "current events" areas of this topic. Chris Fynn (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

If CFynn thinks the article "is clearly in much better shape than it ever has been before" (even though he wrongly thinks John Carter is creditable for that) then we should all just leave the article the way it is. Heicth (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

JC, can you explain your template?

What specific groups have no direct relevance?VictoriaGrayson (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

First may I suggest that you perhaps try not to use section titles which can be seen as being to a degree prejudicially judgmental such as your current section heading? Also it is generally considered polite not to use abbreviated names of others unless they have indicated that they find them acceptable. In direct response to the question asked I thought I already indicated in previous comments that the existing section 2.1 "Views of the majority of Tibetan Buddhism" is entirely disproportionately covered in the article as per WP:WEIGHT. Having said that I find it all but incomprehensible that any experienced editor would consider the excessive use of quotations in the existing lede section to even remotely conform to WP:LEAD. The only way these quotations can "summarize" the content of the rest of the article would be if the rest of the article were even a more problematic quotefarm as per WP:QUOTEFARM than the lead itself. The lead section is to provide a summary of the article and as someone with some experience here I can honestly say that I cannot remember any article lede which was weighed down with as many quotations as this one. Quotations also rarely "summarize" information. John Carter (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Heicth: @VictoriaGrayson: @Kt66: Can any of you respond to this regarding the lead?? There was a request for discussion regarding the lead and the edition that was previously made and then reverted. As of now, hardly any real discussion has occurred from people who want to keep it the way it is, while many reasons have been offered as why it should be changed like those listed above, elsewhere on the page, and also my points in the RFC on Weight. (1. Biased/heavily charged use of words like cult in a lead 2. generally choppy presentation and does not flow well 3. The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th paragraphs do not really even explain the topic succinctly or very accurately as a whole). If there aren't good reasons to keep it the way it is, it would be best to make alterations. Happy to wait a little as you all have lives to address I am sure :) but after that I will take efforts to improve it. Would much prefer a little discussion on the matter instead, though! Prasangika37 (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

This was already discussed previously . You have to let it go.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 05:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

It is a bit disappointing you refuse to actually talk about this. You didn't respond to any of the points I raised or @John Carter: 's points. You desired discussion, but don't engage in it. I hope over time there will be more flexibility or the editing of this article is going to be more painful than it should be for everybody!

Actually you are the one who never addressed what I said before. I said before that you removed a ton of academic material and atleast 6 sources to the point Kt66 said "The article is heavily biased towards a Shugden proponent view that does not accord at all with scientific research and WP:RS." And CFynn also does not agree with you. CFynn said:

the article is clearly in much better shape than it ever has been before. It no longer full of long quotations from non-neutral primary sources inserted in attempts to push particular POVs, and instead properly relies largely on solid secondary academic sources all of which have been exceptionally well referenced

And CFynn indicates the problem is with "pro-Shugden groups" and their sympathizers:

This article was apparently originally created by an anonymous editor either connected with or having sympaties with pro-Shugden groups who wanted to seperate material on the Shugden Controversy, which that person seems to have considered "political", from the main Shugden article. Now it appears that some people in the same camp are not happy with the article as it stands at present since it no longer reflects their particular point of view. This proposal to move the article simply looks yo me like an attempt to change the whole focus of the article to something more palatable to thus group.

VictoriaGrayson (talk) 03:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess I should have been more clear then. Sorry for not more clearly addressing the points you raise. Regarding removing academic material and 6 sources, I am happy to leave them here (most of them are linked elsewhere, anyway), but not the two quotes in the introduciton. Would you be happy to at least remove the central two quotes from the lead as per John Carter's point ? We can rewrite to be a more objective >>history<< of the controversy as opposed to two random quotes that don't summarize things well. Thus, we can keep your sources as linked in some degree, but we will remove the quotes, based on his points.

In addition, John Carter is clearly not 'Pro-Shugden' and he is finding huge problems with this article. It seems that Cullen328 is too, to at least some degree, and he does not seem to fall in that camp. Thus, the accusation is unfounded unfortunately. It also seems that CFynn, kt66, and yourself are all 'anti-Shugden' so it seems quite inaccurate to quote any of them as neutral authorities who can accurately determine the article is fair.Prasangika37 (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@Prasangika37: I can't speak for kt66, but - though from your POV you may believe so - though I find the issue interesting, I am not 'anti-Shugden' and never have been affiliated with an organisation or group which is. What I'd like to see is this article to be based on what are widely accepted as objective sources. Although some people seem to perceive anyone interested in this as either for or against - that is not the case. Chris Fynn (talk) 07:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay @CFynn: . I am sorry for accusing you of that and I revoke the statement regarding you. The reason I came to the conclusion is because it seems like you seem to support that point of view strictly. With your hope that things are accepted as objective sources, I would also hope that you would want both sides of the controversy to be represented. That would actually be an objective way of presenting a topic like this. Also, as a self-proclaimed Tibetanologist, I would think you would trust the points of view of great masters like Trijiang Rinpoche and Phabonka Rinpoche more and not just trust scholars as objective sources. For these reasons, I came to that conclusion. I should have assumed good faith though and I apologize. Prasangika37 (talk) 12:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@Prasangika37:. It is true that a majority of academic sources do outline histories of Dorje Shugden which are closer to the ones put forward by the Dali Lama, the CTA's Dolgyal Research Committee, and so on - than to the accounts of Phabonkapa and Trijiang Rinpoche. Sure both sides should be represented - with appropriate weight - but, in an encyclopaedia article, we need also need to be concerned providing an outline of and giving most weight to what is the currently the accepted factual historical account. Whose accounts are likely to be more factual and disinterested, those of academics who have studied the mater in depth or those of the greatest proponents of the worship of this Tibetan deity? (Some would say these two figures were the main initiators of the idea that Shugden is an "enlightened protector" rather than a more mundane protector or spirit - and that their own accounts of Shugden amount to historical revisionism to tailored to suit that view.) Just because someone was a revered "great master" doesn't mean they didn't have a sectarian or political agenda. (Something I'm sure you would agree with at least in the case of the Dalai Lama.)

I have had some interest in this matter ever since about 1972 - and over that time have had the opportunity to read quite a bit about it in both English and Tibetan sources - as well as talk to quite a number of Tibetans about it (many since deceased) - among them some direct disciples of Pabongkhapa and Trijang Rinpoche. Naturally over that period I have formed some opinions on the subject and its history, but also think I have a fair knowledge of the facts and which are reliable accounts. I may have a little less knowledge about the spread of Dorje Shugden worship in the West as I have spent relatively less time there.

On Wikipedia adherents of a particular religious view quite often object to a critical historical treatment of their own belief or faith because, in their view, that discriminates against their own religious beliefs.

Chris Fynn (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Even if you assert the practice of Dorje Shugden is in minority support (and thus needs minimal space), like the opinion of a Flat Earth, for instance, please see this quote in Weight: "In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject. For instance, articles on historical views such as Flat Earth, with few or no modern proponents, may briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view to avoid misleading the reader. See fringe theories guideline and the NPOV FAQ." So even if people are trying to discredit the belief in Dorje Shugden, that is not the point of the article. It is to explain the controversy (just like the history of a flat earth). In the history of a flat earth, you wouldn't have 90% of the article criticizing the idea and 10% explaining the idea.. Even if it was the controversy itself, you would equally keep both sides.Prasangika37 (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@Cfynn: In addition, it seems you misunderstand my main point, there is no issue in having >>some<< of these scholars opinions! Please let some of them stay here, even Thurman if he is talking about what he is trained in. The actual issue at hand that I am stating is that I: "want both sides of the controversy to be represented." as it says in the previous points. The point regarding both Phabongka and Trijiang Rinpoche is that their angles should not just be taken lightly! What they think is very very important in explaining the issue and in giving proper weight. Currently the article is simply lopsided. People directly opposing recognized Lineage Guru's of the Gelugpa's is a very big deal (and essentially establishing that they are either liars, ignorant, or spirit worshippers), especially when it is their students. The opinions of two lineage holders, which the Dalai Lama historically is not (he is a political leader, as you know), is a very big deal. These opinions carry tremendous weight. That is why I am surprised you don't see the inequity in the portrayal of the controversy. Does this make sense or no?Prasangika37 (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@CFynn: I may have to revoke the revocation. CFynn it seems like you have been involved in this exact discussion since at least 1997 and are a main party in the discussion on at least this forum linked to- https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/$20Chris$20Fynn Here and at a variety of other links you are spending lots and lots and lots of time debating this point against different Kadampa Buddhists or Dorje Shugden practitioners. Would you really say you are a neutral party in this discussion? It seems a bit fishy that you have been going for almost 20 years and it seems spent countless hours specifically on this topic. Am I confused about something? Maybe thats not you or something, but it seems like the same individual?? We probably should be a bit straightforward when possible about this sort of stuff.. Prasangika37 (talk) 14:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@Prasangika37:Of course I'm the same person (easy to tell as I always use my real name and do not hide behind pseudonyms). I’ve also been heavily immersed in the study of Tibetan Buddhism for the past 45 years – but perhaps you view the study of Tibetan Buddhism as a hindrance to objectivity? Just because I’ve taken some interest in the matter of Shugden for over 20 years does that mean I’m biased? Perhaps one day your own interest in Shugden may have lasted over 20 years as well. Sure I don’t agree with the some (not all) of the views of a few lamas who are spreading the worship of Shugden in the west – and wish these lamas would follow the example of the person they call their guru Trijang Rinpoche - who never spoke out publicly after the controversy over Shugden erupted in the late 1970s at the time the Dalai Lama expressed strong disapproval of the practice; instead Trijang Rinpoche instructed his students to keep faith both in the Dalai Lama and in Dorje Shugden. Do these lamas know how to follow that advice? In my opinion this disagreement over a practice (something not uncommon in Tibetan history) has now degenerated into an unedifying hate campaign against the Dalai Lama (and one of the places this hate campaign is being prominently carried out is on the internet). Who does that benefit? It is true that at times there have also been some pretty nasty responses from over zealous supporters of the Dalai Lama – and I am appalled at that as well. Tell me, how does all this hatred and negativity accord with the teachings of the original Kadampas? Why are those who call themselves followers of Atisha trying to put the blame on someone else when he taught we should put it on ourselves?

And tell me, just what is wrong with debating with Dorje Shugden practitioners? Does spending "countless hours" debating a topic impede an unbiased view? What kind of Gelikpas are they that abjure debate? Chris Fynn (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference between debating on one website and attempting to build an encyclopaedic article on another. Familiarity with the topic is not necessarily a negative if the person involved does not try to bias our content to support their own position, or try to declare themselves, and by extension their opinions, as in some way authoritative on that basis. John Carter (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi CFynn, there's nothing wrong with debating or anything. I was trying to elucidate that perhaps you have a certain, charged point of view that you have been coming from for over 20 years and that you used to spend hours upon hours upon hours (perhaps hundreds?) debating >>against<< Dorje Shugden practice. So my only point is that you aren't necessarily objective, or at the least, are 'anti-Dorje Shugden (practice or practitioners)'. That is all was trying to demonstrate and I think your response has strengthened that observation. E.g. your distaste for the alleged 'hate campaign'. It seems you're still very charged about the issue. Prasangika37 (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Prasangika37:Kindly point me to any edits I've made to this article or any related article over the past few years that show a real bias against Dorje Shugden practitioners.
As for hate campaigns here is an example, another and another. Chris Fynn (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Following up on Kt66's comments on Kay

I agree with Kt66 that Kay is misrepresented. Kay clearly states several times this view started only with Phabongkha. For example Kay says "the elevation of Dorje Shugden’s importance and status under Phabongkha and Trijang Rinpoche". And Kay specifically says the two views are unequal: "Scholarly English language accounts of Dorje Shugden reliance seem to corroborate the latter of the two positions emerging from within the Tibetan tradition, suggesting that the status and importance of this protective deity has undergone a process of gradual elevation from around the time of Phabongkha Rinpoche."Heicth (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually at least one of the quotes I see above refers only to scholarly sources in English, and it would potentially be a very serious mistake to generalize the content of modern academic sources in all languages based on those sources avaiable in English. Also I believe I probably should remind all those who seem to be SPA POV pushers that in general for this site which is basically an encyclopedia arguably the best sources to help determine our own content are other recent highly regarded reference sources with content of roughly the same length of our own article. Like I said above, I am trying to put together some of the related articles in such sources on Word which I can then send out to anyone who asks for them by giving me an e-mail which I can reply to with the articles. I think that might help decide the content here quite a bit. John Carter (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you aware of other sources than what is listed and linked to in this section?VictoriaGrayson (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

May I ask what the presumptive relevance of that question is? I did indicate before on this page, which I apparently mistakenly assumed some people might actually read and perhaps try to understand, that I was gathering articles from recent reference books, as per my comment above regarding how other reference sources of a broadly encyclopedic nature tend to be among the better indicators of what to include in our own encyclopedic articles. Your question seems to be in regards to which secondary sources are used as references in those reference works and actually I didn't check that yet as my first priority in transcribing the text to make it available to others text generally being considered somewhat more important. Am I aware of other sources than those reference works existing? Yes, several of them in fact, including the articles available on JSTOR, NewsBank, ProQuest, and other databanks. I have e-mailed myself copies of most of them already but haven't yet gone through them all. Some of the material they contain may be relevant but in general although this isn't exactly stated absolutely in our policies and guidelines the best indicators of how much weight to give which content is the more recent, highly regarded reference books because they contain summaries of the topics, much like our own encyclopedic articles here are supposed to. John Carter (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, everyone. Back in the day when I edited these articles, I collected about 15 scholarly books, chapters, and articles on the subject. I scanned them into PDF format, with searchable text. Copyright issues aside, if anyone would like them or is having trouble verifying something, etc., just email me at emptymountains at yahoo. Happy editing! Emptymountains (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Completely missing the point in the intro

@John Carter, EdJohnston, VictoriaGrayson, and Prasangika37: The Dorje Shugden controversy flared up when the Dalai Lama banned the practice of Dorje Shugden in March 1996. I.e. at this point it became 'controversial' to engage in this mainstream Buddhist practice. As a result of this ban, Shugden practitioners have been ostracized from their societies, denied access to medical treatment and grocery stores, and Tibetans have been forced to sign oaths not to spiritually or materially associate with Shugden practitioners (thereby dividing communities). Many Shugden practitioners in the Tibetan exile community in India live in a religious apartheid created by the Dalai Lama. These facts lie at the heart of the controversy and they are notably absent from the introduction. The history and the exact nature of what most people consider an obscure Tibetan deity are less relevant to this article since it is about the 'controversy'.

Another integral part of the controversy is that hundreds of Western and Tibetan Buddhists are now taking part in peaceful demonstrations against the Dalai Lama's ban on the practice of Dorje Shugden. These demonstrations have become an omnipresent part of the Dalai Lama's public life and consist of continuous chanting of 'False Dalai Lama, Stop Lying' and 'False Dalai Lama, Give Religious Freedom'. Protesting against the Dalai Lama's ban in this way is of course controversial.

Without mentioning the Dalai Lama's ban of the practice of Dorje Shugden, the suffering caused by the ban, and the demonstrations (which have been widely reported), this article sadly misses the point.

Anyone who has the slightest knowledge of this subject will immediately see that this article has the most outrageous negative spin at the moment with far too much weight being given to the anti-Shugden view. I would ask the anti-Shugden editors to allow some neutrality back into this article because at the moment this article is a joke. Kjangdom (talk) 01:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

You say that the Dalai Lama "banned" the practice, yet he denies that and experts say he lacks that power. The article should be built on what independent reliable sources say about the matter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we need to be a careful about pretending that there is no ban when there blatantly is! I have a vague memory of reading a Wikipedia guideline saying that one should not add doubt to something that is simply a fact (could some point this guideline out to me, if you know what I'm talking about). Kjangdom (talk) 12:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Culen328 - regarding your point about about using independent, reliable sources, perhaps you would like to join the debate on the neutrality of Thurman sources also on this talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dorje_Shugden_controversy#Neutrality_of_Thurman_sources Kjangdom (talk) 12:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

As a Jew, I find your Holocaust comparison deeply offensive Kjangdom, as there are no extermination camps set up with the goal of murdering all Shugden worshippers. I urge you to redact that comment, and provide reliable, independent sources describing the alleged "ban". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Redacted! Very sorry for the offence. That's genuinely not what I want to be doing on Wikipedia - offending people (be it intentionally or unintentionally). For what it's worth, my point was simply that experts' opinions cannot always be trusted, e.g. that there wasn't a holocaust. Perhaps it would have been less controversial if I had made the comparison that we shouldn't trust 'experts' who claim the world is flat. Kjangdom (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The DL can't really "ban" worship of any sort any more than the Pope can. The similar strong discouragement of many Christian groups to their ministers becoming Freemasons comes to mind. But the DL can like those Christian groups indicate that he (or they) believe Shugden worship is inconsistent with their views of religion and even prevent such worship in locations over which he has influence much like the Pope can. Granted the article can and should include all significant views and claims possibly/probably including that one and the statement of the Dge lugs leader regarding Shugden worship. But we should give more weight to the hard facts than the sometimes contentious interpretation of them. John Carter (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The Dalai Lama does say there is a ban and that it needs to be enforced, but he tends to do it only in Tibetan - see video evidence here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqsrHiSa7Zc Beeflin (talk) 21:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

A Tibetan speaking friend of mine has told me that the Tibetan words mostly commonly used to describe the ban are bkag.sdom.byed.pa and its synonym dam.bskrags.byed.pa meaning “ban,” “prohibition,” “restriction,” “restraint;” New Light English-Tibetan Dictionary compiled by T.G. Dongthog, Library of Tibetan Works and Archives (LTWA), Dharamsala, 1985, Second Edition, p. 31, p. 352, p. 383, p. 382; also, in Tibetan, one term is used to define the other: bkag.sdom byed.pa: gang jung byed michog pa’i dam.bsrags byed.pa, Bod Gya Tsig Zoed Chenmo (The Chinese - Tibetan Dictionary), People’s Publishing House, Beijing, Second Edition, 1996.

@CFynn: - do you speak Tibetan? If so, please share your view on this video. Kjangdom (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@Kjangdom:Yes I speak Tibetan. I actually don't have much problem with saying the Dalai Lama "banned the practice" - though perhaps "prohibited his followers from practising" would be more accurate. Although the Dali Lama can't legally enforce a ban or prohibition what he says amounts to an effective ban in monasteries receiving support from the Tibetan administration in India (principally Sera, Drepung and Ganden). Monasteries may also make their own regulations governing the conduct of inmates and what is, or is not, an acceptable practice for those who live there. The Dalai Lama saying that a practice harms his life would also result in those who publicly continue the practice being ostracised by many in the majority of the Tibetan community who are very devoted to the Dalai Lama. Of course this doesn't necessarily prevent Shugden devotees establishing their own monasteries and temples (which some have done), nor people practising privately. However I'm sure life would be difficult for many that do. So, in many ways, it I'd say it amounts to an effective ban. Chris Fynn (talk) 10:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

In a Resolution about this 'issue' published on the Dalai Lama's own website it says

"7. Together with documents pertaining to this ban on the worship of Dholgyal, this Congress will urge each and every spiritual master, including geshes, that in the interest of the health of the Dalai Lama and Tibetan Independence, they should stop worshipping Dholgyal;"

Check it out - point 7 (of 9). http://www.dalailama.com/messages/dolgyal-shugden/tyc-resolution Kjangdom (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

"In March 1996, His Holiness strongly advised his followers not to rely on the Dharmapala Dorje Shugden because, according to the prophecies of his oracles, Dorje Shugden harms the institution of Dalai Lama, his life, his government, and the cause of Tibet. Immediately government offices promulgated this advice, stated in no uncertain terms by the Dalai Lama, and turned it into a full-fledged ban"

This quote comes from the following article: Condemned to Silence: A Tibetan Identity Crisis 1996-1999 by Ursula Bernis, p. 11, http://www.shugdensociety.info/pdfs/BernisResearch.pdf Kjangdom (talk) 22:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The following quotes come from the article 'Charting the Shugden Interdiction in the Western Himalaya' by Martin Mills (2003). The title of this article in itself is quite revealing: Interdict = To prohibit or place under an ecclesiastical or legal sanction. Please email me if you want me to send you this article.

"Over the next two years following the 1996 declaration, the consequences – direct and indirect – of the Dalai Lama’s interdiction would reverberate all round the world, as worshippers of Dorje Shugden smarted from the implications of the edict." (p252-253)

"However, the overwhelming view at this time was that, if the people of the region were forced to decide between their links to the Dalai Lama and their links to Dorje Shugden, there was little in it: one always chose the lama over the deity, especially when it was the Dalai Lama. This, however, was a decision that Ladakhis did not want to have to make. In this sense, particularly in the period between 1996-7, there was a strong hope by many that ‘the ban would not come here’. (p261)

"Firstly, it was becoming extremely clear that the Dalai Lama’s 1996 pronouncement immediately questioned the growing links that Ladakhi monasteries were developing with the newly resurgent Tibetan refugee monasteries and Buddhist educational institutes. These refugee monasteries were profoundly divided by the interdiction, with the deity becoming the flashpoint for already profound inter-college rivalries." (p261) Kjangdom (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

In a speech to monks at Trijang Labrang in January 1999, the Dalai Lama said:

"There will be no change in my stand. I will never revoke the ban. You are right. It will be like the Cultural Revolution. If those who do not accept the ban do not listen to my words, the situation will grow worse for them. You sit and watch. It will grow only worse for them." Kjangdom (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

In 'Representing western Buddhism: a United Kingdom focus' by Helen Waterhouse (2001), she says:

"In July 1996, Madeline Bunting, then the Religious Affairs Editor for the Guardian newspaper, wrote an article about the NKT and the threat that it was perceived to pose to the Dalai Lama's visit to the UK later that month (Bunting, 1996). This article, which made the Guardian's front page, focused on the main point of conflict between the Dalai Lama and Geshe Kelsang, which was the insistence of the latter on continuing with a Tibetan practice taught to him by his own teacher but which the Dalai Lama had banned." Kjangdom (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Kjangdom: You say this issue goes back to March 1996. In fact DS has been prominent issue amongst some lay Tibetans in India at least since the late 1970's when the Dalai Lama first started publicly speaking out in Tibetan advising against this practice. Even prior to that during the 1970's, there was a whole series of polemical books on the subject published in India by a number of different Tibetan lamas on each side of the issue and those were being widely discussed there. We could also go back to the time of the 13th Dalai Lama who was strongly opposed to and prohibited the practice - or even right back to the time of the 5th Dalai Lama when DS was also an issue. 1996 is only the date when this appeared as an issue in the UK press following public demonstrations against the Dalai Lama by western 'Shugden supporters', some dressed in Tibetan monk's attire, during his visit to London. Chris Fynn (talk) 08:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I think it's around 1996 when the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government in Exile/CTA first started discriminating against people who were Dorje Shugden practioners. For example, if you look at the website for the DL and the CTA then it's around 1996 and 1997 when the statements against Dorje Shugden pracioners start appearing and then the DL and CTA start to act against these people and monasteries. I think this is one argument for suggesting this is when the 'Dorje Shugden Controversy' starts. Cheers March22nd (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

It was clearly an issue before. However the Dalai Lama's statements against the practice increased in strength and severity over a couple of decades, so I don't think there is any one date when anyone can say "discrimination" started. Reactions against Shugden supporters certainly became much stronger when activist pro-Shugden groups were formed and they started publicly protesting the Dalai Lama's prohibition of Shugden - this upset the sensibilities of the majority of Tibetan's who are very devoted to the Dalai Lama. When, shortly after this, they saw pictures of western Shugden supporters, many in monks robes, conducting protests against their revered Dalai Lama on the streets of London - undoubtedly many Tibetans became very upset and reacted against this. So yes, I suppose sometime "around 1996" might be regarded as kind of a tipping point when the two sides became implacably, and very publicly, opposed. Of course when this sort of thing happens some people on each side blame those on the other as the main cause of problem. It is not actually clear whether the initial public protests resulted in harsh reactions and statements from the TGiE/CTA , or whether the public protests started only in reaction to restrictions by the TGiE/CTA. Chris Fynn (talk) 10:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

This is well taken, Cfynn. This is a pretty good explanation of the controversy in general. I am confused why you think the current article is a good representation of the controversy (as you said a couple weeks ago) when you explain it so simply in this way? Why does it need the excessive quotes and degrading words about Shugden practitioners? Prasangika37 (talk) 12:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Verifiable quotes indicating there is a ban

These used to be in the article's lead section. Please note that the direct quotes from the sources cited can be read by hovering your mouse over the superscript number for each reference:

A controversy arose in the late 1970s when the Fourteenth Dalai Lama started to speak out against the propitiation of Dorje Shugden, which has intensified since 1996 when he issued an "explicit ban," suppressing the practice within the Tibetan exile community.

Happy editing! Emptymountains (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

P.S. You can copy-paste from the diff here: [4] Emptymountains (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the concern here lies in the ambiguity of the word "ban". Officials can issue a ban or withdraw any sort of official sanction for certain activities, like maybe in this case using officially recognized places of worship for obvious or formal Shugden worship. John Carter (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, exactly right! Both sides are presenting a half-truth: the practice has been "banned" from Tibetan government-controlled institutions including monasteries, but it has not been "banned" in anyone's individual practice (unless, of course, they were in a monastery!). I think CFynn said it well above, that the Dalai Lama "prohibited his followers from practising." And, I think that's what Shugden practitioners are really getting it: Why would Avalokiteshvara do this? Why would he ban any sentient being from being his disciple? In any case, each side takes what the other side is doing and saying that that amounts to a 100% ban (or a zero % ban), which is kind of distorting the situation. Banning the practice institutionally but not individually is still a ban, and although not banning the practice individually but merely institutionally is also a ban. For the sake of presenting both sides of the (word) ban, I think that we could cite third-party sources such as the above to show that there appears to Western scholars to be a ban, and then replies by the Dalai Lama, Robert Thurman, etc. Let the reader decide. Emptymountains (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

So ultimately all the "sources" for a ban boil down to:

1. A self-published book Buddha's Not Smiling written by a random guy

2. Misrepresenting reference - Martin Mills says "suppression of the Shugden sectarian movement". Not practice.

3. Misrespresenting reference - Man, Monk, Mystic actually quotes the Dalai Lama as saying "However, everyone is completely free to say....we have religious freedom....we will not change our tradition of propitiating Dolgyal". pg. 194.

4. A 1996 newspaper article that is referenced by Helen Waterhouse in 2001.

5. Shugdenist made translations of the Dalai Lama's Tibetan speech.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

1) If the above sources are not adequate to establish the ban, perhaps this page would be helpful: http://www.westernshugdensociety.org/chronicle/evidence-of-the-ban/ It has actual evidence in both video and document format. (The International Press section can be ignored since it is mere opinion.) Can we refer to these items and determine whether they constitute evidence of a ban?

2) The phrase "followers of the Dalai Lama" is not specific enough to constitute a definition of the intended receivers of the ban. People who have formal lineage commitments to the Dalai Lama - who were ordained or given Tantric empowerments for their practice by him - are likely to find it appropriate for him to tell them what to practice. If on the other hand we are talking about those who do not have formal commitments to the Dalai Lama, then they should not have to take his advice as Guru. His only other official position is the recognised Head of State of Tibet before exile. Despite this, he has praised and encouraged the expulsion of monks who are not in his teaching lineage. This is the reason why many monks have the right to disagree with him. Their line of teachers may in the 20th century have been fellow students of the Dalai Lama, not his disciples. Gelugpa monks are taught to debate every Dharma point until it can be established. This is not disrespectful - it is core Gelugpa practice. The distinction between a person's lineage Gurus and other Gurus is vital in order to understand why some Gelugpa monks have protested that he is overstepping his authority, and why it is incorrect to say that the Dalai Lama is head of Tibetan Buddhism or even of the Gelugpa traditions. He would not claim that himself. Ref. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelug Can we include this distinction in our understanding?

3) Because of extreme respect for the Dalai Lama, who is considered a divine being by many Tibetans, there have been acts of intimidation, violence and vandalism in India, including the destruction of many Dorje Shugden statues not belonging to those who have destroyed them. Many of these acts have taken place on private property, not merely in monasteries. This shows that Tibetans in India regard the Dalai Lama's words as constituting a ban universally affecting all Tibetans. The Dalai Lama has not asked for such acts to cease and says they are not happening, although there is adequate evidence that they have happened and are continuing to happen. Unless he has not checked the evidence, he is condoning this wider sense of a ban.

4) Can we not start using the neologism "Shugdenist"? There is no such word and no need for it. Any translation is more or less accurate and we should always try to get the best translation. It doesn't matter who the translator is as long as they are accurate.

Beeflin (talk) 11:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson, Mills says that the CTA's "numerous denials of any kind of ban ... were in all probability simply disingenuous" (pp. 60-61). The word ban(ning) appears 10 times in that source alone. If anyone needs the PDF, just email me. Happy editing! Emptymountains (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The Tibetan term "bkag sdom" (bar, limit, prohibit, prevent) is apparently what is being translated as "ban". Look the term up for yourself here.

Re:the neologism "Shugdenist" while that term doesn't belong in the article (unless part of a quote) - I do see some worshipers of Shugden have taken to calling themselves "Shugden Buddhists".

Chris Fynn (talk) 03:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: "Ban"

Whatever kind of edicts they may issue (and whatever ayone wants to call them) the Dalai Lama, the CTA, and the Gelukpa religious hierarchy obviously have no legal authority to ban anyone or anything outside of premises, events or groups they are legally in charge of. This seems to be the basis on which Thurman and some others claim there is no ban (i.e. the DL has no legal authority to ban something so how can he/they have done so?). But on the other hand the Dalai Lama, the CTA, and the Gelukpa religious hierarchy obviously are allowed to prohibit or restrict certain things in premises they own or are in legitimate charge of. Legally it may be perfectly legitimate for them to prohibit (or "ban" if you will) certain practices on premises they are in charge of, or to prohibit membership of a religious group they are in charge of from people engaged in particular practices. Whatever you want to call them I think certain prohibitions that have been issued by the CTA and those in charge of some religious and other groups do amount to a kind of ban - but obviously such a "ban" is only applicable and enforceable within a very limited sphere.

Although the Dalai Lama obviously retains an enormous amount of influence - he probably no longer has legal control over very much at all - so it may be reasonableto argue like Thurman that he can't issue a ban. The CTA on the other hand do have control and legal authority over a lot of property and subsidiary bodies, and there are also the bodies legally in charge of monasteries like Sera, Drepung and Ganden - so, if there are bans being issued, I suppose technically they must be coming from bodies like these rather than from the Dalai Lama - and strictly they would only apply within the institutions and premises these bodies control.

Chris Fynn (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes I agree that the Dalai Lama does not control the governments of India or Britain.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Chris, for your objective comments and observations. I rarely see such intellectual honesty with regards to this issue. Emptymountains (talk) 12:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

What do you think would be the effect if he the Dalai Lama stopped 'denouncing' the practice publicly? And maybe even said it was completely acceptable and fine? We could probably assume this would all be reversed (like the decisions at Sera, etc), especially as these actions came after his formal denouncement. It seems that regardless of his specific power in these instances, the function of his verbal statements against Dorje Shugden have led to multiple restrictions.. thus leading to a de facto ban.. Prasangika37 (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

According to your definition of de facto ban, the New Kadampa Tradition has a ban going on too, since they forbid every teaching besides Kelsang Gyatso's commentaries.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Ad Hominem isn't helpful here, VictoriaGrayson. Would you mind answering the question at hand? Prasangika37 (talk) 11:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The question doesn't make sense, because Gelug monasteries are private institutions just like the New Kadampa Tradition. One can equally ask what if Kelsang Gyatso started promoting the traditional Gelug protectors.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The Dalai Lama has de facto authority, though. Thus him making a decree, or denouncement, in general was the direct cause of massive bans.. He knows his word has that authority, because people follow what he says essentially no matter what. In addition, the government said officials could not be part of the government while still practicing Dorje Shugden. That is clearly a ban, no? Finally, the Dalai Lama has asked for monasteries to ask people to leave who are practicing and said when they ask why, the Dalai Lama said tell them he said so.. Therefore, if the Dalai Lama said people could practice Dorje Shugden, do you think these things would be repealed?Prasangika37 (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Kelsang Gyatso has de facto authority over New Kadampa centers, which are private institutions just like Gelug monasteries. Therefore, if Kelsang Gyatso said people could practice the traditional Gelug protectors rather than Shugden, what would happen?VictoriaGrayson (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thierry Dodin's Interview

Hello, I am removing citations to Thierry Dodin's interview. This is just an arbitrary interview of his opinions on the matter. While he is a "Tibetanologist", these aren't verified statements made in a publication that is peer-reviewed. The website, buddhism-info.com is not a reliable source in and of itself, has a blatantly pro-Dalai Lama point of view, has a blatantly anti-Dorje Shugden point of view, and Thierry Dodin runs websites like "TibetInfoNet" and is the executive director of "the Tibet Info Network". These citations were included at some point in May when the article was not being monitored closely and should not have been looked over originally. I assume it must have just been looked over! If anyone has a point to establish how this interview is a reliable source, feel free to share! http://www.info-buddhism.com/Dorje_Shugden_Conflict_Dalai_Lama_protests_Thierry_Dodin.html is the link. Prasangika37 (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You also deleted Thurman and the Huffington Post from the same section.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@Prasangika37:Until June 14th, your own user page said, in your own words:

"Hi, I am a person who is interested in more compassion and wisdom in the world, primarily through learning how to improve my own sense of inner peace. Also, I like to help others do this! The method I use is the practice and sharing of Kadampa Buddhism.

My primary interest here is to make sure articles are balanced that deal with precious methods to help improve inner peace, and therefore outer peace, in the world."

I presume by "Kadampa Buddhism" you meant that you are a practitioner or follower of the teachings of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso - and I wonder if your stated goal to "make sure articles are balanced that deal with precious methods" actually means to make sure that this and related articles accord more with the teachings of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso - or at least clearly state his views.

Robert Thurman's close association with the Dalai Lama and with Tibet House, NYC (which openly has connections with the Dalai Lama, the CTA, &etc.) are well known and whether he is or isn't an unbiased source was discussed here quite recently. No need to go over that again.

However Thierry Dodin, is a Tibetologist who formerly taught at the University of Bonn, was the director (2002-2005) of the Tibet Information Network an independent news and research project in London, which was "was started in the late 1980s and rapidly became the leading independent provider of news on Tibet, as well as a prime source of more detailed research." [5]. Following the closure of the of the Tibet Information Network, due to lack of funds, Thierry Dodin became the director of TibetInfoNet which again claimed to be a "non-profit organisation that, as the sole truly independent organisation of its type, provides a balanced and comprehensive information service about contemporary Tibet." - Just why are you claiming that Thierry Dodin is not a reliable source and that he has with what you say is "a blatantly pro-Dalai Lama point of view"? Is it just that he does not agree with your own views as a self acknowledged follower of "Kadampa Buddhism"?

Chris Fynn (talk) 10:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Thurman, I am concerned with removing points where he is not trained as a scholar or not publishing in a scholarly context. I think unfortunately we can't do anything about the fact that he is very biased and I'll happily accept that. In addition, he is valuable enough in portraying a criticism of Dorje Shugden when he is using citations and is talking via a respectable medium (Like writing a book). Thus, when he identifies the NKT as a cult or something like that, we can be quite sure he has not received formal training in cult-identification. In addition, sorry for not mentioning editing out the Huffington Post link. It doesn't seem like this is a precedent anyway (see: the month of May and all the editing that happened then to change this page), but I'll try in general to do a good job at doing this. The Huffington Post citation was an editorial written by Thurman. That is not a Reliable Source..its clearly just a random opinion on a matter he feels emotionally charged on.

Re Dodin, one primary issue is that this interview is on a site that has 5 sections, two of which are "Dorje Shugden" and "New Kadampa Tradition", which are both entirely critical! Do you think that this website is a reliable source? It does not seem to fit the criteria. That quote about Dodin's network is a self-description, so its unreliable. His own website contains a bunch of talks from the Dalai Lama, things about Tibetan Liberation (http://www.tibet-info.net/www/-Associations-.html?lang=fr a whole page about him having connections to all things about aiding the "Tibetan Cause"), links to immolation for independence, and countless links from the CTA. Has he ever been critical of the Dalai Lama or is he only favorable? Seems to be quite one-sided.

Re: My own views, I'm not hiding anything. Happily will admit I am a practitioner of Kadampa Buddhism. I was drawn to Wikipedia by seeing articles that I thought needed masssive help. I have gotten interested in general in other articles since, but I will happily advertise my own opinion :) People can keep that in mind if they would like when reading anything I edit or post. I changed my info because I was being accused of being a sockpuppet partially based on it and didn't want to have to spend another month hasseling to get unbanned. Prasangika37 (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@Prasangika37:If you want to label someone as biased because they agree with the Dalai Lama's point of view on this issue, wouldn't it be just as fair for someone to label you (and your edits) as biased because you obviously agree with and beleive in Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's opposing views on the issue? Have you ever thought that many academics have a similar views on the nature of Dorje Shugden and on the history of Dorje Shugden, which are similar to those of the Dalai Lama, not because they simply accept whatever the Dalai Lama says, but because they have a made a lifetime study of Tibetan religious history, and have independently studied Tibetan sources and then reached similar conclusions? The majority of native Tibetan scholars and historians, even those opposed to the Dalai Lama on other issues, that have said or written anything about this also hold that Shugden is either a worldly protector, or some sort of spirit - and not an enlightened protector. Those that beleive Shugden is an enlightend protector are only a small, but quite vocal, minority.

How do you know, or how are you qualified to judge, in what areas Thurman is trained or is not trained as a scholar? Anyone wha has taken a first-year course in Religius Studies knows what the word cult means - and you seem to be making a fool if yourself when you talk about Thurman having no formal training in "cult identification". Can you point me to such a course? Anyway INFORM which does specialize in the academic study of new religius movements, and what are commonly labled by others as cults, has said something similar about the NKT - so Thurman seems to be on fairly solid ground there whichever way you choose to take the term.

Chris Fynn (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thurman is one of the leading scholars in the field, so, unless there is clear and obvious evidence of bias on his part, we can at least potentially use him, unless better sources are available. Some might be. I have access to JSTOR, which doesn't have much on this subject, but I will forward what I could get from it and some "news" databanks to anyone who gives me an e-mail—wikipedia's internal email doesn't allow attachments. Also, I, or anyone else, could ask for others at WP:RX. It may well be some of the Wikipedia Library databanks have other materials. John Carter (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

As I said, I have no issue in using Thurman sparingly. He is qualified on certain points. But see his strong opinion: (http://dalailamamatters.com/ ) http://asiasociety.org/video/sharon-salzberg-and-robert-thurman-complete 1:24-1:32 You can see that he has quite a strong opinion on this, calling this Dorje Shugden practitioner someone who was 'sent from their cult' when someone was being asked to be loved even though they're considered an enemy. In addition, the citation removed was from an editorial where Thurman asserted Dorje Shugden practitioners were part of a cult. WP:NEWSORG"Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." From WP:NPOV : "Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize." Saying things like "The cult says..." or "Thurman says that the cult.." implies its agreed upon that there is a cult, without establishing this as true based on logic, citations, etc. This is not 'nonjudgmental' language. This is his opinion, not his research. He also was removed when he said that Dorje Shugden IS demonic as opposed to, that is a certain view. Again, this seems like very judgemental language, no ? Also, where is the INFORM citation, please? I tried to find it, but I couldn't? Probably my own issue as maybe it does exist, but I couldn't succeed. Prasangika37 (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: the amount of scholars on this issue, you'll see that there are very few 'scholars' critical of Dorje Shugden practice, in reality. Thurman and Dreyfuss are two, but they are both close to the Dalai Lama (Dreyfuss received a Geshe degree and Thurman is basically best buddies with him). David Kay is this random individual who has only published the book against the New Kadampa Tradition and one other organization and has done basically nothing else,ever. His book was only reviewed by maybe two or three people and is basically the spawn of a Thesis... Bultrini is a journalist and his book is published by Tibet House, which Thurman is the president of (again, another reason to at least not singly rely on his opinion on this matter). Its a pretty one-sided crew, honestly. Dreyfus's research has serious issues which will become apparent with time, but thats for another time and day :)Prasangika37 (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Prasangika37: While you or I may not agree with them, these people have done the years of work and research required to gain a PhD. In the case of Drefyus and Thurman they both have taught about Tibetan Buddhism for years and hold prestigious academic posts. Drefyus also obtained a Geshe Lharampa degree which is considered the highest Gelukpa academic qualification - wirh much stringent requirements and far more prestigious than the more ordinary Geshe degree which Kelsang Gyatso may hold. Yes Thurman is a disciple of the Dalai Lama, and makes no bones about it. I’m not sure about Dreyfus - while I'm sure he has heard some teachings from the Dalai Lama, there is no evidence that he considers the Dalai Lama to be his main teacher. There is also no evidence whatsoever that Thurman and Drefyus are "best buddies". Bultrini is a well respected journalist in Italy and is presently the Asia correspondent for La Repubblica – and he has spent years investigating this topic. Chris Fynn (talk) 04:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC

Aren't both Dreyfus and Thurman disciples of the Dalai Lama? Emptymountains (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Thurman is, Drefyus maybe not. But does being a disciple of the Pope - which I guess all Jesuits might be considered - disqualify a Catholic academic from being onjective? Chris Fynn (talk) 04:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course we wouldn't say they are inherently subjective or biased. But, in articles that were critical of critics of the Pope (maybe about a certain Protestant group, e.g. in the Ireland dispute), you wouldnt say that just having a few Catholic points of view all of a sudden made the critics null, void, wrong, and so on. If there were more removed, respected characters being critical of the Protestants, you would want to take these opinions far more seriously. It would be apparent that the defenders of the Pope have a point of view to push and to defend. Its an issue of WP:WEIGHT as stated previously. The point is that the 'core sources' used (when it is regularly asserted that some huge quantity of unbiased academics are critical of Dorje Shugden practice) all have fishy qualities. It doesn't mean we can't utilize some of their points of view or in small portions. Prasangika37 (talk) 13:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Dreyfus and Nebesky-Wojkowitz are cited favorably in all subsequent serious Shugden academic work. They are the foundation of all serious scholarly Shugden works. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Prasangika37:Well at least you seem to realise that there are few, if any, serious academics that take a view of DS his history and place in the Gelukpa tradition that coincides with the one promulgated by Geshe Kelsang. Chris Fynn (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Dreyfus' article

I wonder if some of those here who call Dreyfus' article "The Shugden Affair: Origins of a Controversy" "biased" and "pro-Dalai Lama" have actually read that article (P1) (P2) carefully? Chris Fynn (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Dreyfus' "Shugden Affair" is cited and quoted favorably by all subsequent serious academic works on this subject. On the other hand, Ursula Bernis' "Condemned to Silence" was rejected by academic journals, and never cited by other works. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Wha' "read" mean? I only started it and am busy playing with myself assembling a truly important addition to CAT:WPLEA right now so I probably won't finish it in the next few days but the second paragraph looks very useful. John Carter (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course, CFynn. The issue with Dreyfus is two-fold: 1. that we need to take his research in context-He is a vehement supporter of the Dalai Lama and trained within Tibetan monasteries with a lot to defend. 2. His article is a collection of cherrypicking. For instance, seriously asserting" This passage clearly presents the goal of the propitiation of Shuk-den as the protection of the Ge-luk tradition through violent means, even including the killing of its enemies. " (and then tries to establish this as true..), along with giving one line to "His followers often reply that this description refers to the interpretable meaning (drang don) of the deity, not its ultimate meaning (nges don), for in such a dimension Shuk-den is said to be fully enlightened (nges don la sang rgyas). [2] It is this kind of normative distinction that I leave aside in this essay intended for a modern audience." This is a bit shocking.. He gives one single little mention of this point of view here and has one sentence saying Trijiang Rinpoche presented this point of view. There is essentially no support or adequate coverage of the 'favorable' view of Dorje Shugden, even though the point that Dorje Shugden is an Enlightened deity is one of the most important aspects of the discussion. In addition, any serious scholar of the practice who was objective would take Trijiang Rinpoche and Phabongka Rinpoche's angles as very, very important instead of just trying to defend a negative view of Dorje Shugden through cherrypicking quotes from them. Prasangika37 (talk) 11:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Dreyfus is regularly published in academic journals. Dreyfus' "Shugden Affair" is cited and quoted favorably by all subsequent serious academic works on this subject. On the other hand, Ursula Bernis' "Condemned to Silence" was rejected by academic journals, and never cited by other works.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

This isn't the question, though. I think we all know here that its a regularly used document. Chris Fynn was remarking on the bias of the article (and author), which is all that is being talked about. There is hardly any proper research on the topic, so its not surprising the Dreyfus article is regularly used.Prasangika37 (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@Prasangika37:Please don't be disingenuous. There is actually quite a lot of other proper, academic research on the subject. Just see the Further Reading: Secondary Sources section (and maybe carefully read through that material) before making such a claim. Also Drefyus is not a "vehement supporter of the Dalai Lama" - read what he writes more carefully, there is actually some subtle and diplomatically worded criticism in his article. Chris Fynn (talk)

There is maybe minor criticism, but the article is still very, very extreme in its treatment.. I am surprised you don't see that. And, if you simply look at the cited material making up this article, you'll see that a huge portion of it is just Dreyfus, Kay, Bultrini, and Thurman. If the article was made of the more neutral sources on the topic, it would be a very, very, very different article. Essentially, as I am repeating again, the critical material re: Dorje Shugden is largely amidst these four sources and they all have issues. If you don't agree that is fine as I am not sure how this is helping the development of the article.. We don't need to spin wheels. Prasangika37 (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Dreyfus, Kay, Bultrini and Thurman all are RS. Dreyfus, Kay and Thurman are scholars. See Wikipedia policy WP:VNT, which states editors "may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them." VictoriaGrayson (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Consolidation of Quote Farms and overly large sections

Hi everyone, In a desire to try to make the article more encyclopaedic and more of a summary, I am going to spend a while attempting to consolidate the various sections here(origins, Yellow Hat, 1990s-Present, arguments against the practice,and so on). If you would like to help in this effort to consolidate then feel free to join in. For example, when there are 5 Lama's listed in a row with their various points of view critical of Dorje Shugden practice, I'll simply turn it into "Several Lamas of different traditions have spoken out publicly against Dorje Shugden" with the appropriate citations. This will make the article far more readable and will get a lot of the excess fluff. Most of it is pretty unreadable to the run in the mill lay person and the flow is incredibly challenging to navigate. In addition, there is excessive undue weight in many different places.

If anyone has a problem with this, am delighted to dialogue about it. Feel free to join in the attempts too, as I would prefer to not do it myself. If you think any of the editing takes out a crucial point or something very important, then please share.Prasangika37 (talk) 11:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi everyone, have started this process. This was the last three edits I have made. Anything that was deleted was either extraneous/repetitive, consolidated, or moved. There was this strange section of Arguments for/against the practice basically as a repeat, so I just integrated it into the rest of the page. In addition, yesterday I consolidated the views against the practice page regarding all those consecutive quotes of practitioners critical of Dorje Shugden, but kept the citations. Sorry about not explaining in the edits themselves! Prasangika37 (talk) 13:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@Prasangika37:Tightening it up the article is a good idea — but remember this article is flagged as controversial. Do you think it is wise for someone closely as closely connected to the subject as you are to make such changes without consensus? Perhaps it would be better to ask an experienced editor unconnected to the subject to do the job. Otherwise you could copy the article to a sandbox page, make the changes you want there, and then ask for feedback. Chris Fynn (talk)

It would be great to have someone like John Carter, Cullen, or another experienced editor to do the work. If not, then I think we're going to have to do our best. I might test out sandboxing, but because of the alternate opinions here are so extreme , it will be hard to just wait for consensus each time. It might be better to boldly edit, allow it to be reversed if its inappropriate, and have a little discussion. A lot that I am interested in fixing is stuff Heicth or kt66 put into the article between March and May, particularly in May, when there weren't editors to keep a keen eye on editing activities. What I can say is I'll try to not do anything too controversial edit-wise, and if I think it might be, I'll ask for opinions first. If someone feels something is too controversial that I edit, I really have no problem with someone mentioning it for further discussion, or even reverting if they think its so egregious.. as long as they're willing to explain or discuss! :) Prasangika37 (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia policy WP:VNT, which states editors "may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them." VictoriaGrayson (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi VictoriaGrayson. It seems you may have missed out on the rest of that section. " The phrase "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" meant that verifiability is a necessary condition (a minimum requirement) for the inclusion of material, though it is not a sufficient condition (it may not be enough). Sources must also be appropriate, and must be used carefully, and must be balanced relative to other sources per Wikipedia's policy on due and undue weight.Wikipedia's articles are intended as intelligent summaries and reflections of current published debate within the relevant fields, an overview of the relevant literature. The Verifiability policy is related to another core content policy, Neutral point of view, which holds that we include all significant views on a subject. Citing reliable sources for any material challenged or likely to be challenged gives readers the chance to check for themselves that the most appropriate sources have been used, and used well (see below). " This is the issue at hand..one of Weight, a bit of general readability, and of course the sort of QuoteFarm stuff going on. Please see my point regarding similar articles raised above, like the point re: Flat Earth Debate, etc etc. I never got responses to this and this is a core aspect of this discussion, so it would be great to here from you and CFynn there. Thanks! Prasangika37 (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Removing citations to good quality academic sources, because you don't agree with them, is objectionable. Repeatedly disputing the reliability of good sources or deleting the cited additions if others, particularly when those citations were to good quality sources, is likely to be considered tendentious editing. If you think someone like Robert Thurman is closely linked to the Dalai Lama, then perhaps where the first quote from or reference to something he has written occurs instead of saying "Robert Thurman claims" you could put something like "Robert Thurman, a close associate of the Dalai Lama, claims" (of course with that statement you'd need to provide a reliable reference that shows that he is a close associate of the Dalai Lama —which shouldn't be too difficult). Similarly for a quote from Geshe Kelsang we might say something like "Geshe Kelsang, a leading proponent of Shugden worship, claims". Remember this is an article on a controversial topic, which has long been flagged as a controversial article and ,since you said earlier that you are a practitioner of "Kadampa Buddhism", you might easily be viewed as having a conflict of interest when editing this article. Generally the advice is for editors to avoid, or at least to exercise great caution, when editing articles on subjects which they are closely involved with. Also, please remember that Wikipedia articles are intended to be intelligent summaries of current published debate within the relevant fields, or an overview of the relevant academic literature on the subject. The article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. There is also no need to directly quote primary sources when the views of the people or groups concerned are available in good secondary sources. If you want to request input or review of this article by experienced, independent editors you can always request a third opinion or start a request for comments. Neutral editors aware of the dispute will try to help build a consensus about the dispute. If these methods fail, you could then seek informal or even formal dispute resolution. Chris Fynn (talk) 12:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with CFynn.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems like all those desired activities are being engaged in. Regarding this activity of editing, the goal is to simply to consolidate or remove obviously unnecessary things. You seemed to be happy with that as a goal. I'll make sure to do my best to be fair and reasonable about it, and as I said, feel free to revert if there is an issue or bring it up here. Or maybe, take some efforts consolidating? I am happy to continue editing though, but if neutral editors come in then I would love to have them join in! It would be much appreciated. You can call for an RFC too if you feel it would be helpful. As you might know, John Carter,>> a neutral editor<<, observed egregious behavior by the editors that were here previously, and most activity I have spent my time engaging in was to reverse this poor representation of the debate based on your qualifications of a good article. Any removing or changing was not done just because of disagreeing, but based on logical reasons (a desire for the debate to be well balanced [see my points regarding similar articles, which got zero replies] or removing sources that have problems). Changing the article when there are issues with weight is not tendentious editing. If you would like to give an example maybe we can discuss further, as I have repeatedly invited you to do instead of just making accusations. The article still is so riddled with problems, though. Hope this sounds good! Prasangika37 (talk) 12:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Chinese Involvement?

"have their people in all Tibetan settlements. We are worried about their sources of funding. It might be China or some other anti-Tibetan elements." Is one of the sources regarding the citation for Chinese involvement in the Dorje Shugden Controversy. This speculation is not a suitable resource. In addition, Robert Thurman's personal speculation is not a reliable source, so it has been removed (1. from his editorial and 2. his introduction to the book that his own publishing company produced). Does anyone contest that Robert Thurman's opinion that Chinese people are funding demonstrations or this quote are reliable sources? If so, revert and comment here.. He doesn't back up these statements with facts... so it just seems like an opinion.I can't see how we could think that this is suitable for this article. If we find actual facts of money being donated to support protests then maybe we can just cite them? Otherwise its a mere conspiracy theory. Prasangika37 (talk) 13:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thurman is a reliable source. Wikipedia is not about truth, only verifiability. See WP:VNT.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I see some Pro-Shugden sites mention that the Western Shugden Society received a Human Rights award from an official organisation in China. Perhaps this should be mentioned. While this does not constitute hard evidence of Chinese involvement, I'd say it is at least evidence of Chinese interest. Chris Fynn (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

VictoriaGrayson, you seem to be repeatedly misunderstanding Wikipedia policy. I am not sure what to do about this? Should I request artibration? A reliable source does not mean someone always is right about something or that their point is always appropriate in an article! There is 0% proof, no money, or examples, of how this is the case. The article presents that there is a >>fact<< that there is Chinese Involvement and quotes Thurman. At no point does he say there is a fact and demonstrates how this is the case. He is playing detective, but has nothing to substantiate claims. Maybe CFynn's point can be included, but saying that this is a reliable connection (Thurman says so, so therefore there is) is outlandish. The line that there are at least some people who have received support is fine, but not that it is some bizarre Chinese conspiracy to undermine the Dalai Lama.Prasangika37 (talk) 11:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Current Intro has original research and nonreliable sources

I propose an intro more like the following:

The Dorje Shugden controversy is a controversy over Dorje Shugden's ontological status, aberrations from traditional Gelug teachings, sectarian functions and promotion by western adherents. Shugden, also known as Dolgyal, is an entity associated with the Gelug school, the newest of the schools of Tibetan Buddhism headed by the Dalai Lamas. Shugden is variously looked upon as a gyalpo, a mundane minor protector, a mundane major protector, a fully enlightened major protector whose outward appearance is that of a gyalpo or a fully enlightened major protector whose outward appearance is enlightened.

The differing views are a result of a series of upgrades to Shugden's ontological status starting primarily with Pabongkha in the 1930's. Pabongkha viewed Shugden as a major protector who replaces the traditional Gelug protectors. Pabongkha also viewed Shugden as a violent protector who is employed against the other schools, with Shugden being a key element in his persecution of the Rimé movement. Shugden thus generated controversy in all schools of Tibetan Buddhism including the Gelug school itself.

Since the 1990's the New Kadampa Tradition, a mostly British or European organization, has been trying to advocate Kelsang Gyatso's theological views of Shugden.

VictoriaGrayson (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Partly agreed:

The Dorje Shugden controversy is a conflict within the Tibetan Buddhist community over the worship and status of the deity Dorje Shugden. The controversy has its origins in the 1930's, when Pabongkha started to promote Shugden as a major protector who replaces the traditional Gelug protectors. Dorje Shugden was a key element in Pabongkha's persecution of the Rimé movement.

Dorje Shugden is believed to protect the Gelugpa school, by harming any Gelupga practitioner who blends his practice with non-Gelugpa practices. This belief is at odds with the role of the Dalai Lama, who represents all Tibetan Buddhist schools, and also teaches practices from these other schools. In 1978 the Dalai Lama started to speak out against the practice of Dorje Shugden. Since the 1990's the New Kadampa Tradition, a mostly British or European organization, has been trying to advocate Kelsang Gyatso's theological views of Dorje Shugden, and protested worldwide against the Dalai Lama's stance.

Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes okay. Although I would replace "the Tibetan Buddhist community" with simply Tibetan Buddhism.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 05:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Shall we wait a couple of days for responses? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Amendment:

"The Dorje Shugden controversy is a conflict within the Tibetan Buddhist community over the primacy of the Gelupgpa, centering on the worship and status of the deity Dorje Shugden."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

There are big problems in the intro. As I stated below, asserting that Dorje Shugden's function is to harm Gelugpa's who mix with other traditions is inaccuarte. Maybe this can be one assertion, but its not the main function asserted by present practitioners of Dorje Shugden. In order to properly represent the controversy, we should include this in some sense: Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, a primary proponent of the practice of relying on Dorje Shugden, explains his view of Dorje Shugden: "Dorje Shugden always helps, guides, and protects pure and faithful practitioners by granting blessings, increasing their wisdom, fulfilling their wishes, and bestowing success on all their virtuous activities. Dorje Shugden does not help only Gelugpas; because he is a Buddha he helps all living beings, including non-Buddhists." (source: Gyatso, Geshe Kelsang. "Heart Jewel". Tharpa Publications. Page 118) It is very confusing that one group of people are accusing Dorje Shugden as harming Gelugpas or causing sectarianism, when a primary representative of this practice explains what Dorje Shugden's function is publicly... Its pretty evident there is an issue here, no? Prasangika37 (talk) 13:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Further Reading section

@Joshua Jonathan: Since Wikipedia gives precedence to secondary (academic) sources over primary sources I'm going to undo the change you made which placed primary before secondary in this section. Chris Fynn (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Citations currently a big mess

Hey everyone. We now have a "Notes" section, a "References Section" a "Web-sources" section and a "Printed sources" section all containing citations. IMO This fragmentation is a real mess, Without changing any of the body text or removing any of the quotes in currently in the Notes I'm going to attempt to consolidate and rationalize these things a bit. As this is quite complex please respect the {{In use}} template and refrain from editing the article to avoid edit conflicts while I do this. After that make any other changes you want. Chris Fynn (talk) 07:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd like you to wait this reorganisation; I was already working on it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan:Well I've started now. You should have used the {{In use}} template like I did - otherwise how am I to know you were actively editing? So, please respect the notice while it is there. You can do what ever you want once I'm finished. Chris Fynn (talk) 09:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

"Well I've started now" - Now you know that I'm working on it, as you can see from the recent history, so I suggest you wait 'till I am finished. See WP:ORDER for the order of appendices. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

And please participate in the discussion on the lead, instead of altering it again. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, go ahead, integrate the separate printed sources and the web-sources back into the article. But I'd really like to keep the notes separate; it's such a huge amount of text. And I guess the "further reading" list could be shortened, but I know close to nothing about the topic, so that's up to you and Vic. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

By the way, what's your opinion about my re-ordering? VictoriaGrayson approves with it. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Update: I've started to try and consolidate the References a little - so now we have only Notes and References. I think wherever possible best to just use the {{sfn}} template for the references and point to the relevant item in "Main sources". Also I think it is best to avoid named references on such a changing article as if the first named reference in a series gets deleted then the rest in the series get broken. Removed the {{In use}} template for now. Chris Fynn (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Rationale of New Kadampa Tradition and Kelsang Gyatso

What are the reasons for the New Kadampa Tradition and Kelsang Gyatso to protest against the Dalai Lama? Not only the obvious reasons, but also the deeper-rooted reasons? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The Thierry Dodin interview seems to give an answer. It almost looks like Buddhists are just ordinary human beings, like all of us... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, Dodin says so too... "human beings are and always will be human beings." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

But what of the many of the non-Tibetans who have got themselves involved in this who are not part of any Tibetan "old boys" network? It seems to me that converts to any belief system are often particularly zealous. IMO a convert trying to convince others of their own belief (and vigorously contesting opposing beliefs) is basically just trying to seek a kind of confirmation that they are right - and yes, that's only human. Chris Fynn (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

What Dondin alludes to in the interview Jonathan links to above is probably just about right on the button. For 400 years there have always been rivalries within the Gelugpa tradition. And if anyone believes that any important lama within that tradition is beyond politics they are either deluded, very naive, completely uninformed, or just plain stupid. One of the primary roles and duties of any lama at the head of an institution or lineage is to uphold and increase the influence and spread of the particular lineage he belongs to. And by lineage I don't mean a particular sect but rather the individual teaching lineage of the monastery or monastic college he belongs to. In the case of tulkus believed to be the re-incarnation of a previous lama, or series of lamas, then they are first expected to uphold the teachings of their predecessors and secondly any other teaching or transmission lines they may have received in their current lifetime. A lama using politics to uphold and increase the influence and spread of their particular lineage is, in the Tibetan view, just employing skilful means (upaya) - and many would probably consider them amiss if they didn't use such means. Along with this, if anyone has studied anything about the history of the whole area. then they will know that the rulers of China have always played one faction of the Gelugpa tradition against another in order to control Tibetan, Mongur, Mongol and several other ethnic groups in what they regard as their Empire. Along with using what they called the "Yellow Sect" to control those groups and rival religious sects the rulers of China over the past 400 years have always also tried to use the conservative ("purist") elements of the Gelugpa sect (currently represented by followers of Shugden and Phabongkha's teachings) as a counterbalance to the power and influence the Dalai Lamas held over those groups who, they were always worried would break out of their control. And, in view of that history, it would be very surprising if the current Chinese government were not deeply involved behind the scenes in the current Shugden controversy. If they aren't involved then they are going completely against centuries of Chinese history and thinking. I'm sorry if this seems a little off topic — but I think anyone editing, and seriously wanting to improve, this article should have a critical, realistic and well informed view of the whole issue and what it represents, rather than simply taking what lamas and their loyal disciples on either side of the controversy say at face value. Chris Fynn (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

JJ, no one understands the reason why NKT people do the protests. Best guess is advertising their organization, which one reference says. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The demonstrations immediately started in 1996 after the ban that occurred in Dharamsala. Until that point, no demonstrations. In 2008, they restarted as a result of increased restrictions and aggressive behavior, and the same in 2014. It seems very clear that this is the rationale. This is what is stated publicly and this has been in accordance with the protests. It seems very linear. I guess as a secondary reason, the Dalai Lama, by asserting that this practice is spirit worship, and so on, is establishing that his teacher Trijiang Rinpoche, a primary Guru within the tradition, and his teacher Phabongka Rinpoche are spirit worshippers. This implies that they rely on worldly Gods and break their refuge commitment. In addition, it puts into question anything else they present as factual as they were essentially worshipping a spirit all along! You can see how its quite a serious allegation! And one that, when looked at critically, makes one question: who is right, the Dalai Lama or these two revered Lineage Gurus? Prasangika37 (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

New opening sentence, and sources

Hi VictoriaGrayson. Thanks for all your hard work on trying to improve the article. But one thing I'm not so sure about is what the new first sentence says. Does the source you cite fairly reflect the balance of current academic thinking, or is it mainly the view of Mills and Dondin? If so, perhaps it belongs further down in the article (along with any differing views on this that come from other quality sources) and not right at the top.

Personally, I think just a bare bones outline of the controversy in a few brief sentences that no one can find argument with is better goal for an opening summary - otherwise it will get someone or another's back up and continue to be changed over and over again. All the details, and the differing views from various good and reliable sources can be put further down in the article.

Anyway in other places Dondin and several other good sources say that the controversy is primarily between different factions within the Gelug Tradition — or conservative and more ecumenical lines of Gelug teaching transmission. Beyond one or two notable individuals, I think you'll find there is little real evidence for the involvement of other schools as such in the present day Shugden controversy. (Anyway some of them have their own internal controversies (e.g. the Karmapa controversy) to worry about.) Of course because of the position of the Dalai Lama the current Shugden controversy is also a Tibetan political power struggle as well - and that aspect will involve some Tibetans who are not Gelugpa.

I think the most valuable and insightful views on Shugden and the related controversy come from those scholars that have a good knowledge of both Sino-Tibetan History (particularly over the past 400 years), and Tibetan Religious Studies, as well as a good knowledge of the Tibetan language so they are in a position to critically evaluate all the relevant material - not just those available in English. While someone like Kay may have a good handle on the NKT and the UK aspect of the controversy (maybe better than that of many Tibetologists) when it came to evaluating the history and ontological status of Shugden - he probably just had to rely just on what was available to him in English at the time he wrote his book, so he may not be quite as well informed a source on those aspects. Chris Fynn (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

How about this @CFynn::

The Dorje Shugden controversy is a controversy over Dorje Shugden's ontological status, aberrations from traditional Gelug teachings, sectarian functions and promotion by western adherents. Shugden, also known as Dolgyal, is an entity associated with the Gelug school, the newest of the schools of Tibetan Buddhism headed by the Dalai Lamas. Shugden is variously looked upon as a gyalpo, a mundane minor protector, a mundane major protector, a fully enlightened major protector whose outward appearance is that of a gyalpo or a fully enlightened major protector whose outward appearance is enlightened.

The differing views are a result of a series of upgrades to Shugden's ontological status starting primarily with Pabongkha in the 1930's. Pabongkha viewed Shugden as a major protector who replaces the traditional Gelug protectors. Pabongkha also viewed Shugden as a violent protector who is employed against the other schools, with Shugden being a key element in his persecution of the Rimé movement. Shugden thus generated controversy in all schools of Tibetan Buddhism including the Gelug school itself.

Since the 1990's the New Kadampa Tradition, a mostly British or European organization, has been trying to advocate Kelsang Gyatso's theological views of Shugden.

VictoriaGrayson (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: My objection would be that I think you are simply trying to cram far too much into an opening section which should be an easily digestible summary. All that is going to overwhelm the ordinary reader. And there are a whole bunch of things in that some people will feel they need to take issue with so then they will feel compelled to make changes, further additions, add caveats, etc. & etc. - and in response to those edits someone else will do the same. So then it will end up in just as much as a mess as it ever was before. So my advice would just be to keep the opening very simple. It is 2 am where I am so I do need to sleep - but,after work tomorrow, I will try to put together an alternative along those lines and then you can see what you think. Just one more thing to consider: Ever since this article was created years ago it has been almost continuously edited but nearly always had the same kinds of problems. So even if it is possible, I think those who choose to be involved in editing this article are not going to be able to even come close to solving this and producing a reasonably good, reasonably stable article in a hurry. To accomplish this I think we probably all need to get out of the endless cycle (samsara?) this article has been enmeshed in for years. RegardsChris Fynn (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

How about this @CFynn::

The Dorje Shugden controversy is a controversy over the Gelug protector Dorje Shugden's ontological status, replacement of the traditional Gelug protectors, sectarian functions and promotion by western adherents.

VictoriaGrayson (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson:Good. Before I saw that, I was thinking of something like this:

The Dorje Shugden controversy is a controversy which has divided followers of the Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism. Dorje Shugden first started being worshipped or propitiated in the 17th Century as protector deity which some now consider to be an enlightened figure promoting the teachings of the Gelug school and protecting its purity, while others consider it to be a harmful spirit inimical to religious plurality within the Tibetan tradition, the unity of the Tibetan people, and to the institution and person of the Dalai Lama. Since 19__, when the Dalai Lama started speaking out in public against Shugden worship, a dispute has arisen which has become widely known as the "Dorje Shugden controversy".

See: article Dorje Shugden for the history of the practice and the differing views of the ontological status of this deity. The present article is intended mainly to cover the controversy since 19__.

Chris Fynn (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hallo both of you. Vic, your intro is much too complicated. And Chris, your proposal misses what the controversy is about. For most readers, "Tibetan Buddhism" would be enough. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

JJ how is this intro complicated? Its only 1 sentence. You might have missed the second proposed introduction here:

The Dorje Shugden controversy is a controversy over the Gelug protector Dorje Shugden's ontological status, replacement of the traditional Gelug protectors, sectarian functions and promotion by western adherents.

VictoriaGrayson (talk) 04:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Here comes the 17-year old High School kid again: "What's Gelug, what's a protector, ontologo-what, replacement, sectarian, promotion" - this kid is off at "ontological". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Its less complicated than Hinduism or many other articles. Okay JJ how about this:

The Dorje Shugden controversy is a controversy over the Gelug protector Dorje Shugden's enlightened nature, replacement of the traditional Gelug protectors, sectarian functions and promotion by western adherents.

VictoriaGrayson (talk) 04:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Still too long, I think, and missing "Tibetan Buddhism". I'd rather state

"The Dorje Shugden controversy is a conflict within Tibetan Buddhism between orthodox and liberal factions of the Gelupgpa school of Tibetan Buddhism, centering on the worship and status of the deity Dorje Shugden."

Also, I'd like to change the following:

"In 1978 the Dalai Lama started to speak out against the practice of Dorje Shugden.[4] Since the 1990's the New Kadampa Tradition, a mostly British or European organization, has been trying to advocate Kelsang Gyatso's theological views of Dorje Shugden, and protested worldwide against the Dalai Lama's stance."

into

"In 1978 the Dalai Lama started to speak out against the practice of Dorje Shugden, and in the 1990s asked Dorje Shugden-adepts to refrain from attending his initiations. In response, the New Kadampa Tradition headed by Kelsang Gyatso, has protested worldwide against the Dalai Lama's stance."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

This seems like a decent addition. It should be clearly though, that the "New Kadampa Tradition" isn't protesting. There are Tibetans in the demonstrations and the demonstrations are led by the Western Shugden Society. The New Kadampa Tradition has never taken responsibility for these demonstrations. Also, "mostly British or European" is original research. There are over 150 Kadampa centers outside of the UK, and probably around 80 outside of Euroupe+UK. http://kadampa.org/en/map/

Also regarding the proposition earlier, of

"The Dorje Shugden controversy is a controversy which has divided followers of the Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism. Dorje Shugden first started being worshipped or propitiated in the 17th Century as protector deity which some now consider to be an enlightened figure promoting the teachings of the Gelug school and protecting its purity, while others consider it to be a harmful spirit inimical to religious plurality within the Tibetan tradition, the unity of the Tibetan people, and to the institution and person of the Dalai Lama."

this seems very, very reasonable. Can someone include both sides of the controversy like this?

Prasangika37 (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Awkward sentence for the lead; it's not a summary, it's a start of the argument. And you need sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

And by the way, I agree with Vic's revert (and mine). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC

JJ,Robert Barnett of Columbia university says the protests are to "provoke misinformed publicity for their sect". Thus I don't believe the protests have anything to do with the Dalai Lama. Indeed Barnett says the protests are used "opportunistically". Ok CFynn and JJ, how about this:

The Dorje Shugden controversy is a controversy over the protector Dorje Shugden of the Gelug school, the newest of the schools of Tibetan Buddhism headed by the Dalai Lamas. It comprises Shugden's status of enlightenment, replacement of traditional Gelug protectors, sectarian functions and promotion by western adherents.

VictoriaGrayson (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Still too much that's not clear to an outsider, I think. How about this:

"The Dorje Shugden controversy is a conflict within Tibetan Buddhism over the protector Dorje Shugden of the Gelug school, the newest of the schools of Tibetan Buddhism headed by the Dalai Lamas. While centering on the worship and status of the deity Dorje Shugden, the real focus is [the modernisation of Tibetan Buddhism, and the influence and power of various factions within Tibetan Buddhism.]"

Brackets, because this could be formulated differently, but is a key issue, I think. By the way, I'll be off for holidays todaymorrow, so behave yourselves ;) Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Dreyfus 2005 disagrees with you. Dreyfus 2005 says:

I disagree with Lopez’s interpretation of the Shukden affair as an opposition between clan-based and modernist interpretations of the tradition.

VictoriaGrayson (talk) 06:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Therefor the brackets. Let's see:

"The Dorje Shugden controversy is a conflict within Tibetan Buddhism over the protector Dorje Shugden of the Gelug school, the newest of the schools of Tibetan Buddhism headed by the Dalai Lamas. While centering on the worship and status of the deity Dorje Shugden, the real focus is [the influence and power of various factions and lineages within Tibetan Buddhism.]"

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Again that's incorrect.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Scope of the article & eventual merger with "Dorje Shugden"?

A question about the scope of this article — Is this article about the controversy that became public, maybe since the late 1970's, but especially since the 1990's after a pro-Shugden group staged a demo in London which received high profile media coverage - and has gone on ever since then? Or, should it also cover the controversy which goes back at least to the time of the 13th Dali Lama and Phabongkha - maybe even back to the 17th Century?

If the former, I think most of the the earlier history can just be sketched out in just a couple of paragraphs here for background; with the details of that going into the Dorje Shugden article. If we are also going to cover the controversy which has gone on since the time of the 13th Dalai Lama, or even earlier, then I think it would be better to simply merge everything into a single article - otherwise there will inevitably be too much redundant overlap.

Essentially, what I'm asking is, for the purpose of this article, what do we precisely mean by "the Dorje Shugden Contrversy" and just what is that phrase supposed to encompass? I suspect the only thing the average reader will have heard of is the protests against the Dalai Lama, etc. as those have been covered by the media and simply that is what they regard as "the Dorje Shugden Contrversy" - so should the present article mainly be focused on describing that?

Chris Fynn (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The starting point is a matter of point, indeed. "17th century" might be more correct. but I'd leave the details to the "Dorje Shugden" article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The controversy clearly traces back to Phabongkha atleast. Even Kay talks about Phabongkha when talking about the modern NKT.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 04:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems like either scopes are reasonable. I think the first makes a little bit more sense for the average person, but the second is probably more all-encompassing, but with emphasis on the recent developments. Prasangika37 (talk) 13:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

100 edits in two days? Cherrypicking Points?

This is a little concerning and maybe we should have some moderators examine this sort of behavior? Anyway, I think the article has improved a bit and thankfully has been dramatically slimmed down, so thank you everyone for that. This doesn't say much, because the last version was overall very biased, inaccurate, and unbalanced. The Weight issue is still present, though, so we'll have to address this. Unfortunately, the quotes that have been included are extremely cherrypicked. Maybe in the future you all would want to discuss a little bit with other editors, particularly ones who have been editing in a different way, instead of talking merely amidst yourselves? Just a little common courtesy? I would love to be involved in the discussion in the future.

For instance, regarding the cherrypicking, including the point from Mills that Dorje Shugden's function is to 'harm Gelugpa's who engage in other practices'. It does not encompass views of his function, but just one critical view, and thus does not belong in the introduction. I'll include a more accurate one from the point of view of people who support the practice. As has already been established on the talk page, including a quote from Geshe Kelsang Gyatso in his text Heart Jewel, is a Reliable Source, as it functions as a primary source that explains Dorje Shugden. This was established by both @Cullen328: and @John Carter: . Prasangika37 (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@Prasangika37:Heart Jewel certainly is a good source for Geshe Kelsang's, and particularly his own students', view of Shugden. However since several good academic sources claim that Geshe Kelsang's version of Shugden and the ritual contained in his book differ considerably from the description and ritual in Tibetan texts, and some even claim he has elevated the status of Shugden beyond that which Phabongkha and Trijang maintained, it can't really be used as the source to explain what the majority of Tibetan Shugden worshippers (even non-NKT Western Shugden worshippers) believe. I also don't think that there is any evidence that Shugden worship is quite as central to the practice in any Tibetan monastery as it is in the NKT. Chris Fynn (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to respond in one place, instead of in the many different points brought up here in the last two days, I also wanted to say thanks for everyones efforts. I know its a bit challenging to try to make this article readable, accurate, and appropriate for both angles on the controversy. I hope we can work together as a whole in a harmonious manner. I still am a bit confused about why so much editing was engaged in in the last two days, but it seems like things are moving in a good direction. I won't be on too much for the next week and a half, but hope the editing can slow down a bit from the current pace. I edited the introduction immediately just to remove the fact that Dorje Shugden, for a fact, harms Gelugpas, which is a very strange statement and inaccurate, as any Dorje Shugden practitioners I know would never assert this, along with Geshe Kelsang Gyatso etc. I kept that he is deemed to be a protector though, and hope the introduction is improved as a result. Prasangika37 (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@Prasangika37::Many of those 100 edits were probably mine. I was just trying to put a little more order into the references which had become divided into several sections using different citation styles. I haven't finished that yet but made a good start. Anyway what I did do involved numerous small changes — probably a good portion of those 100 edits. While doing this I didn't make changes to the body of the text, though I did flag a couple of issues I saw and added fuller details and a proper Cite template to some references. Chris Fynn (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Most were mine. I tried to stay out of this topic, but alas, now that I got started... A substantial part of the article is not informative, but arguments from both sides. Which was the reason why I didn't want to get involved in this one. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Back to Scope

Can we get a consensus on what the scope of this article should be? I personally I think, when most people use, "Dorje Shugden Controversy" they are dimply referring to the current dispute that involves western Shugden Supporters, the 14th Dali Lama, and others - not really to any controversy that went on in Tibet at the time of the 13th or 5th Dalai Lama. We can say the current Dorje Shugden controversy started subsequent to the publication of Zeme Rinpoche's Yellow Book which is when it became a public issue amongst Tibetans in India (before that book, whatever feelings individual Tibetans in India had about the practice, no one was publicly arguing about it) - or we could even use the date of the first demos in London which is when the wider world first took notice of the controversy.

As I said before if we include anything more than a short summary of what went on prior to the publication of Zeme Rinpoche's book in this article then I see little point of maintaining two separate articles and I think they should be merged ASAP. On the other hand if the consensus is that the two separate articles should be maintained than the date of the publication of that book is probably the most sensible place to make a division. I'm not suggesting there should be no mention at all in the current article about events prior to that date - but that these should only be briefly with the detailed account left to the Dorje Shugden article.

If we can form a consensus on the scope of each article - or alternatively that the whole account from the time of the 5th Dali Lama right up till the present should be in a single article then I think we can begin to more productively try to get a consensus on the actual content. As long as there is no consensus on scope I think it will continue to be difficult to get any consensus on content. Chris Fynn (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The controversy should start at Phabongkha atleast. Kay talks about Phabongkha in his coverage of modern Buddhism. Yes the 2 articles should be merged.:VictoriaGrayson (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Removing Thierry Dodin again

Hi, Please stop including this source, especially including Kadampa practitioners as being members of a cult. I removed this again because its offensive, false, and he is not a RS. Also, the interview is on info-Buddhism.com, which is not RS and has pages directed to criticizing the NKT. Appearing to be honest editors and trying to come off as reasonable, but then to continue to include these quotes, is very, very confusing. There were no good reasons to establish his quotes as acceptable when we talked about this 2-3 weeks ago, so please keep it out for now. That whole section should be removed in general, honestly. Prasangika37 (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Why isn't Thierry Dodin a good source? - Some may think he has a bad haircut ;-) , but he is a published author who holds a PhD in the field, held a teaching post at the University of Bonn and has done a lot of well regarded research on Tibetan affairs. Those things make him a good source. Sure an interview with him may not be quite as good as what he may have published in a peer-reviewed paper - or book but haven't you used sources that are not peer reviewed, or have come from someone less qualified? Also if something is published on a pro Dalai Lama or pro Shugden site, or by a similarly affiliated publisher, are you claiming that makes it unusable? Actually what I think what may be lacking in that particular Dodin interview is any attribution of the person who conducted the interview - but there is nothing wrong with Dondin himself as a source.

Also I'm not sure whether the subject of the NKT's cult status is particularly relevant to this article, but if the article were about the NKT then it might be. If Dondin actually said "the NKT is a cult", and that is verifiable, then - if it is pertinent to the topic of the article - surely it can say something like the Tibetologist Thierry Dodin claimed in an interview with NAME that "the NKT is a cult"<verifiable ref> followed by something like: but in another interview NKT spokesperson NAME said that "the NKT is not a cult"<verifiable ref>.

I think it is reasonable for an editor to remove something because it is actually totally irrelevant to the article, but not to remove something simply because that editor doesn't like what a source says, feels a word the source used is not PC, or because they don't believe the statement reflects the truth.

Chris Fynn (talk)

I agree with CFynn.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I also agree with Chris. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to edit this again.. Regarding Dodin's quote, 1. It does not belong in this article.. its just a man's opinion and does not relate to the controversy. He does not validate his claims with facts, as there are not facts to justify such a claim. Just these points alone should be enough to not include anything like this 2. A PHD speaking on a random, unaccredited website is not RS. Its one thing if its established in a text that he published through a reliable publishing company and proves a point with facts, but he does not 3. The website itself has sections dedicated to demeaning the NKT and is not an accredited site in the first place. Its the same as quoting from a blog. If its okay to quote from a blog, I can quote from www.dorjeshugden.com and other sites. 4. He has no qualifications to claim this sort of thing, anyway. Again, like I stated earlier, its like Robert Thurman making claims about Global Warming. He has a PHD in Tibetan Buddhism, but he has no qualifications to identify things about the weather. In the same way, Dodin has no right to make claims about a cult or not. It is especially problematic, because he has a huge investment to engage in name-calling of this sort, as he is very closely involved in the Tibetan cause, which many like him identify as opposed to practitioners of Dorje Shugden. Prasangika37 (talk) 10:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Errors in article

The protesters are not Tibetan. They are 99.9% westerners.

Pabongkha was not the teacher of the 13th Dalai Lama.

Dodin is taking a late mythos as history, similar to taking Guru Rinpoche as history. Shugden practice was not prevalent before 1930's.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You may be about right, but to say in the article that the protesters are 99.9% westerners you need to refer to a good quality verifiable source that actually says so - and if there is an equally good verifiable source that says something quite different then that should be included too. If figures of the relative numbers at a given protest are reported by a good newspaper they may have made some attempt to count - though of course most western journalists probably wouldn't be able to distinguish between an ethnic Tibetan and an ethnic Chinese wearing Tibetan dress, so where does anyone get completely reliable figures?

Does any reliable source claim Pabongkha was the teacher of the 13th Dalai Lama?

Shugden certainly was propitiated before Phabongkha and some academics have found good evidence for that - but currently there does seem to be no real evidence Shugden practice was widespread or that any major figure before Phabongkha and his immediate teacher actually considered Shugden to be an enlightened protector. It seems that the very few Shugden texts that physically originate before period are almost always grouped together with other texts to worldly protectors rather than with texts to enlightened protectors by the same author. And of course creation of texts and attributing them to an earlier author (or making modifications to an earlier text without any indication) is not at all uncommon in the Tibetan tradition - so, unless there is a physical copy of a text that can be reliably dated to an earlier period, no one can tell for sure whether or not that text is a later production.

I think the low number of Shugden texts compared with those written during the same period for other important worldly and super-mundane protectors, together with the lack of art historical evidence that Jeff Watt has noted are probably a very good indication of the relative extent and importance of any kind of Shugden practice before Phabongkha.

Chris Fynn (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Shugden seems to be the Gelugpa equivalent of a terma.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, on the surface at least the re-envisioning of Shugden by Phabongkhapa and his immediate teachers seems somewhat similar to some "pure vision" terma in the Nyingma tradition. (In the Terma tradition there are several texts listing ways to determine is a terma is genuine or fake - I wonder if this meets those criteria?). Similarly with some of his Tara and Heruka teachings. When he was young Phabongkha practised Nyingma teachings - so he would have been quite familiar with the terma tradition. However he later strongly rejected the Nyingma teachings - (so I suppose when Shugden supporters allege the Dalai Lama broke guru-disciple pledges because he rejected Shugden practice, then they should be asked if Phabongkha broke the bond and pledges he had with his Nyingma teachers when he rejected those teachings and practices?) Chris Fynn (talk) 05:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Back to Scope

Can we get a consensus on what the scope of this article should be? I personally I think, when most people use, "Dorje Shugden Controversy" they are dimply referring to the current dispute that involves western Shugden Supporters, the 14th Dali Lama, and others - not really to any controversy that went on in Tibet at the time of the 13th or 5th Dalai Lama. We can say the current Dorje Shugden controversy started subsequent to the publication of Zeme Rinpoche's Yellow Book which is when it became a public issue amongst Tibetans in India (before that book, whatever feelings individual Tibetans in India had about the practice, no one was publicly arguing about it) - or we could even use the date of the first demos in London which is when the wider world first took notice of the controversy.

As I said before if we include anything more than a short summary of what went on prior to the publication of Zeme Rinpoche's book in this article then I see little point of maintaining two separate articles and I think they should be merged ASAP. On the other hand if the consensus is that the two separate articles should be maintained than the date of the publication of that book is probably the most sensible place to make a division. I'm not suggesting there should be no mention at all in the current article about events prior to that date - but that these should only be briefly with the detailed account left to the Dorje Shugden article.

If we can form a consensus on the scope of each article - or alternatively that the whole account from the time of the 5th Dali Lama right up till the present should be in a single article then I think we can begin to more productively try to get a consensus on the actual content. As long as there is no consensus on scope I think it will continue to be difficult to get any consensus on content. Chris Fynn (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The controversy should start at Phabongkha atleast. Kay talks about Phabongkha in his coverage of modern Buddhism. Yes the 2 articles should be merged.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Then can we try to get a consensus that the two articles should be merged (or that they shouldn't)? If there is a consensus that they should be merged perhaps it is better to do it as soon as we can just to avoid a lot of editing that may be made redundant by a merger.

BTW, as far as I know Kay's speciality is Religion and Ethics and he is not an expert on Tibetan Studies. He may be a very good source for the NKT and their involvement in this issue around the time he wrote his book, but for the aspects related to Tibetan beliefs and religious history I think there are usually much better sources available.

Chris Fynn (talk) 06:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there are better sources for Shugden history. My point was that Kay wrote about Phabongkha when covering the NKT.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 06:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

If the articles are kept separate then Phabonkhapa's views would need to be outlined, but perhaps the details could be kept for the Dorje Shugden article. But yes, just this sort of overlap is probably the main reason the two articles should be merged.

And should this article be merged into Dorje Shugden or should both be merged into Shugden (or Shukden)? - which might avoid more discussions on "Dorje Shugden" vs "Dholgyal Shugden" Chris Fynn (talk) 07:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Shugden.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso 's views

There is this [http://www.tricycle.com/special-section/an-interview-with-geshe-kelsang-gyatso interview with Geshe Kelsang Gyatso by Donald Lopez. Lopez is a respected scholar of Buddhism. Maybe this interview would be a WP:RS for Gyatso's views? Which could be added to "Views of Shugden practitioners / Kelsang Gyatso. Bets regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I think this would work quite well. It would be completely bizarre to have an article about the controversy without directly quoting the defense of parties being criticized repeatedly here. Prasangika37 (talk) 10:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Pabongka's views

Frankly, I don't understand what this section's about. It needs an explanation. Has this info got to do with the controversy, or with some practices? Looks like the latter. It's better placed at the Dorje Shugden-article, I guess. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Phabongkha's views are obviously important but it looks like whoever wrote this section was just trying to show, by means of a few selective quotes, that even Phabongkha viewed DS as a mundane protector which should be controlled not worshipped. I think it would be better to find a good verifiable source that actually says this rather than using a string of second hand quotes to try and make a point. I also don't think it likely that this section represents a fair summary of all Phabongkha's views on Shugden. The statement: "Before the 20th century, Shugden was also referred to by less exalted name, namely Dol Gyel (dol rgyal)" is also making a value judgement ("less exalted") about that name without providing a citation. Chris Fynn (talk) 10:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

"Point-making", that's indeed what a substantial part of this article is about. Anyway, I agree with you that this part should be at the Dorje Shugden page, not here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

No reason to delete Kay's explanation of Kelsang Gyatso's views

David Kay wrote a secondary academic book explaining Kelsang Gyatso's views. There was no reason to replace them with original research based on a primary source.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The section I deleted is almost incomprehensible for an outsider. And it's not on the controversy, it's on the practice. It belongs in the Dorje Shugden article, not here. Regarding the Gyatso-interview: it's an interview by Donald Lopez, published in Tricycle Magazine. Without it, this article is indeed one-sided, and merely point-making. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

David Kay is writing specifically about the controversy in Britain and Kelsang Gyatso's views. He is a WP:SECONDARY academic source. Your material is WP:OR based on WP:PRIMARY.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:OR:

"Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves."

And:

"The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.)"

Tricycle is a reliable, published source; the interview is directly related to the topic of the Wiki-article; my citations from this interview do not contain a new analysis, nor a "synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

That's debatable. Secondly, its a WP:PRIMARY source.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

To add further, from WP:NPOV:

"Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

It's clear that Gyatso's views are relevant. Only using quotes which are incomprehensible for most people is not "fairly" and "proportionately." I think you should explain what makes Tricyle unreliable. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It is reliable, but WP:PRIMARY. David Kay also outlines Kelsang Gyatso's views and is WP:SECONDARY. Please read Kay's work, and provide info from there.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 05:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll read Kay. Nevertheless, I found it clarifying to read Gatsyo's views. There's also a strategical reason to add this info: it makes clear that the picturing of Dorje Shugden as a violent deity as primarily the Dalai Lama's view, is Gatsyo's view (is this correct English?!?) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I've started reading Kay. The Wiki-article is missing crucial points and contexts. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Including a Primary source is allowed on Wikipedia. See "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." See what Cullen328 said about this a while back. VictoriaGrayson, the function of using secondary sources is if the secondary source accurately represents everything a primary source can represent. That makes it even better than the primary source. The primary source is superior if it contains aspects that the secondary source does not contain. Kay's book has been criticized for not actually including what practitioners within the NKT think about Dorje Shugden. His opinion about what Geshe Kelsang advocates is not like what Geshe Kelsang Gyatso himself states that he is advocates and teaches to thousands of people, consistently, for the last 30 years. His book is very limited in this sense. It is missing out a huge portion of the picture. Prasangika37 (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, please stop manipulating WP:Primary . You have been talked to repeatedly about this. It is not a valid argument. See at the top of this talk-page. We have had this discussion with Cullen328.Prasangika37 (talk) 11:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: I agree with that there is no good reason for Prasangika37 to remove material from a good academic source and replace it with material primary source just because, from his point of view he feels is not a fair representation. If he has problems with Kay's representation of the NKT's views on Shugden then perhaps he can suggest another academic source that he feels more fairly represents those views. After all Kay is not the only academic that has written on the NKT.

However, do you think the sentence Shugden is "believed to harm any Gelupga practitioner who blends his practice with non-Gelugpa practices" needs to be in the intro? After all this is only one way some people believe Shugden protects and promotes the Gelugpa teachings. It is not an aspect particularly emphasised by Gehe Kelsang and the NKT. Is there even any real evidence to suggest tha,t amongst the Tibetans who still worship Shugden, a majority do so with this in mind? Certainly this is an aspect that should be mentioned somewhere in the article, but not one that should be over-emphasised or given too much weight. The 'Yellow Book' was written by Zeme Tulku, not by Trijang Rinpoche. Although that book purports to be a record of Trijang Rinpoche's words - and some believe that it is - that is not 100% certain. Even if it is, was Trijang Rinpoche just recounting some legends, or did he believe these to to be facts?

In 1997 Geshe Kelsang wrote to me on Usenet that "anything that Trijang Rinpoche said in public was not necessarily his actual intention or view. He sometimes had to speak according to people’s wishes, views, beliefs etc." And, regarding Zeme Tulku's 'Yellow Book', in thar same message Geshe Kelsang wrote "in reality no-one believes the stories in this book, with the possible exception of some of his [Zemey Tulku's] disciples". At that time, Geshe Kelsang also said that:

"the Dalai Lama’s main wish is to integrate the four Tibetan traditions into one. The leaders of the other traditions will gradually disappear, leaving him alone as head of Tibetan Buddhism. In this way he will be able to control all aspects of Tibetan Buddhism. In the beginning this plan was rejected by the leaders of the Sakya, Kagyu and Nyingma traditions, while the Gelugpa remained neutral. Later, the Dalai Lama changed his approach. He is now trying to destroy the practice of Dorje Shugden and change the Gelug tradition, while at the same time developing a close relationship with the other traditions, especially the Nyingmapa. Gradually he hopes to fulfil his wishes in this way."

So Geshe Kelsang seemed to be saying the main motivation for the Dalai Lama speaking out about Shugden, and hence the controversy, was to change the Gelug tradition so that he could bring all the traditions under his control. Actually, except for the control part, that is not totally at odds with the view that the Dalai Lama is opposed to Gelugpa chauvinism and wants to promote harmony or avoid divisions amongst the Tibetan religious sects and the Tibetan people.

Now of course maybe, just like what he said about Trijang Rinpoche, what Geshe Kelsang says in public is not necessarily his actual intention or view. Who knows? I certainly can't read his mind, motivations, or intentions - so I guess we have to accept Geshe Kelsang's stated view that he doesn't believe that Shugden causes harm. Chris Fynn (talk) 12:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)