Talk:Dorje Shugden controversy/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Reorganization of the article into more logical headings

Hi everyone, I reorganized the article into more logical headings. I didn't delete anything that existed, other than renaming and relocating quotes. The only quote I actually added was the recent quote from Barnett. Prasangika37 (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The organization of the article was agreed to here. Its pretty exasperating that you are reorganizing the article and adding new sections.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Do we need to lock this article down again? Please discuss the changes. I am quite concerned that the controversial aspects of this group are being downplayed. There is no question this group is controversial; that said, I also want to see a fair assessment of each side's position. Montanabw^(talk) 19:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Montana, there are extensive points on the controversial aspects in this article. Look at them..they are abounding! I can count 10 or more individual, large quotes that point it out and they are far outweigh the other 'side' to the discussion. It might be hard to believe, but there are also many scholars who bring up controversial aspects of the Dalai Lama's denouncement. To not include that is missing out on basically half of the article. Prasangika37 (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Lock it down. Enough of this bullshit. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

What happened to bold, revert, discuss? I don't really understand why people need to get deeply upset about an edit attempt that will help aid the article be more logical. A sprawling 'views' section that is a haphazard collection of quotes is one of the least encyclopaedic things I could imagine. It looks terrible! But anyway, I am happy to discuss.

Essentially, the logic of having a section specifically talking about 1) political dimensions 2) results of the denouncement is to give some structure and deeper insight to the components of the controversy. By creating a logical framework for people to work within, it gives a chance for the reader to better understand whats going on. Prasangika37 (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Lopez is wrong according to 2005 journal article

Dreyfus calls out Lopez in this 2005 journal article, which by the way mocks Lopez's book title. I propose the bit from lopez's prisoners of shangri-la be deleted from the body of the article.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You can include the disagreement that Dreyfus has in the article, but a simple criticism is not justification for removal. Prasangika37 (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

True, povs of scientists should be balanced by other scientists if there are opposing views. The question is of course how relevant a certain quote/scholar in the context of a section of the Shugden Wikipedia article is. Kt66 (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Ardley

Ardley talks about a "Tibetan state". But there is no Tibetan state. The Central Tibetan Administration in India is not a state. What are we supposed to do when a source is clearly full of nonsense? Pinging @Joshua Jonathan, CFynn, Montanabw, and Cullen328:VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

See WP:VNT Prasangika37 (talk) 21:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure which source we are discussing (full cite with URL please) or what this site is being used to support. There is a Tibetan government in exile, and they argue that Tibet is a state under Chinese occupation (see here). So I'm not sure what this one is all about. Clarify? Montanabw^(talk) 23:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

TGIE is not a Tibetan state within India. Might as well say the NKT is a Shugden state within Britain. This is what Ardley incorrectly says:

"…the Dalai Lama, as a political leader of the Tibetans, was at fault in forbidding his officials from partaking in a particular religious practice, however undesirable. However, given the two concepts (religious and political) remain interwoven in the present Tibetan perception, an issue of religious controversy was seen as threat to political unity. The Dalai Lama used his political authority to deal with what was and should have remained a purely religious issue. A secular Tibetan state would have guarded against this."

According to Ardley's book "Tibetan Independence Movement" she got her information from Kelsang Rabten of the NKT. LOL.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Establish Ardley is not RS and we can chat, but otherwise WP:VNT applies. Prasangika37 (talk) 01:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I found a google books version here can you point me to the page? Found the quote in context (page 176) and looked at a few reviews. This appears to be a $150 book and it's a PhD thesis. I'd say this one passes RS, the question here is how to respectfully quibble over what gets added to the article. The argument that the Shugden controversy got a religious issue tangled up with a political one is a legitimate issue to raise. (Full disclosure: I have a background in Political Science, this is an area where I have some expertise) I suggest that a source arguing the opposite position be found and the two be discussed together. Teach the congtroversy. Montanabw^(talk) 20:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Delighted to have this..No issue in having both points of view present. As you know though there are countless other opposing views through the article. Maybe @VictoriaGrayson: or yourself could find the one of the specific nature you're interested in and include it as an opposing point of view? Prasangika37 (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

If Ardley is quoted she should be balanced. Reading the quote (out of context) it comes across quite patronizing to say "to deal with what was and should have remained a purely religious issue". She sees on the one hand the fact that politics and religion are interwoven in Tibetan society but then (it appears) she concludes arbitrarily "to deal with what was and should have remained a purely religious issue" – she could also say arbitrarily "to deal with what was and should have remained a purely political issue" because Shugden has a political, a religious, a loyalty, a sectarian and many other dimensions. It is arbitrary to choose one of those multiple dimensions and to state "to deal with what was and should have remained a purely (so and so dimensional) issue". —Kt66 (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Expert Interview

I added an external link under the rubric Protests by  Robert Barnett. The content might be useful also to improve certain sections of the WP article:

• Protests against the Dalai Lama over Dorje Shugden – An interview with Robert Barnett, Dec 12, 2014

Kt66 (talk) 09:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

PRI article

Prasangika37, please read the PRI article carefully. What you are citing is not a quote of Barnett.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, we can report the article's reporting then, which is what I included in the article. The article is reporting that Barnett is saying that. Prasangika37 (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

In the interview, Matthew Bell, a very reputable reporter and member of PRI, which is an incredibly reliable news source, reports that that is what Barnett said to him. "Barnett says the Dalai Lama discouraged rituals aimed at Dorje Shugden starting in the 1970s, but some members of the clergy ignored him and carried on with the tradition. So in 1996, he prohibited his followers from engaging in Shugden rituals altogther.

What has happened since then, Barnett says, is that Shugden practitioners in the Tibetan exile community have faced persecution. And he says the Dalai Lama’s administration hasn’t dealt with that very well."

Also, please do not revert entire sections if you just criticize one. It wastes both of our time and is a bit disingenuous. If you only have issue with one part, only revert that individual part. Thanks!! Prasangika37 (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Barnett didn’t use the term persecution. It was the reporter who used that. Kt66 (talk) 01:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's keep in mind that if we open up the "persecution" bit, we also open up expanding on the Shugden supporters accused of murdering an associate of the Dalai Lama. NPOV incorporates balance. Just saying. Montanabw^(talk) 22:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Open away.. theres nothing even close to solid evidence scholarly or otherwise on this issue. Its largely a smokescreen and fallacy of composition, which is trying to make a whole group look bad based on the supposed behavior of a small part (even though it hasn't been actually proven to do with anything about Dorje Shugden practice and there are various issues with the whole murder case). And I don't understand why you reverted regarding 'finishing the discussion' because the three things I included were not part of this discussion. I had them on here, waiting for discussion, for a lengthy amount of time and received nothing. I did not include the PRI quote back in until we can reach a conclusion...Did you not read it or what?? Prasangika37 (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Open up for "persecution" for which there is no evidence yet and open up for a triple murder for which there is evidence including the red wanted notices of interpol and the police notices are two very different issues. It’s not wise to confuse both issues. Kt66 (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@CFynn:, @Cullen328:, @Joshua Jonathan: and myself have opposed the use of newspaper articles. If its a direct quote of an academic in a newspaper article, then it is fine.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

We use newspaper articles in this article. That is contradictory then, no? Also, your opposition has nothing to do with it being RS or not. Its just your feeling. Are you saying that the reporting on the words of Barnett were inaccurate? If so that is one thing. If not, then the argument doesn't work. There are also points from Bultrini in here, who is a journalist. PRI is also a better source than info-buddhism.com from which the Dodin quote is used, as its nationally syndicated..., so youre running into either hypocrisy or just illogical arguing... Prasangika37 (talk)

I also oppose the use of newspaper articles, they mainly just repeat unverified claims. Kt66 (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

What you are citing is not a quote of Barnett. So the analogy to Dodin is illogical.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It is a reputable reporter, on a prestigious news program, saying "barnett says this and that". Are you doubting the authenticity? In addition, the illogicality I was revealing is being against newspapers in general. Its illogical 1) because we use them here already 2) if its just about not trusting journalists, we trust Bultrini on far more controversial statements 3) if its about the general quality of the source, that doesn't work because info-buddhism.com is a hate website or something along those lines. Question: Are you saying you doubt if Barnett actually said that or no? Prasangika37 (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Its not a quote of Barnett. So he did not say it, as a matter of fact. What newspapers do we use that are not direct quotes of academics?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, looks like you have been refuted on the reliable sources noticeboard. "Even things in direct quotes very often aren't the subject's actual words (see e.g., this discussion at the American Journalism Review), so that's somewhat of a non-issue. If it's a responsible mainstream reporter then it should be OK. Partisan or low-quality sources are another issue. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)" You can check it out.

In addition, I am waiting for either you or montana to bring up a reasonable argument against the other RS quotes which you both have reverted without any reasoning whatsoever. Prasangika37 (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

One person replying on the noticeboard is hardly refutation.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Prasangika37, there is a general agreement here not to use newspapers. You wouldn't like it if I put in newspapers that call Shugdenpas Chinese funded etc.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Not buying it, there is nothing wrong with using a newspaper reporting of someone's words. Its not about what I like or don't like, or what you like or don't like. We're reporting what is available out there. Robert Thurman's op-ed is included in this article along with Thierry Dodin's point. You're trying to establish a newspaper as non-reliable. It isn't non-reliable, and not only that, it reports what a scholar said. Thus the reporting is valid. You are welcome to take a question to NPOV, RS, or whereever, but its a losing battle. I will be including this soon unless you have a decent point that is based in wikipedia policy! Thanks.Prasangika37 (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Yet again those are not Barnett's words. And there is a general agreement not to use newspapers is this article.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Barnett didn’t speak of persecution. It was the reporter who coined this term. The reporter also coined the term "haters", then shouldn't we include also this term "haters" because according to Prasangika37 "it is a reputable reporter, on a prestigious news program" ? Kt66 (talk) 01:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Its reported by Matthew Bell as being said by Barnett. That is sufficient. .The question is can you dispute the report or not? I don't see how you can. The only neutral observer we had on the case said it is sufficient. Very different than 'haters'. Prasangika37 (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Quotes that would improve the article

Here are a variety of quotes that have been reverted lately, but come from reliable sources and help improve the article. I would love to hear any cogent arguments as to why they either 1) don't improve the article 2) are not reliable. I haven't heard much yet, but I am attempting to have some dialogue here as a way to have better interactions with one another on this page, as had been requested elsewhere by Montanabw and VictoriaGrayson. I personally really dislike the whole blcok quote thing on this page, as @Shii: noted it is a MOS problem, but if that is the precedent we're going with I guess we can continue temporarily..

Jane Ardley explains

the Dalai Lama, as a political leader of the Tibetans, was at fault in forbidding his officials from partaking in a particular religious practice, however undesirable. However, given the two concepts (religious and political) remain interwoven in the present Tibetan perception, an issue of religious controversy was seen as threat to political unity. The Dalai Lama used his political authority to deal with what was and should have remained a purely religious issue. A secular Tibetan state would have guarded against this.

(this has been already approved by Montana, so just waiting to re-insert)

The Dalai Lama "in spite of his predecessor the Thirteenth Dalai Lama having banned the practice, commenced during negotiations between Tibet and China prior to the 1959 Chinese takeover. The Dalai Lama’s reason for first consulting with Dorje Shugdan was his need to decide between two courses of action and the absence at that time of the oracles with which he would normally consult in order to access wisdom beyond the human realms."

In the early 1980s the Dalai Lama restricted reliance on Dorje Shugden to private rather than public practice. The tension this caused within the Gelug and wider Tibetan community may reflect some opposition to his ecumenical approach.

"Barnett says the Dalai Lama discouraged rituals aimed at Dorje Shugden starting in the 1970s, but some members of the clergy ignored him and carried on with the tradition. So in 1996, he prohibited his followers from engaging in Shugden rituals altogther. What has happened since then, Barnett says, is that Shugden practitioners in the Tibetan exile community have faced persecution. And he says the Dalai Lama’s administration hasn’t dealt with that very well."

Prasangika37 (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not a quote of Barnett but the words and phrasing of the journalist. Barnett said that he didn’t use the term persecution. So what you are quoting is the voice of a journalist but not Barnett, and journalists have often proved not to be a reliable source in this tricky issue. Ardley could be quoted but only if she is balanced. Her opinion "what was and should have remained a purely religious issue" implies the prejudice that Shugden practice would be a mere religious issue but Shugden practice has many levels including a political dimension (see Dodin Interview for instance but also other scientists). Ardley misses this political level of Shugden practice and narrows it wrongly down to a mere religious level which expresses her own view that does not reflect Tibetan reality. So if you quote her, her view should be balanced by another scholar who also mentions the political dimension. BTW, also Geshe Kelsang Gyatso said in an open letter from 1998 that the Shugden controversy is a Tibetan political issue "this Shugden issue because we realized that in reality this is a Tibetan political problem and not the problem of Buddhism in general or the NKT", https://www.send2press.com/PRnetwire/pr_02_1125-dalailama.shtml. Bluck could be quoted but what should this quote accomplish, why is it so relevant that it should be quoted? Waterhouse can be quoted too – though I wonder if she is correct but Wikipedia is no truth finding. So, what would the quote achieve? That at one point the Dalai Lama consulted Shugden before he stopped that practice? Is this so important, and if yes for what, whom is this important, for the reader? I doubt that. Kt66 (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

What these qutoes accomplish is that they provide a spectrum of points of view on the issue, including the political dimensions and the development of the controversy. Bluck especially would be helpful, as there is nothing on the development in the 80s.. I don't know about your commentary here or your version or understanding of the issue, but I don't see how its revelant or helpful. I am delighted if you want to 'balance' Ardley's point of view. We could include Mills actually:

<

The Tibetan Government-in-Exile (CTA): Asserted the functional role of religion within the constitution of a sacral political life centred on the Dalai Lama and held together primarily by acts of ritualized loyalty. Whilst conceding to the existence of a ban, they rejected the notion of a deterministic command structure or of de facto nation-state status within the Indian context. It was, therefore, seen more as a case of shifting the boundaries of a porous organization in favour of nonsectarian governance. The Delhi-based DSDCRS: Argued that the religious freedom of Shugden worshippers in India had been infringed, but also acceded to the sacral and sub-state nature ofthe CTA within South Asia. As a result, its primary human rights (as opposed to legal) claim was aimed at the alleged interventions by the Indian nation-state (rather than the CTA) in the controversy. Amnesty International: Regarded 'spiritual issues' and state affairs as separate, whilst seeing the command-based nation-state as the fundamental framework for understanding the category of 'actionable human rights abuses'. Fundamental to this were linked criteria of state accountability and the exercise of state force, neither of which could clearly be identified within the CTA context. Whilst a prima facie case ofinfringement ofreligious freedoms within Tibetan refugee communities certainly existed, the absence of definable nation-state command structures precluded the fonnulation either of accountability or unavoidable jurisdiction essential to the fonnulation of a 'human rights violation'. The British-based sse: Asserted the separation ofreligion and state as the basis for their understanding ofreligious freedom, and denied any legitimate functioning role to Buddhism within the constitution ofthat state. Identified the Dalai Lama as the de facto head ofa refugee 'nation-state', and thus assumed the existence ofa definable command structure within legally demarcated borders.(67-68)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasangika37 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Yellow Book

Some comments:

"As a result of this denouncement, the Dalai Lama has been publicly critcized for contributing to disharmony within the Gelugpa community, accusations of discrimination, and institutionalized segregation."

Criticized by who? This statement is too general, and thereby suggestive.

"feeling that it contributed to sectarian divisiveness and would therefore"

Does the source say "feeling"?

"Geshe Kelsang [...] has explained [...] [quote]"

No quotes in the lead, I'd say. NB: there are quite a lot of quotes in this article, arn't there? How about paraphrasing them, and moving the quotes themselves into notes? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Its time to adjust the lead properly. There have been many alterations in the body of the article since the lead was dealt with last and it is not an appropriate summary of the article currently. Agreed to avoid quotes at best, though. '"As a result of this denouncement, the Dalai Lama has been publicly critcized for contributing to disharmony within the Gelugpa community, accusations of discrimination, and institutionalized segregation." --> See the article. Lopez, Ardley, and Chrysiddes all bring up various aspects of the criticism. Lopez specifically mentions the disharmony, though, while Ardley and Chryssides document some of the harmful effects ala discrimination and so on. I agree that paraphrasing would be MUCH appreciated as long as it was evenly done for all parties and not just some. When I have tried to make these adjustments in the past I have been vehemently reverted... With your support I'll take an investigation though.Prasangika37 (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Here we go again. That phrasing about "disharmony" and "discrimination" is POV-pushing, just like how conservative Christians complain they are "discriminated" against when people disagree with them or point out the weakness of their positions. It's not POV-pushing to see there is disagreement of different points of view. If you read WP:LEAD, the lead is simply as summary of what it in the article, ideally with nothing new that is not discussed and sourced in the body of the text. Prasangika, the ongoing problem is that you keep trying to editorizliize with your edits. You just can't do that. Montanabw^(talk) 07:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Discrimination and disharmony are synonyms for in-text quotes. These aren't my words. "Scholar Donald Lopez explains that “The Dalai Lama’s renunciation of Shugden in 1976 caused great discord within the Geluk community, where devotion to the deity remained strong among the Geluk hierarchy and among large factions of the refugee lay community; spirited defenses of his worship were written and published. Some went so far as to claim that the Dalai Lama was not the true Dalai Lama, that the search party had selected the wrong child forty years before” Discord is good enough, no? Prasangika37 (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

"This led to a massive outcry from Shugden supporters, particularly in Britain. The Dalai Lama was accused of religious intolerance and "The Tibetan government in exile is said to have conducted house searches, demanding that people sign a declaration stating that they have abandoned Dorje Shugden practice" and provided an opportunity that was not missed by Bejing," We have religious intolerance there and an example of house searches. I'll just include that. Prasangika37 (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

First, you don't have consensus. Secondly, you are cherrypicking and omitting the outcry is "particularly in Britain". Third, Lopez's "Prizoners of Shangri-La" is criticized by Dreyfus.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Please then propose a suggestion of the best way to include the complaints or assertions of Dorje Shugden practitioners throughout the world that is reasonable. This is hte best so far. If you can offer another way of saying a similar thing then I am happy to discuss, otherwise, its just reinforcing the undue weight in the intro. We can include 'particularly in Britain' if you would like. Not woried about that if thats what you want. Criticized by Drefyus means nothing--doesn't make it non-RS. Dreyfus also has a very strong, specific angle on this. Lastly, the intro wasn't made with consensus in the first place. It was an agreement of three people with a very similar point of view. Prasangika37 (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I suppose something like , "Dorje Shugden practitioners have been whining and kvetching that they are being "discriminated" against whenever they are called on their nonsense" won't work... Montanabw^(talk) 23:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I could work with that ;) Prasangika37 (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: Waiting for a revision offer from your point of view, but see none so far... Prasangika37 (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Waiting for consensus to edit the lead at all, but see none so far...VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any valid point to counter that there is a WP:Weight issue in the lead? If not then it will be included asap. thanks! Prasangika37 (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

echo..echoo.... echoo... changing soon.. Prasangika37 (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Still waiting for consensus to edit the lead at all, but see none so far...VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah my friend.. the issue here is you are not addressing WP Weight and instead reverting and yelling 'consensus!!!' without any logical points. Is that the precedent you want to create for these articles? Its a pretty bad idea and likely will cause more problems in the long run than now. Just saying 'consensus!' without making a contradicting point isn't valid. Prasangika37 (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The rest of us are watching this drama go nowhere. Here's the deal: The accusations that the Dalai Lama is committing some sort of "human rights" abuse on Shugden practitioners is about as convincing as American fundamentalist Christians claiming themselves to be "victims" of "religious discrimination" every time someone calls them on their most patent nonsense. Further, it is the Shugden practitioners accused of murdering two associates of the Dalai Lama, not the reverse. So Prasangika37, drop this stick. VictoriaGrayson, please re-read WP:DFTT and WP:NAM. And let's close this discussion as unproductive. Montanabw^(talk) 07:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Montanabw: I think you are missing something unfortunately--I see you have misunderstood both WP:WEIGHT and the issue. Multiple independent scholars document the controversy, like Lopez, Chryssides, and Ardley, and that an entire half of the controversy is not mentioned in the intro. That is completely strange and not in line with WP:Weight. In addition, it is not in line with WP:Lead because the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. There are many major points of the article that are not included in the lead. Hence, I'll simply craft in a week or so a new intro altogether that we can discuss. Then if there is still confusion on both your part, then we can have an RFC so there can be greater clarity. Thanks! Prasangika37 (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there is a controversy, I disagree with your assessment of weight. The lead needs to be significantly longer and more comprehensive than it is if this article were to be of GA quality, but the weight of the lead needs to reflect and balance the weight and balance of the whole article. You need to shape up your condescending attitude, however, as there is no confusion whatsoever, you are merely WP:BAITing other editors and insisting that your way is the only correct way to go here, it seems. Do clarify if I am not stating your position accurately. Montanabw^(talk) 04:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

"The lead needs to be significantly longer and more comprehensive than it is if this article were to be of GA quality, but the weight of the lead needs to reflect and balance the weight and balance of the whole article" --> That is exactly is what I said.. I am glad you agree. I don't mean to be condescending, but I find it boring when you are consistingly either vitriolic, through name calling which you have done many, many times (can provide around 10-20 diffs...), or obstinate, through not actually seeing both angles, when there are attempts to improve the article. You claim that you want to teach the controversy and then support VictoriaGrayson's edit warring type behavior preventing the controversy from being taught. I just hope you follow through with that wish, especially as you are an experienced and dedicated editor here, obviously concerned with the mission of Wikipedia to provide accurate, open-sourced information to the world. Prasangika37 (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

If people avoid inserting fringe, exaggerated, or inaccurate claims as regards the 14th Dalai Lama (per WP:BLP and other guidelines) and mainstream Tibetan Buddhism, we'll be fine. Montanabw^(talk) 22:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Improved introduction

I have essentailly reverted the introduction from around July this year and made slight tweaks. I taught the controversy as has been discussed and included what it is, who are the parties involved, and the major aspects of the controversy.

That is 1) The Dalai Lama finds the practice of Dorje Shugden harmful and one example that led to this conclusion was the publishing of The Yellow Book 2) He has spoken out publicly against it. 3) As a result, there have been allegations of discrimination 4) These have been vehemently denied. 5) there have been various protests as an additional result.

To not include point 3 is not NPOV and not representative of the article itself. Please feel free to adjust as you would think appropriate.

Prasangika37 (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Regarding your point 3, Chryssides is very clear that the allegations of discrimination are from Kelsang Gyatso. You are thus cherrypicking.
• Your lead eliminates major elements of the article such as Pabongka.
• The lead needs to mention the Chinese government and the murders committed by Shugdenpas to be "representative of the article itself". I added both of these elements to the lead.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Shugden as a deity?

Even the NKT does not go as far as viewing Shugden as a yidam.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

What are you specifically referring to in the article?? Sorry I don't follow :) Prasangika37 (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Your lead refers to Shugden as a deity. Deity typically means yidam. But even the NKT does not view Shugden as a yidam.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Ahh I see. A way I am viewing it is 'deity' is a broad word--Its a way to denote Dorje Shugden without explicitly saying he is a spirit, Buddha, ghost, worldly God, and so on. I would guess the general reader would have no intense association with it? Perhaps its just your personal familiarity with Buddhism? I am relatively familiar myself and think of it as quite general and didn't assume it meant a specific, ontological status. If you have a preferred noun that functions similarly I have no need for the use of 'deity', though. Prasangika37 (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

ON this one, I shall defer to a consensus the two of you can agree upon. Montanabw^(talk) 03:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

List of sources talking about a ban, bias, discrimination and so on about Dorje Shugden Practice

I thought this would be helpful as some express confusion over the validity of this POV. There have been some arguments that this understanding is somehow 'fringe', but you may be pained to see that there are a seemingly unending stream of sources explaining this exact thing. I didn't include the many qualified journalists that could be consulted on the matter who often say far more scathing things than we have here, like Maxime Vivas, Tim Johnson, and Erik Curren. I'm sorry its long but it might be helpful for those trying to get a grasp on what is out there:

• "An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices" By Peter Harvey- (416) "He has, though, been criticized by Tibetans supportive of the deity Dorje Shugden. This figure is a Gelugpa wrathful protector deity, regarded as a rebirth of a seventeenth-cenutry Lama seen to have been a rival of the fifth Dalai Lama."
• J. Gordon Melton. Melton's Encyclopedia of Religion, (1106): “The continued discrediting of Dorje Shugden led to the suppression of worship and some discrimination against those who continued the practice. The Dalai Lama raised the controversy to a new level in 1996 when, in the main Thekchen Choeling Temple near Dharamsala, he publicly declared Dorje Shugden to be an evil Chinese spirit who was harmful to Tibetan independence and to the Dalai Lama’s life.”
• Melton's Encyclopedia of Religion. (1106): "He then took the extraordinary step of banning the worship of Dorje Shugden and initiating its forcible suppression within the exile Tibetan communities. This action infuriated many who felt forced to choose between the Dalai Lama and their own traditional spiritual practice”
• (1106)“It is thought that the ban on the worship of Dorje Shugden has resulted in the persecution of many of his followers, and practitioners in the West continue to protest the ban."
• Martin Mills,"This turbulent priest: Contesting religious rights and the state in the Tibetan Shugden controversy" (66): "The question of loyalty as the basis of Tibetan systems of state action illuminates some apparently contradictory elements of the CTA's approach to Shugden'. Whilst it is clearly the case that the numerous denials of any kind of ban on Shugden worship produced at various points during the 1996-8 period, were in all probability simply disingenuous"
• http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-10-31/breakaway-buddhists-take-aim-dalai-lama "Barnett says the Dalai Lama discouraged rituals aimed at Dorje Shugden starting in the 1970s, but some members of the clergy ignored him and carried on with the tradition. So in 1996, he prohibited his followers from engaging in Shugden rituals altogther. What has happened since then, Barnett says, is that Shugden practitioners in the Tibetan exile community have faced persecution. And he says the Dalai Lama’s administration hasn’t dealt with that very well."
• Bernard Faure, Unmasking Buddhism (74): "This involves the worship of a Tantric deity by the name of Dorje Shugden, the reincarnation of a deceased lama who used to be the rival of the fifth Dalai Lama and was apparently assassinated by the latter's followers. In a strange twist, this deity went on to become the protector of the Gelugpa school and in particular of the current Dalai Lama, until he forbade his disciples from worshipping Shugden after receiving oracles from another of his protecting deities. This decision caused a general outcry among the followers of Shugden, who accused the Dalai Lama of being biased."
• Dalai Lamas: A Visual History by Martin Brauen(174): "In recent decades the Dalai Lama has opposed this understanding of the diety in increasingly vigorous ways, going so far as to ban its followers from some of his teachings. The reason for his opposition are complex. " (174) "The Dorje Shukden dispute concerns the propitiation of a protective deity, Shukden, a practice that the Dalai Lama has come to condemn in an increasingly vocal manner."
• Carol Matthews. New Religions. (134-135)-"At about the same time, the Dalai Lama began to urge those Tibetans who worshiped Dorje Shugden to give up the practice. This caused a deeper rift between him and some of the Geluk leadership."
• George Dreyfus-Origins of a Controversy-The Shuk-den affair: "The Dalai Lama also began to apply pressure against the practice of Shuk-den, laying several restrictions on the practice. The three great monasteries of Dre-bung, Ga-den and Se-ra, which traditionally, though not unambiguously, have supported the Tibetan government and the two tantric colleges were ordered not to propitiate Shuk-den in public ceremonies. Moreover, several statues of Shuk-den were removed from the chapels of the three monasteries. Finally, the Dalai Lama ordered the monks of Se-ra in Bylakuppe not to use a building originally intended for the monthly ritual of Shuk-den."
• Robert Bluck. British Buddhism: Teachings, Practice, and Development. (131)“In the early 1980s the Dalai Lama restricted reliance on Dorje Shugden to private rather than public practice. The tension this caused within the Gelug and wider Tibetan community may refelct some opposition to his ecumenical approach, according to Kay."
• Donald Lopez. Prisoners of Shangri-la. 191 “On July 15, 1996, the Tibetan government-in-exile issued a statement that read in part: The Tibetan Administration’s basic policy on the issue of Dholgyal propitiation was spelled out in the unanimous resolution passed on 6 June 1996 by the Assembly of Tibetan People’s Deputies. The resolution stated that the government deparments and their subsidiaries, as well as monastic institutions functioning under the administrative control of the Central Tibetan Administration, should be strictly forbidden from propitiating this spirit. Individual Tibetans, it said, must be informed the demerits of propitiating this spirit, but be given freedom “to decide as they like.” The resolution, however, requested the propitiators of this spirit not to receive Vajrayana teachings from His Holiness the Dalai Lama.”
• Lopez again: 192- "Monks of the six major Geluk monasteries in the refugee community were asked to sign a statement supporting a ban on “dubious deities” The Tibetan government-in-exile requested that the abbot of Sera monastery, a traditional center of Shugden devotion, report the names of those monks who continued to worship Shugden.”
• George Chryssides. Exploring New Religions. Page 239- "The Tibetan government in exile is said to have conducted house searches, demanding that people sign a declaration st ating htat they have abandoned Dorje Shugden practice"
• (239) “The Dalai Lama subsequently refused to give tantric initiation to those who practiced Dorje Shugden” (239)
• (241)“The dispute between Kelsang Gyatso and the Dalai Lama admits of no obvious resolution. The Dalai Lama stands accused of restricting the religious freedom of followers of Tibetan Buddhism, and of causing widespread suffering to Shugden supporters, who are not denied access to their protector deity, but who are the vitims of persecution, unable to get jobs that relate to the Tibetan government-in-exile (for example, in schools), and are denied humanitarian assistance.”
• Tibetan Buddhism in Diaspora: Cultural re-signification in practice and institutions (Routledge Critical Studies in Buddhism) by Ana Cristina O. Lopes: (213)- "India, June 1996. In all the main monasteries of the Gelug School in exile, thousands of monks were summoned to large meetings in which signatures and fingerprints of all who supported the end of the cult of Dorje Shugden were being collected. Some abbots and even the Ganden Tri Rinoche himself, the head of the Gelug School, tried to be present to the maximum number of meetings in order to illuminat ethe reasons that led the Dalai Lama to advise against Dorje Shugden worship.
• "Like many of those who decided not to sign the lists that were circulating, the Brazilian lama would be labed a "Shugden dovotee"" accounts of violence against those who decided not to endorse the Dalai Lama's decision began to circulate among the monks. "
• According to Lama Michel, one of his monk-friends had his house burned to the ground due to being identified as a Shugden devotee. The signature camapign represents a clear example of hte kind of tension that resulted from the entanglemt between the political and the spiritual in Tibetan Buddhism. In the words of Lama Michel: "Because they consider the Dalai Lama their guru, they cannot lie to him. And when they signed the document forswearing Dorje Shugden it was as if they were stating this directlty toh the Dalai Lama. It is a political thing, since spiritualy you do not have to sign for yoru guru if you do something or not. It is a political thing, but they also see it as religious since it is being done in the name of the Dalai Lama, even if it was not necessarily his idea."

Prasangika37 (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Not buying it. These may or may not even be accurate stories, but more to the point, they are overblown. Individual people may make poor choices, but there is no third party verification that this is any sort of orchestrated effort. Sorry. Not going into false equivalency territory. Montanabw^(talk) 04:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

This is an entire collection of evidence of discrimination in scholarly articles. Also, you support the alleged 'murders' with no conviction, so its a false equivalency in the same right. Prasangika37 (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Our top academic references link the murders to Shugdenpas. David Kay notes "The subsequent investigation by the Indian police linked the murders to the Dorje Shugden faction of the exiled Tibetan community."VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Kay is a thesis... 'linked' but no charge. No convictions at all.. Conspiracy scare tactics more than anything and ad-hominem.Prasangika37 (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Its an academic fact by our top academic references. Where is the Dalai Lama's conviction?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

One of your resources here Ben Hillman: 37-38In 1996 the current Dalai Lama issued a decree effectively banning worship of Shugden. Tibetan Buddhists everywhere were forced to take a position on the issue. Under the leadership of senior lamas, S monastery divided mroe clearly into pro- and anti-Shuden factions. Three khangstens favored the continud worship of Shugden, while eight were opposed, but the combined population of hte three khangtsens was larger than the eight. Proves two things simultaneously--The large number of Shugden Buddhistst and the fact that the Dalai Lama issued a decree effectively banning. Also see the countless convictions listed above.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasangika37 (talk • contribs)

Based on your text, it sounds like Shugden was abolished in private monasteries. This is private property. This directly contradicts your claim.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

What's relevant for uninvolved readers: why is this such a big issue? What's not relevant is the "proof" that the DL is an evil mean wrongdoing despote. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Indeed. The issue isn't terribly complicated: the Dalai Lama no longer supports Shugden practice for assorted reasons that appear to be primarily theological. Some people are pissed about that. Other people are pissed at them. So some groups spin off and start their own little groups where they can do things their way. End of story, except that a few people see a way to profit (monetarily or politically or both) from the dispute, and there is very strong evidence that the Chinese government sees an opening to discredit the DL, and they are exploiting it. (See ongoing Chinese oppression of Dalai Lama supporters in Tibet Montanabw^(talk) 06:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

People are directly barred from being part of the CTA government because of their religion (see Lopez quote above), forcibly excommunicated from their monasteries (see multiple quotes above), signs have gone up in shops, hospitals etc, saying 'Shugden worshipers not allowed'(See Swiss TV https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5sOm-uQH9Y or Al Jazeera https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feMO5YTufCY etc), the CTA government put up a list of protestors on their website (http://tibet.net/dolgyal-shugden/list-of-dolgyal-protestors/) essentially as a scare tactic. Seems a lot more like human or religious rights than theological, no? Prasangika37 (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I see Shugdenpas attacking a peaceful woman shop owner.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, let's end this

OK, I am tired of debates over the lead while neither side understands WP:LEDE very well, so I rewrote it. I took some of each side's material and added a bit that was needed to provide balance. Here's how I see it:

1. per WP:LEDE, it is best practice to only have material in the lead that is mentioned and footnoted in the article body text. Anything mentioned only in the lead should be footnoted, but that is less ideal practice.
2. I rewrote the lead. Anything both sides agree I got wrong, go ahead and fix it, no skin off my nose.
3. I removed most of the footnotes in the lead, per #1 above, save for the very complicated web notes that I haven't the time to figure out if they duplicate material elsewhere or not. I expect whoever has that material to add it to the body text if it's not there now and move the footnotes from the lead to the body text.
4. IF anything in the lede is NOT in the body text with a footnote, I expect said material to be added with a footnote to a proper reliable source.
5. The "deity" versus "protector" language is a nuance that as a non-Buddhist, I don't really understand, so if the way I phrased that is a problem, the both of you agree on a parallel construction (i.e. "one group says it's a protector the other group says it's a deity" - or whatever.)
6. If the harassment of Shugden supporters is in the lead, so are the murders. And each with assessment. So both or neither. End of discussion.
7. There were a couple places where Prasangka's wording was more concise, but Victoria's text appeared more precise. I tried to reconcile the two.
8. Henceforth, NO one is to claim "consensus" exists based on an absence of opposition or a vague "this might work." That's just manipulative and inappropriate. Only where BOTH factions here say "yes, I do agree in this" can you claim "consensus."
9. Not all edits necessarily require consensus, but if people can't come to a mutual agreement and edit-war, I will ask an admin to lock down the article again.
10. The WP:BURDEN is on the pro-Shugden side, as this is the side that has had more problems with POV-pushing and unreliable source.s
11. That said, the ant-Shugden side has some parties who have gotten a little dug in and are allowing themselves to lose their cool. WP:BAIT is a factor, yes, but is to be resisted - please also read WP:NAM.
12. If both sides are pissed off at me, good, I've done my job. Montanabw^(talk) 03:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Even Prasangika37's references say the allegations of discrimination are from the British or Kelsang Gyatso. So Prasangika37 is cherrypicking by omitting these details.
• There was explicit consensus given to the existing lead by several people including Prasangika37 HERE.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• September 2014. Hmmm. My thinking is that the body of the article has changed a bit since then, but I absolutely believe that the lead must match up with the article content. If I got something wrong, I will not be upset if you refine it. That said, though Prasangka's edits reflect a continued tendency toward POV-pushing and have not been as neutral as proclaimed, some of his/her turns of phrase were decent wordsmithing. Take a look at phrasing. I don't think there is need to say a whole lot about what Gelug is here beyond what's needed to explain Shugden, that's for the Gelug article. Like I said above, no skin off my nose if you fix my errors. But do consider the phrasing. One thing I've noticed about even mainstream Buddhism is that some people write with unduly complicated phrasing. To a non-Buddhist like myself, at times it approaches gibberish - something got lost in translation, most likely. Montanabw^(talk) 04:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Montana--I think your edit does a lot more justice to the article than VictoriaGrayson's and I am appreciative of it. I still have qualms, but I am happy to temporarily compromise. Thank you for spending the time trying to find a middle way. Prasangika37 (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The lead is not mine. Several people agreed to it including yourself, @Joshua Jonathan: and CFynn. See HERE.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• • • • • True, but that was a stopgap. My goal now is to improve the lead so it meets WP:LEAD and the content of the article. Montanabw^(talk) 04:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The lead doesn't represent the article as it stands, though.. Do you in good faith not see that? I feel confused.. Prasangika37 (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Your lead eliminates major elements of the article such as Pabongka. Your lead misrepresents your own sources such as Ardley and Chryssides. Your lead doesn't mention the Chinese government or the murders committed by Shugdenpas.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't misrepresent--see below for all the various sources that support Montana's lead. The Chinese government stuff is a conspiracy theory. Thurman himself says there is no documented links and so does Carol Matthews. "Murders committed by Shugdenpas" --> No one was ever charged. At most all one can claim is suspected, but something that is hearsay does not belong in the lead, and probably doesn't belong in the main text. Prasangika37 (talk) 00:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Basically you are admitting that you don't want the lead to reflect the article such as the Chinese government involvement and the murders.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Let's work off of my edits and fix any errors. I am making judgement calls based on being a non-Buddhist. On stuff like the "deity" question, I don't know enough to get the nuance, so you two have to figure out how to agree. Politically, (which is what I DO know) the Chinese connections are in, but so are allegations of harassment, but with appropriate assessment. Not precisely equal. So Victoria, please don't revert my edits, just point out if they are inaccurate and need to be fixed. Prasangika, your walls of text are just more of the same apologetics, I'm seeing nothing new here. The Dalai Lama is not burning down people's houses. Montanabw^(talk) 04:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Your sentence on discrimination is inaccurate. Even Prasangika37's own references say that the allegations of discrimination are from the British and Kelsang Gyatso.

• Ardley says "This led to a massive outcry from Shugden supporters, particularly in Britain. The Dalai Lama was accused of religious intolerance and provided an opportunity that was not missed by Bejing, who used the dispute as a further reason to denounce the Dalai Lama."
• Chryssides says "The dispute between Kelsang Gyatso and the Dalai Lama admits of no obvious resolution. The Dalai Lama stands accused of restricting the religious freedom..."

So the lead needs to clarify that the allegations of discrimination are from the British.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey Montanabw, thanks for the effort! I've been reading it through, with the diffs. I've got only one note to it: personally, I would remove this part from the lead:

"and there are allegations the movement is financed by the government of China as part of its strategy in opposition to the Dalai Lama. The murder of Lobsang Gyatso and two of his students in 1997 was linked to the Dorje Shugden faction of the Tibetan community in exile. In turn, Shugden practitioners have accused the Tibetan Government in Exile of discrimination toward and suppression of the Shugden movement, but investigators found their allegations of violence and harassment were "vague averments" and scholar Robert Barnett viewed their complaints as illustrative of a failure to work within the Tibetan community instead of "opportunistically attacking the Dalai Lama.""

It's classical "Ja maar hij..." ('but he did...'; sometimes my English just misses the nuances of my Dutch). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• OK, there are two ways to solve this:

1. Per @Joshua Jonathan:, we just remove the whole thing from the lead - even though it is contained in the article, it doesn't have to be there. I'd be OK with that solution, but as I said before, this includes removing the mention of harassment, discrimination and so on, NPOV basically applies here, so all of it or none of it. or:
2. Victoria and Praangika AGREE on how to word the "discrimination" or "harassment" bit. I note that "particularly in Britain" can be interpreted as "not only in Britain." I am seeking accuracy: If the accusations are only coming from Kelsang Gyatso/NKT and/or the Chinese government, can this be sourced? Alternately, can we source criticisms from entities NOT connected to the NKT in Britain or associated with the Chinese?

Let me know what the options are. Montanabw^(talk) 17:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Option 1 sounds good.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

See below for the other scholarly evidence of discrimination. I have at least 10 sources listed. I will include them in the article so the lead can reflect it. Including the Chinese allegation is outright silly--there is 0 proof and scholars say that htere is no direct link (Both Thurman AND Matthews say this). In addition, the murders have no proof (no one was even convicted). Its all conspiracy hearsay and WP:FRINGE. Prasangika37 (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

If you have confusion over the validity of claims of discrimination, we should simply add Lopez's valuable information into the article, which is currently missing.

• Donald Lopez. Prisoners of Shangri-la. 191: "On July 15, 1996, the Tibetan government-in-exile issued a statement that read in part: The Tibetan Administration’s basic policy on the issue of Dholgyal propitiation was spelled out in the unanimous resolution passed on 6 June 1996 by the Assembly of Tibetan People’s Deputies. The resolution stated that the government deparments and their subsidiaries, as well as monastic institutions functioning under the administrative control of the Central Tibetan Administration, should be strictly forbidden from propitiating this spirit. Individual Tibetans, it said, must be informed the demerits of propitiating this spirit, but be given freedom “to decide as they like.” The resolution, however, requested the propitiators of this spirit not to receive Vajrayana teachings from His Holiness the Dalai Lama."

Lopez again p.192: "Monks of the six major Geluk monasteries in the refugee community were asked to sign a statement supporting a ban on “dubious deities” The Tibetan government-in-exile requested that the abbot of Sera monastery, a traditional center of Shugden devotion, report the names of those monks who continued to worship Shugden."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasangika37 (talk • contribs)

Nonsense. Thurman might have said there is no direct link between the British protesters and the Chinese government. But Thurman and other scholars such as Warren Smith say the Chinese government is directly linked to many Shugden activities. Even your own sources say so. Bultrini documents the direct links in detail.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Look at the section..Its low quality. We have tired, old, party-lined voices of Thurman and Dodin (who ran the Tibet Information Network!!)and we have Ben Hillman, who just talks about support of Dorje Shugden practitioners in China proper.. Nothing about protestors. Perhaps we could compromise--We can include that "There is no direct link between the protestors and China, but Chinese authorities have become involved in the controversy by supporting Shugden monasteries." That seems to be the only proof there is. I'm happy with that, you?Prasangika37 (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Warren Smith says the Chinese government forces monks to worship Shugden.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Etc etc etc ad infinitum. Not in the lead. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a battle-ground. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with Joshua Jonathan, the content needs to stay in the body text, but because we cannot reach consensus and no one will drop the stick, the best thing to do is leave the whole mess out of the lead. That makes a 3;1 consensus on that issue. Done. Neither is in the lead. Montanabw^(talk) 05:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

In order to compromise, I added a single sentence of the allegations--that is it. I hope that is okay or else we will simply have an RFC. Prasangika37 (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

You didn't add the murders or the involvement of the Chinese government. Instead you are misrepresenting your own sources, let alone the other sources, in violation of WP:BLP.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

BLP? Bring it to a notification board to get others opinion, but I think you're out of luck on that one. 10 Reliable Sources talking about the same thing isn't violation of BLP. If you really want, I would be happy to compromise with saying "There is no direct link between the protestors and China, but Chinese authorities have become involved in the controversy by supporting Shugden monasteries." Would that make you happy?? I'm trying here to make a balance work by teaching the controversy, but the obstinance, to me, reveals some serious POV issues among a variety of people. Prasangika37 (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Use of Oracles section

I have added the long-overdue use of Oracles section, as its an important part of the controversy. I am happy to adjust it in the best way possibles, but I think its crucial. The Dalai Lama has explicitly stated multiple times that his relationship to oracles is a main reason for him to speak out against Dorje Shugden. The article currently has a WP:WEIGHT issue towards trying to explain that the Yellow Book was the primary preceding factor influencing his decision, while its quite obvious from his own words that it was influenced by oracle-reliance. Prasangika37 (talk) 01:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

NKT ignores Yellow Book.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Dreyfus-->"The refusal of the offerings of long life was already bad enough. The mention of these dreams was akin to a declaration of intention to abandon this world and his role therein. This sent the Tibetan community into a veritable ritual frenzy. The state oracle of Ne-chung ordered Tibetans to recite an enormous number of Mani, the mantra of the bodhisattva Avalokeshtevara of whom the Dalai Lama is said to be a manifestation.".

Mills-->"the SSC, who distributed a paper entitled 'Evidence that the Dalai Lama Bases His Decisions on the Words ofTranceOracles and Divinations by Lottery'. Of all the considerable quantity of paperwork distributed by the SSC to the world press and human rights organizations, this is perhaps the oddest. Its ostensible intent (clear from the title) was to portray the Dalai Lama as a superstitious and irrational decision maker, who relies not on 'democratic decisions', 'coherent justifications' or 'deliberation' when making state-level decisions, but on the word of possessed oracles and rituals. That this allegation is in its literal sense true will surprise no one familiar with Tibetan affairs, and certainly wouldn't be denied by the Tibetan Government-in-Exile. On the other hand, the worship of Shugden, as with most such deities in the Tibetan tradition of Buddhism, is equally replete with divination and oracular pronouncement (the deity himself regularly possessed two principal oracles, one of whom has key links to the New Kadampa Tradition, and by extension the SSe). What is being asserted here, however, is not the existence ofsuch traditions per se, but the role they play in the political and religious decision-making of a head of state, a role which the SSC deemed illegitimate. Again, the spectre of the church-state divide haunts this viewpoint, essential to the presentation of Shugden worship as a politically neutral, individual and thus harmless religious practice".

Kay--"the medium, who is known as the Nechung (gNas chung) Oracle. The importance of oracle-priests in the processes of political decision-making may provide a context for understanding the claim that Dorje Shugden should replace Pehar as the state protector. According to ex-monk and popular Buddhist author Stephen Batchelor, such a shift in Dharma-protector allegiance would have given supporters of Dorje Shugden a degree of political influence (interview, June 1994). If the view that he was the chief Dharma-protector in Central Tibet had gained a wider acceptance, it would have been ‘Rdo-Rje-Sugs-Ldan rather than Pe Har himself who functions as the State Oracle at Nechung’.

Thus all three mention Nechung, with Mills expicitly saying the importance and implicit reliance. And anyway, see the edit--> Four different sources at least there. Prasangika37 (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• I fail to see the relevance of any of this beyond some vague allegation of hypocrisy from the Dalai Lama, and I am not convinced. This is getting into deeper theology that is beyond the scope of the article unless someone on the anti-Shugden side wants to present an opposing view. And at this point, laypeople's eyes are going to glaze over. Montanabw^(talk) 04:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• I want to have the views of everyone on the Mills source as an RS. Yes or no? Agreed upon or not? Montanabw^(talk) 03:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't like Mills personally but VictoriaGrayson has fought for it strongly so I have buckled to just not fight that fight.

Regarding the relevance, its actually very important. 5 Different RS explain its one of the main reasons the Dalai Lama has spoken up against the practice. If we are talking about the controversy, we should know where the decision comes from. The article currently makes the claim that the decision is just coming from disagreeing with the Yellow book, but these various sources explain a lot of the decision came from consultation with oracles. It is also a point of contention from those who practice Dorje Shugden, as they understand the decision came from consulting an oracle, diminishing the relevance or value of the decision. Its clearly a reason there is a controversy. Imagine Obama banning a Christian group and one of his reasons was that he consulted divination. Don't you think that would be an aspect of the controversy?Prasangika37 (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The Dalai Lama is not the prime minister of India. Narendra Modi is. So your Obama analogy is nonsense. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The TGIE functions like a government and the Dalai Lama, while not explicit head, essentially has temporal power. Regardless, the oracles are valid. Prasangika37 (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The CTA is not part of the government of India.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Here, I will say that we cannot be imputing the actions of the Government of India to the Tibetan Government in Exile; the CTA just is not that powerful. Most everything else is either anecdotal or it is rather obvious - i.e., if Shugden practitioners can't access certain mainstream teachings, that's a natural consequence and not of "the sky is falling" significance. (just like Catholics with unconfessed sins aren't supposed to take communion. Same difference) Montanabw^(talk) 05:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

see tibet.net-- You all may not know much about the CTA but through doing a little research you can see they effectively have enough power and influence to effectively segregate or severely harm the wellbeing over those who they speak up against.They operate like a government, at least in the sense of 1) Providing Education (http://www.tibet.net/education) "The Department of Education currently oversees 73 Tibetan schools – excluding the pre-primary sections and private schools – in India and Nepal under different autonomous administrative bodies. There are around 24,000 students and 2,200 staff members in these schools" 2) Running health systems http://www.tibet.net/health (its primary goal of “Health for All” Department extends its health care services to both Tibetans and local Indian residents.Currently, there are 7 hospitals, 4 Primary Health Centers and 43 clinics located in all the refugee settlements in India and Nepal with 174 medical staff and 68 administrative staff working under it.) 3) Give out welfare (http://tibet.net/health/programs/welfare-program/) 4. Has a Judiciary and government in general (http://tibet.net/about-cta/judiciary/programs/law-code-and-evidence/) 5. Makes and enforces laws.

Also, look at this juicy one on the local parliaments: The Local Parliaments are scaled-down replicas of the Tibetan Parliament-in-Exile. They keep an eye on the activities of their respective settlement/welfare officers. They also make laws for their respective communities according to the latter’s felt-needs. The laws passed by the Local Parliament must be implemented by the respective settlement/welfare officer.

This also implies you cannot work at any of these institutions, as it says in the charter a Shugden practitioner cannot work for the government.

Simply look at the UN Declaration of Human Rights and see the violations left and right:

Article 21.(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.(3)The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.” Article 18. "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

All three are breached--Public services are denied to Shugden Buddhists, they're not able to manifest their belief in religion in public or private spaces either by being barred or by group pressure from religious authorities, and finally, they are not able to publicly express their disagreement or else their pictures and even address ends up on the government website. 3 breaches..Prasangika37 (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

This is original research.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

This is from the Tibet Government in Exile website... A primary source, but not OR. Original Research, which I am surprised you don't know since you are an active wikipedia user, refers to on the main article page itself. Discussing on the talk page has no such limitations. It is helpful actually for those who doubt the reality of discrimination and bias. We are looking at the qualifying aspects of these terms from organizations like the UN, which serve as a valid judge of such things. This is especially true in comparison with using just Sutra-thumping Buddhists speaking on the issue, which the article relies too heavily on (Dreyfus, Thurman, Dodin, Markansky..probably more). Prasangika37 (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, I see no valid argument against Oracles still. Its how the Dalai Lama made his decision..how do we, in good faith, not include that? Especially when its extensively covered by scholars. .... I see Joshua Jonathan's point on being relevant to the normal reader, but honestly the whole article is pretty irrelevant to the normal reader, and therefore that isn't a good becnh mark. I would suggest it being demolished personally. Either way, the final article must include how the Dalai Lama made the decision itself. Prasangika37 (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Your United Nations original research makes no sense. The Dalai Lama is not part of the government of India. Barnett is thus correct when he says the Shugden demonstrations are just for publicity.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand the purpose of the Waterhouse quote

I don't understand the purpose of the Waterhouse quote in this section. I don't understand the english grammar, or what its trying to say.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It demonstrates two helpful things--the thirteenth Dalai Lama banned the practice and that the present Dalai Lama had actually consulted Dorje Shugden for help. Prasangika37 (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Present Dalai Lama doesn't fit in the 13th Dalai Lama section. Also the grammar doesn't seem to be right.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

This issue has also been beaten to death. The 14th Dalai Lama does not follow Shugden practice and has clearly articulated his reasons why. The "he used to do it" argument is totally stale, and beaten to death. Stop trying to bring it in via the back door. Montanabw^(talk) 05:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

What 'argument' ? Its an aspect of the controversy and a fascinating and important part nonetheless. Didn't you yourself say 'teach the controversy'. Please don't be hypocritical. Prasangika37 (talk) 02:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Prasangika37's New 1950s section

What is the purpose of this section?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, its explaining this continued development of the controversy. Specifically, that the Dalai Lama was actively consulting Dorje Shugden for advice. Prasangika37 (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of specific claims of Protestors

How would you like these claims to be included in the body? The claims are explained or supported by the scholarly citations in the article, like from Lopez, Ardley, Barnett and Chryssides. The next step would just involve explicitly noting these claims by members of the protestors. Prasangika37 (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources and possible mediation

I have started a page regarding the New Kadampa Tradition, the group which schismed out from the Dalai Lama, at Talk:New Kadampa Tradition/Sources. This subject seems basically to be as closely related to that subject as possible, and to involve many if not most of the same individuals. Would it make sense to add a separate section to that sources page listing the available sources for this topic, possibly in preparation for making as many as possible available to as many interested editors as possible? And, obviously, whether a separate section should be started or not, if anyone knows of any other sources to add to that page, they should feel free to do so. John Carter (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I could get behind that. I added a handful of sources there. Are you proposing listing the relevant pages? Would you also think its helpful to copy-paste or type up relevant paragraphs so they are immediately accessible? Or would that be overwhelming? Prasangika37 (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Cutting and pasting would probably be problematic, given possible copyright problems. But, as is, the material I added to the page is just a listing those sources I could find which specifically used the phrase "New Kadampa Tradition." I have a feeling that isn't the only keyword/phrase which would be relevant. I am fairly sure, for instance, that "Shugden" and variations on that are going to be useful for this article. Are there any other specific words or phrases which could be used in a search to yield results which could be useful for these related articles, and, I suppose, are there any additional articles beyond that one and this one which might have some significant degree of overlap or relevance? John Carter (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Shugden would definitely be a good one (along with variations Shukden and Dorje Shugden) as it gives rise to a variety of other results that you don't necessary get with "New Kadampa Tradition". I think for now those two would be more than adequate.Prasangika37 (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should the lead include accusations of demonstrators?

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.

---

Survey

There is a disagreement over the lead including the various accusations of the demonstrations against the CTA and Dalai Lama and result of the public denouncement, instead of just criticism of those who practice Dorje Shugden and that 'there are demonstrators'. Should these accusations be included?Prasangika37 (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support This is a large component of the controversy, which is established by almost all news articles relating to it . The article contains various RS and others listed above that reflect this and there are many other sources that talk about this that haven't been woven into the article yet. The disagreement between those who practice Dorje Shugden and allegations of discrimination versus the claims of no discrimination and the criticism of those practitioners is the controversy--this article, and especially the lead, only includes one part. Al-Jazeera and Swiss TV have also covered this.Prasangika37 (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• comment At present the article does not seem to explain anywhere which of the various possible issues or grievances are motivating the protests. Anything that's not in the article shouldn't be in the lede. However, I think it would be informative to the reader for the article to explain in whatever level of detail is necessary why the protestors are protesting, and then summarize that information as concisely as possible in the lede. Rhoark (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose as per WP:LEDE the lead is a summary of the article; body text of article needs to further develop the issue in an NPOV manner that allows debate of how such info should be weighted in the lede. Montanabw^(talk) 01:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support As most readers are likely to be searching for background into the protests, it is best to have them included. The article itself needs to be clarified though so readers who are not well-versed in Tibetan Buddhism will grasp the issues better. And as Rhoark mentions, the actual grievances and issues involved in the protests are not included in the article and need to be presented in a NPOV. Lozen8 (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

You can't put stuff in the lede if it isn't in the body text, Lozen8. Montanabw^(talk) 17:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't clear that I felt it should be in the lede and then explained in the bod copy in a NPOV. Sorry about the micommunication.Lozen8 (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - These "accusations", using Prasangika37's own word, violate WP:BLP.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 13:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment @Montanabw, Lozen8, and Rhoark: So you are suggesting we include the points in the body, then? And then in the lead? Prasangika37 (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Quit trying to twist words, Prasangika, I am opposing this RfC, as far as putting the points into the body, that is a totally different issue to be discussed elsewhere outside of this RfC. Montanabw^(talk) 18:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Montanabw: dont you see there is support for this change? The two people who voiced an opinion who are not directly involved in this conversation have spoken on the matter.. You are saying you're only opposed to the inclusion in the lead because of the lack of presence in the body of the point. No? Prasangika37 (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Do not make any assumptions about my position. I am opposed to inclusion in the lead. IF over time, material is added to the body of the article, then MAYBE language that is agreed upon by all could also be added to the lead, but what language, how much and when depends entirely upon what can be added to the body text and the consensus that develops there. As for "support," meh. "Drive-by" editors who are unfamiliar with the issue with vague statements are weak support (and do read WP:MEATPUPPET). Montanabw^(talk) 21:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Calling out WP:MEATPUPPET ? Perhaps you want to ask them directly and see what they say. Have you read WP:AGF lately? I would say you are outnumbered on this one 3-2, and if we remove those who are actively involved (You, VictoriaGrayson, and myself), it is 2-0. Perhaps its also a wise idea to look into your motivation for being involved here. If you look objectively, it is obvious that the claims of protestors should be included in the article on the controversy. There are hundreds of news articles in the last year on the topic alone... Are you stating it isn't notable? Prasangika37 (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Stop using the lead to make your point (both of you). Uninvolved readers should get the basic facts at the lead, not a battleground. Maybe you and Vic should both be banned from this article... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Sources

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.