Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:34, 16 June 2014

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Tibet C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tibet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tibet on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TibetWikipedia:WikiProject TibetTemplate:WikiProject TibetTibet C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 August 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Archives

Archive 1 - August 2005 Archive 2 - November 2008 Archive 3 - September 2009 Archive 4 - September 2013

Clean Up of the last three main sections

I cleaned up the last three main sections of this article by removing all those self-published sources (WP:SPS) from anonymous blogs or anonymous web sites – everyone can create an anonymous website and can claim anything. I also inserted and represented the case of the murder of Lobsang Gyatso and of two of his students. Further I re-organized the section on claims of violence according to their chronological order. In addition I added the conspiracy to murder Tharchin, the assitant of Trijang Chogtrul Rinpoche, a plan that aimed to put the blame on the Tibetan government. I hope this is helpful. More I don’t like to engage in this twisted article. Best is to delete it and to start anew.

As an additional note the use of the word "ban" in this article is highly controversial and beyond WP:NPOV. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary defines the term "ban" as "to forbid something officially" and neither the Dalai Lama nor the CTA have totally forbidden that practice, they put restrictions to it. A "ban" would be also in contradiction with their status in the Indian society with their very limited ability to ban anything on Indian soil. The use of the word "ban" also hides the fact that in fact Tibetans and non-Tibetans can practice it in India and all over the world. It cannot be practiced in official Gelug monastic institutions but privately and Shugden worshippers have their own monasteries in India where they can and practice it. The term undermines all differentiation needed in this tricky issue. -- 213.182.68.42 (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I added that the TGIE said the never posted or asked others to post wanted posters or an "enemy list". But that an internal report for the parliament (which was requested by the same) was leaked by a parliament member. Kt66 (talk) 12:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Surely it's completely irrelevant that the TGIE didn't make the list public? It was a secret list of 'enemies' for elimination! When Edward Snowden and other security officers reveal secret Government information,the government doesn't want that making public either because it reveals what they are really up to. So it is the the case of this list of 'enemies' of the TGIE. It is for the protection of those innocent individuals that the list should have been made public Truthsayer62 (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Truthsayer62 What proofs do you have that "It was a secret list of 'enemies' for elimination!"? This is a mere claim by you, none of those persons died either. The only people who were killed were Gen Lobsang Gyatso and two of his students and then there was the trial by Shugden fanatics to kill Trijang Chogtrul’s assistant in order to put the blame on the Dalai Lama and CTA. For this proofs and documents exist. You distorted again the article by removing this information I added. If you continue like this I will report this as Vanadlism to the admin board mentioning how you in the past even deleted warning templates … Either you get more rational or it is better you leave it to contribute to WP. Kt66 (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages essay

Misplaced Pages:Criticism

• "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"

Chris Fynn (talk) 14:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

the list of "10 most hated enemies of Tibet and H.H. the Dalai Lama"

I inserted a former passage that was taken out of the article that sheds some light how information has been distorted and how both sides work with information – including The New Internationalist, that didn’t verify their information from independent sources. The passage about the wanted posters or this list reads now – hopefully – more balanced:

The New Internationalist claims a list of "top ten enemies of the state", the Western Shugden Society a "Ten Most Hated Enemies of the Dalai Lama and Tibet", and the Delhi-based Dorje Shugden Devotee’s Charitable & Religious 
Society a "10 most hated enemies of Tibet and H.H. the Dalai Lama" but according to a Switzerland TV documentary this list was made after the killings of Gen Lobsang Gyatso and two of his students and the Home Minister of the TGIE, Tashi Wangdi, states that this list of ten people was a "research report", classified as an "internal document" with the remark "at the top: Only for internal use!". According to Wangdi, the parliament had ask the government to do this research in order to know "who these people are." Wangdi says that a parliament member from Bylakuppe passed on this information, "and maybe in that way they became public …".

Kt66 (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

References

1. Cite error: The named reference newint.org was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Claimed by the Western Shugden Society. Retrieved, 13. Oct. 2013, http://www.westernshugdensociety.org/our-cause/public-announcement
3. Claimed by the Dorje Shugden Devotee’s Charitable & Religious 
Society. Retrieved, 13. Oct. 2013, http://www.shugdensociety.info/historyEvents1997EN.html
4. Self-correction of Swiss TV SF1 after a series of controversial reports on Shugden, broadcasted from 5th to 9th January 1998 »10 vor 10«, under the title »Bruderzwist unter Tibetern«. Video source: http://www.tibetonline.tv/videos/57/shugden-issue-on-swiss-tv

Dalai Lama did not ban Shugden

I propose the claim that the Dalai Lama banned Shugden be changed. Dr. Robert Thurman in a new article emphasizes Dalai Lama has *not* banned Shugden. Also the other schools long had animosity towards Shugden, much more than the Dalai Lama. So can we say that Dudjom Rinpoche banned Shugden? Heicth (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps instead the article can say "the Dalai Lama denounces the worship of DS" - at least that is how it is put in a recent article on Phayul.com.

BTW On the same site there is another recent article on the behaviour of Western Shugden followers by the well known Tibetan writer Jamyang Norbu - a frequent critic of the Dalai Lama. Chris Fynn (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

This is very true, the Dalai Lama never "banned" Shudgen. The Dalai Lama first issued restrictions which were, that people who practice Shugden cannot attend empowerment by him. Later the Gelug monasteries, based on the monks’ majority vote and the vote of the abbots, decided freely not to allow that practice at their places due to repeatedly experienced problems with Shugden practitioners. Then Gelug monasteries’ charter was changed (based on their and not the Dalai Lama’s decision) that Shugden practice is not allowed at their places and Shugden practitioners are not allowed at those monastic places. However, Shugden practitioners have their own monasteries where they can practice Shugden, and they are allowed to enter the exile community and to use the exile community’s facilities like schools etc. I added three sources to the article (Bob Thurman, the Dalai Lama himself, and a CTA statement) to make this clear. The Shugden people misdirected the public and the press by using the term "ban". The Dalai Lama uses a Tibetan word translatable as ‘disapprove’, or even stronger, ‘condemnation’, in the sense of to ‘consider it unworthy of doing’. -- Kt66 (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The Dalai Lama did ban Shugden and such a ban became government policy. There has been a enforced signature campaign to get people to stop the practice as well as video messages with the Dalai Lama saying there is a ban so it is futile to argue that there isn't one and an attempt to change documented history. There are also a number of reliable academic sources that say that the Dalai Lama banned the practice, so the existence of a ban is an accepted fact.

Partridge, C. H. (2004). New religions: A guide : New Religious Movements, Sects, and Alternative spiritualities. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 206: “...the Dalai Lama has consistently spoken out against such worship since 1978 and, in 1996, issued an explicit ban.”

Chhaya, Mayank (2007). Dalai Lama: Man, Monk, Mystic. New York: Doubleday. p. 189.: “There are clear reasons why I was compelled to take the extreme action of banning the worship of Dolgyal . (these are the Dalai Lama's own words)

Waterhouse, Helen (2001). Representing western Buddhism: a United Kingdom focus. quoted in Beckerlegge, G. (2001). From sacred text to internet. Religion today, v. 1. Aldershot, Hants, England: Ashgate. p. 137: “...a practice that the Dalai Lama has banned.”

Curren, Erik D. 2006. Buddha's Not Smiling: Uncovering Corruption at the Heart of Tibetan Buddhism Today. Staunton, VA: Alaya Press. p. 17: “Therefore, on March 7, 1996, the Dalai Lama's exile government in India decreed a ban on Shugden practice...

Truthsayer62 (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Heicth. The 'article' written by Robert Thurman seems to be an opinion piece or blog. Although it may be given some weight - as Thurman is a well known expert on Tibetan Buddhism and on the Dalai Lama and holds a prestigious academic post in the field - we shouldn't really give it the same weight as something he has written in one of his academic books or published in a peer reviewed journal. Remember Thurman is also well known as a devotee of the Dalai Lama, maybe even an unabashed fan, and that may possibly colour his views when writing opinion pieces and blogs like this.

Chris Fynn (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

"Ban" - what's the big deal?

Really, "ban", "prohibition", "denounced", "condemned" or "strongly advised against the practice" — what's the big deal? (Though perhaps you can come to a term for this all of you can agree on). The DL is effectively the head of the majority Gelugpa tradition - and several Gaden Tripa's have prohibited the practice as well. If they believe DS is a "demon" or "angry spirit" then it is a bit like the Pope or cardinal banning demon worship, or the worship of Santa Muerte, in churches and amongst Roman Catholics. Would anyone be surprised at that, say that he isn't entitled to ban such a practice, or call it religious persecution? (OK - A few Santa Muerte believers might.) Chris Fynn (talk) 08:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Article Introduction/Summary

Truthsayer62, you have clearly made edits against the wishes of the majority. kt66, Chris Fynn and I have been discussing and agreeing to the article's contents. Secondly, please don't use known fake translations of the Dalai Lama, made by NKT supporters. Lastly, according to Misplaced Pages policy at WP:IRS: "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." Thurman is an academic expert in the Gelug school. Heicth (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

How can there be a controversy if there is only one view, the view that Dorje Shugden is a spirit? What I have written is more balanced and accurate and based on Kay's widely accepted text. Please don't change the article to reflect only one view because then it makes no sense. Also, Robert Thurman's view goes against the majority view in academic circles, including those of the Dalai Lama's own words, that there is a ban and so his opinion makes no sense and is inadmissible. Truthsayer62 (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the 'fake translation' you will notice that the quote doesn't come from NKT but from a respected book and author. Please don't deny the manifest truth. Truthsayer62 (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The manifest truth is that you linked to fakely translated Dalai Lama videos on a Shugden propaganda website.Heicth (talk) 01:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Look, I'm appealing for balance here. There are two views of Dorje Shugden as explained by Kay. This dispute about the nature of Dorje Shugden is the reason why there is a controversy. It is senseless to produce an introduction/summary that doesn't explain what the controversy is. I have quoted one of the main authorities on this subject. Truthsayer62 (talk) 01:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Heicth how are we going to come to a resolution about this? My view is that the article introduction doesn't serve its purpose because it presents only one side of a controversy.Truthsayer62 (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

See the above discussion between kt66, Chris Fynn and myself. Heicth (talk) 02:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

With respect, this is not a discussion about the introduction of the article. It is also a discussion between three people on one side of a controversy. Do you agree that for the article to be useful that both sides of the controversy need to be included? Truthsayer62 (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

With respect, you do everything in your power to promote Shugden / NKT. This is not just my opinion. See the talk page for NKT, where you are mentioned. Heicth (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

it could be argued that someone who calls themselves tiredofshugden might have the opposite bias! I'm not interested in a dispute, I just want a balanced article. The introduction as it now stands doesn't make any sense as it only gives one side of the controversy. I wrote a balanced introduction giving both sides according to David Kay who is a recognised academic authority on this subject and quoted directly from his book. What is your objection to this content? Truthsayer62 (talk) 08:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The issues of ban, Thurman etc. were already discussed by KT66, Chris Fynn and myself above. You just don't like it. Heicth (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You're right, I don't like it because it's not fair, balanced or accurate but let's be reasonable about this. I will propose a change and we can discuss it and come to a consensus. I believe this will improve the article and include all points of view which is better for the end user of Misplaced Pages. These articles should be accurate. Truthsayer62 (talk) 08:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Kt66 said recently that this article is still unbalanced in your favor. Heicth (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2014 (

Hi Heicth, I hope this is correct protocol as I am very new to this (thanks for your patience!). I think it is fair to say that the article opens with a very one-sided view. Would you be open in any way, to some kind of intro along the lines of what truthsayer62 is indicating? something that starts off by saying there are 2 views of Dorje Shugden? If I were to put something together with references, would you be open to a change? thank you in advance. Essence37 11.50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change to article Introduction/Summary

The problem I see at the moment is that the article doesn't give a balanced view or overview of the controversy but is merely a one sided view and criticism of Dorje Shugden and the practice. There are two sides to every story and indeed, that's why there is a controversy. This is my proposition:

Dorje Shugden, also known as Dolgyal, is a controversial protector of the Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism. There are two views of Dorje Shugden. One view holds that Dorje Shugden is a ’jig rten las ’das pa’i srung ma (an enlightened being) and that, whilst not being bound by history, he assumed a series of human incarnations before manifesting himself as a Dharma-protector during the time of the Fifth Dalai Lama. Opposing this position is a view which holds that Dorje Shugden is actually a’jig rten pa’i srung ma (a worldly protector) whose relatively short lifespan of only a few centuries and inauspicious circumstances of origin make him a highly inappropriate object of such exalted veneration and refuge.

Dorje Shugden's enlightened nature has been debated since his appearance in the 17th century. With the current Dalai Lama's growing public opposition to the practice, this debate has escalated into what is known as the Dorje Shugden controversy.

I'd be grateful for any comments from the other editors. Truthsayer62 (talk) 08:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

There is already consensus on the edits. What you are doing is just a) creating new threads, b) moving my own comments around, and c) also minimizing the drastic nature of your edits.Heicth (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but the article is biased at the moment as I have said. The article is a dynamic thing and not fixed, and can be edited by anyone so please give me your comments on the proposed change. That's how things work around here. Truthsayer62 (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It's true that I have proposed a change that is less than I originally included because I'm trying to reach an acceptable comprise that we can all agree on. I'm trying to collaborate and as you will see it contains both sides of the story from a reliable source. If you don't find it acceptable, suggest some change or alternative. I'm not going away, we are going to improve this article. Truthsayer62 (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

And as Kt66 said yesterday, this article is biased in your favor. Heicth (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You just keep repeating the same thing. I will give you a little more time for constructive comments and then if none are forthcoming, I will make the change. The article needs to be WP:NPOV. If you revert the change having been given the opportunity to collaborate I will consider it an edit war and have to report you. It can't be taking this long to make constructive changes to the article. Please, let's collaborate. Truthsayer62 (talk) 09:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't even make any sense. You are only giving the option of having your way. Heicth (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Kay, David (2004). Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain: Transplantation, Development and Adaptation. RoutledgeCurzon critical studies in Buddhism. London: RoutledgeCurzon. p. 46.
2. Terhune, Lea. Karmapa: The Politics of Reincarnation. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2004. p. 143
3. von Brück, Michael (2001). "Canonicity and Divine Interference" in Dalmia, V., Malinar, A., & Christof, M. (2001). Charisma and Canon: Essays on the Religious History of the Indian Subcontinent. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. p. 331
4. Wilson, Richard, & Mitchell, Jon (2003). Human Rights in Global Perspective: Anthropological Studies of Rights, Claims and Entitlements. London: Routledge. p. 10.

Truthsayer62

The manipulation of Misplaced Pages by New Kadampa cult editors is explained on the Talk:New Kadampa Tradition page and the user page of Kt66. While 3 users (kt66, Chris Fynn and myself) were patiently discussing, editing and agreeing on the article in a careful manner, User:Truthsayer62 deleted pretty much all the best academic material in the article. Also note the shenanigans of other New Kadampa editors. Now on the Talk:Dorje Shugden Controversy talk page, he just creates new threads and minimizes the drastic nature of his edits. If this user has his own way (despite both talk page and edit consensus), we will see the deletion of academic references and the use of NKT blogs as references. Heicth (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Why are you making this personal? I'm just trying to improve the article. Truthsayer62 (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

No you keep going against the consensus. Heicth (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

"Improving" an article does not mean making it better fit ones own beliefs, opinions or views - and a consensus should mean the article fairly represents the consensus of opinion found in reliable secondary sources on the subject - and not just a consensus of what editors may believe or think about the subject of the article. Chris Fynn (talk) 11:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello. There are a number of mistakes in this article. Lets start with the introduction and work from there. What is the 'Dorje Shugden Controversy'? The introduction does not say what it is. So lets decide what it is and then it can be put in the introduction. Or maybe what different groups think it is and put in those views. There are some mistakes in this paragraph - 'the Gelug school headed by the Dalai Lamas' . The Dalai Lamas don't head the Gelug school, the Gaden Tripa does. 'Thurman notes the Chinese fueled cult of Shugden concerns exclusively the Gelug school, and not Tibetan Buddhism as a whole' - Dorje Shugden is also practised in the Sakya School. 'Dorje Shugden, also known as Dolgyal, was a "gyalpo" "angry and vengeful spirit" of South Tibet, which was subsequently adopted as a "minor protector" of the Gelug school headed by the Dalai Lamas.' The Gaden Tripa (head of the Gelug School) has in the past taught that Dorje Shugden is a Buddha and the principle Dharma Protector of the Gelug Tradition. Thanks (not too sure how to sign my posts, let me know if it hasn't signed)March22nd (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)§

Truthsayer62, March22nd, ...

Misplaced Pages articles are not supposed to contain original research - or to be summaries of "what different groups think", or to be a consensus of what the Misplaced Pages editors of the particular article happen to think or believe. A good article should summarize the views found in the majority of good reliable secondary sources on the subject say along with perhaps a brief summary of significant minority views from similar sources.

Whatever your own beliefs or opinions, Misplaced Pages is not the place for individual editors to agree with or contest what academics such as Robert Thurman, George Dreyfus, etc. have written. These people hold prestigious academic posts and are internationally acknowledged experts in Tibetan Buddhist Studies - so their books and articles on the subject count as good sources for Misplaced Pages articles. Your own or my opinions and beliefs don't. If you can come up with contrasting or complementary views on the subject in books or articles written by other similarly qualified academics then of course these should also be included in the article. However if five academic experts have written e.g. that the practice of DS as an enlightened protector arose in the 19 or 20 Century and that prior to that DS was largely considered to be a worldly protector but one academic contests this writing that DS has always been worshipped by the majority of Gelugpas as an enlightened protector then the Misplaced Pages article can present this in the article as a minority view - but you need to give each view appropriate weight and space. 5:1 does not mean that the views are equivalent or should have an equal amount of space devoted to them for "balance" or claiming to make the article present a "Neutral Point of View". (Another example: If you were writing an article about man made climate change and find 97% of noted climatologists say it is taking place and 3% say it isn't you can't claim there is a "major debate" about this, but you can say that a small minority of scientists have an opposing view.)

You may be able to find innumerable primary sources written by learned Rinpoches, Geshes, Lamas and Buddhist practitioners who have first hand knowledge of Dorje Shugden practice - but in the context of a Misplaced Pages article such sources need to be used with care and never to try and advocate a particular view.

If you are a Dorje Shugden devotee, or someone who is opposed to the practice, Misplaced Pages is not a place to advocate your own views, opinions or agenda or those of your religious teachers - no matter how sincere or right you may think these are or how wrong you think the "experts" are.

Chris Fynn (talk) 11:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Chris, you have erected a strawman. Of course Misplaced Pages articles have to contain WP:RS. I have made edits to the article that contain reliable sources (David Kay is quoted by kt66 as reliable source and he's academically published) but my changes were reverted by Heicth, so opinion is not the issue, rather an attempt to keep the article as it is because it reflects his point of view.

I want to get back to the issue of the introduction. Do you agree that at present the introduction states opinion as fact (Dorje Shugden, also known as Dolgyal, was a "gyalpo" "angry and vengeful spirit" of South Tibet), gives only one side of the controversy (Dorje Shugden is a spirit) and does not actually state what the controversy is? For all of these reasons the introduction is flawed, not neutral and need to be changed, so I propose that we work on such a change. Truthsayer62 (talk) 10:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry I didn't put any references for my statements. This is from the Misplaced Pages page of the Gaden Tripa - The Ganden Tripa or Gaden Tripa (tib. dGa’-ldan Khri-pa) ("Holder of the Ganden Throne") is the title of the spiritual leader of the Gelug (Dge-lugs) school of Tibetan Buddhism, the school which controlled central Tibet from the mid-17th century until 1950s. He is identical with the respective abbot of Ganden Monastery. The present head of the Gelugpa order is Thubten Nyima Lungtok Tenzin Norbu, the 102nd Ganden Tripa and not, as is often misunderstood, the Dalai Lama.' This webpage (http://www.loselingmonastery.org/news.php?id=13) is titled 'Gaden Tripa Supreme Spiritual Head of the Gelugpa Buddhist Tradition'. This is from Tricycle magazine - from http://www.tricycle.com/special-section/an-interview-with-geshe-kelsang-gyatso. It says in the book 'Heart Jewel' by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso (a Tibetan Dorje Shugden practioner)'There are many commentaries, rituals and sadhanas in relation to Dorje Shugden which were composed by high Sakya and Gelugpa Lamas.' (p99-100). When I wrote 'The Gaden Tripa (head of the Gelug School) has in the past taught that Dorje Shugden is a Buddha and the principle Dharma Protector of the Gelug Tradition.' I was referring to Trijang Rinpoche. I can't find to hand at the moment a reference that shows he was the Gaden Tripa but I think another editor might have one somewhere. He taught that Dorje Shugden is a Buddha - I think this is quite well know as well, it says this in the book 'Heart Jewel'. So can we agree that those statements in the introduction I was referring to are not actually correct? It's correct that they were written by those people but the actual statements are incorrect. Also, it says this - 'The NKT practises the prayer of the Protector Deity Dorje Shugden. This practice is nearly four hundred years old. The first prayer practice of Dorje Shugden, called ‘Lhundrup Döma’, was written by the Fifth Dalai Lama. Later many Lamas of the Sakya and Gelug traditions including Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche, the Spiritual Guide of the present Dalai Lama, wrote other praises and practice prayers for Dorje Shugden. All these prayers reveal that Dorje Shugden is an enlightened Buddha. Some people claim that the Fifth Dalai Lama and a Gelugpa Lama called Ngawang Chogden rejected the Shugden practice, but this is false.' in the booklet 'MODERN KADAMPA BUDDHISM' from the NKT (from here - http://kadampa.org/Modern_Kadampa_Buddhism.pdf) so the statement which is in the introduction which says 'Dreyfus says "Shuk-den was nothing but a minor Ge-luk protector before the 1930s when Pa-bong-ka started to promote him aggressively as the main Ge-luk protector." Pabongka transformed Dorje Shugden's "marginal practice into a central element of the Ge-luk tradition," thus "replacing the protectors appointed by Dzong-ka-ba himself" and "replacing the traditional supra-mundane protectors of the Ge-luk tradition.' may be incorrect and is not a view which is held by everyone. So do you agree that the introduction should be changed? My other point is that the introduction doesn't explain what the 'Dorje Shugden Controversy' actually is. Do you agree with that? Do you think someone new to this topic who read the intro would know what the 'D.S.C.' is? There's nothing on there about what has been happening from the 1990s onwards, such as the Dalai Lama's statements on the practice, the actions taken from the Tibetan Government in Exile, the effect this has had on Tibetans living in India, or the demonstrations against the Dalai Lama's actions in the 1990s, 2008, and 2014. These are I think valid reasons to change the introduction. Thanks.March22nd (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Please refer to Misplaced Pages policy on Self-published sources. I added the Ganden Tripa as the nominal head per the references we are already using. Heicth (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Tricycle magazine is not a self-published source and it states on the Tricycle page that the Gaden Tripa is the head of the Gelug Tradition. The Gelug School isn't headed by the Dalai Lama. Thanks.March22nd (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's my suggestion for the introduction. I think all the points can be sourced with suitable references but I don't have the time a the moment to add them.

"There are different views on Dorje Shugden. Some people in the Gelug and Sakya schools of Buddhism consider him to be an enlightened being, a Buddha. Others, including the current Dalai Lama, consider him a spirit which damages the life of the Dalai Lama and harms Tibet. They often refer to him as Doygal.

The Dalai Lama first criticised the Dorje Shugden practise in 1996. He said he was following the advice of the 5th and 13th Dalai Lama's. Following this, the Tibet Government in Exile based in India passed resolutions in regard to the Dorje Shugden practice and people who are Dorje Shugden practitioners. In the 1990s, 2008 and 2014 there were protests outside venues when the Dalai Lama was teaching from Dorje Shugden practitioners. They accused him of lying and of banning the practice. In response, he has said that he hasn't banned the practice and people have religious freedom. Others have accused the protesters of being funded by the Chinese Government and of the Chinese Government using the issue to damage the future of Tibet."

I think this would explain what the controversy is for someone who is new, it briefly explains both sides, and is based on factual statements. It could also be used as a template for the rest of the article. So the next section could be on statements from the DL in more detail, then there could be details on actions from the Tibetian Government in Exile, and so on. Thanks.March22nd (talk) 21:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I already added Ganden Tripa to the article. Please stop bringing that up. Also reread Chris Fynn's comment to you above. Heicth (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. At the moment the intro to this article says - the Gelug school headed by the Dalai Lamas. This is presented as a fact, not a quote. But as shown by my previous edit on this page, a reliable source(Professor Donald Lopez in Tricycle Magazine) says the Gaden Tripa is the head of the Gelug School. So it is therefore incorrect for this article to present this point as a fact when it isn't. Also, another reliable source - the book 'Heart Jewel' by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso- states that Dorje Shugden is a Buddha, was considered by many high Lamas to be the principle Dharma Proctor of the Gelug Tradition, and was practised by many Lamas in the Sakya Tradition. These statements from this reliable source are in contradiction with statements in the introduction. Therefore the introduction needs to be changed as it is incorrect and misleading. Also, it doesn't actually say what the 'Dorje Shugden Controversy' is. Would you like to suggest a new intro which is correct and explains what the DSC is? I have tried to do that in the previous edit - what do you think of my suggestion? Could my suggestion be improved? Thanks March22nd (talk) 10:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Dreyfus explains that the Ganden Tripa is just the nominal head, which I already added into the article. Please read Dreyfus. Your Lopez reference is just a blurb inserted into an interview with Kelsang Gyatso. Secondly, regarding the book "Heart Jewel", again reread Chris Fynn's comment. "Heart Jewel" is not a secondary academic source. You are not absorbing what others are explaining to you. Heicth (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Heicth. You wrote - 'You are not absorbing what others are explaining to you'. Please don't make personal comments about me on Misplaced Pages. If you do it again I will make a formal complaint about you.

I'm not doubting what Drefus wrote - it is a fact that he wrote the Dalai Lama is the head of the Gelug school. However, other sources say different things. It says on the Misplaced Pages page here - https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources on 'Identifying Reliable Sources' - Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications.

Tricycle Magazine is a high-quality mainstream publication and 'Heart Jewel' is from a high-quality mainstream publications. Also the book 'Heart Jewel' has been used as a reference on 5 other Misplaced Pages pages, including the page for Je Tsongkapa. If it can be used for those pages then it can be used for this one. So therefore those are reliable sources which disagree with what's in the introduction to this article. Thanks March22nd (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

You are not absorbing what other people are telling you. Chris Fynn clearly said such primary sources written by Geshes, lamas etc. are not proper. Heicth (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't call either Tricycle or Heart Jewel a "Mainstream publication" - a term which is generally applied to print publications, such as newspapers and magazines that contain the highest readership among the public. Tricycle may have a fairly wide readership amongst white western Buddhists - but that is still a fairly small group. Heart Jewel was originally published by Tharpa Publications a publishing house devoted to publishing works by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, one of the main protagonists in the Dorje Shugden controversy. Their own website says: "Tharpa Publications is part of New Kadampa Tradition - International Kadampa Buddhist Union" - Geshe Kelsang's own organization. These things make the output of Tharpa Publications effectively "self publishing" of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. Chris Fynn (talk) 11:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Chris Fynn.Heicth (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Where in Misplaced Pages does it say that 'primary sources written by Geshes, lamas etc. are not proper'? I mean where in the rules of Misplaced Pages. Thanks.March22nd (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:PS: "Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Misplaced Pages editors." Chris Fynn (talk) 11:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Chris Fynn.Heicth (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Edits to this article

As this is quite a contentious subject and edits to this page have been reverted by editors, it is important, as Heicth has said to get consensus, therefore any changes to the article need to be agreed on the talk page first. Please don't change this article without consensus. Truthsayer62 (talk) 10:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Chinese government involvement

This section is very biased and is much less WP:NPOV than it used to be. It states as facts that 'Shugden activity' (whatever that is!) is financed by the Chinese government but neither the CTA, the Dalai Lama nor Robert Thurman have ever shown any evidence that this is the case. It's easy to make accusations but since these are not backed up with evidence we have to say 'claim'. Before the section used to say 'claims of Chinese government involvement' and this is more accurate, therefore I propose that the title be changed back to it's original and there will be other changes required as well which I will propose later. Do you agree that the title should change? Truthsayer62 (talk) 10:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

@Truthsayer62: Be careful about using the word "libel". Libel and slander are terms with legal ramifications, and accusing someone of such actions could be perceived as making a legal threat. It is routine for editors to be blocked for making legal threats until and unless such threats are unambiguously retracted. I personally don't believe that your intent was to make a legal threat, but others might draw different conclusions, so just try to use different terminology in the future. -- Atama頭 15:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Atama頭 I am certainly not making any kind of legal threat.Truthsayer62 (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I made a suggestion for the introduction. No-one has commented on it. What do people think of it? Is it better or worse than the current introduction? My suggestion was -

"There are different views on Dorje Shugden. Some people in the Gelug and Sakya schools of Buddhism consider him to be an enlightened being, a Buddha. Others, including the current Dalai Lama, consider him a spirit which damages the life of the Dalai Lama and harms Tibet. They often refer to him as Doygal.

The Dalai Lama first criticised the Dorje Shugden practise in 1996. He said he was following the advice of the 5th and 13th Dalai Lama's. Following this, the Tibet Government in Exile based in India passed resolutions in regard to the Dorje Shugden practice and people who are Dorje Shugden practitioners. In the 1990s, 2008 and 2014 there were protests outside venues when the Dalai Lama was teaching from Dorje Shugden practitioners. They accused him of lying and of banning the practice. In response, he has said that he hasn't banned the practice and people have religious freedom. Others have accused the protesters of being funded by the Chinese Government and of the Chinese Government using the issue to damage the future of Tibet."

Thanks March22nd (talk) 11:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you could move your suggestion back to the section on the Introduction? I really wanted to discuss the Chinese government involvement section here. I like your suggestion and it's a lot more balanced than it is at the moment but it lacks references - you would really need to cite some sources. If you look at my proposed change it says something very similar to what you said in the first paragraph and this view is backed up by David Kay who everyone accepts is a reliable source. Truthsayer62 (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Motivations for Editing the article

Editors, if you are a member of the NKT, Western Shugden Society, a devotee of DS — or, on the other hand, an ex-member of the NKT now strongly opposed to this movement, or a member of a group or disciple of a lama opposed to DS practice — please familiarize yourself with the Misplaced Pages guidelines about conflicts of interest and advocacy. While I'm sure you have good intentions in editing this article, any involvement in groups like this (on either side), and the strong beliefs and opinions on a particular subject often held by such editors only seem to result in attempts to edit the article to bring it more into line with, or to advocate their particular point of view- which they naturally believe is "correct". On Misplaced Pages, a person's strongly held beliefs often seem to lead to biased editing. Misplaced Pages is not the place to advance beliefs and opinions, or to carry on sectarian quarrels, ideological battles, or polemics like this - even if you believe you are doing this "for the benefit of beings" or out of guru devotion. Chris Fynn (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I've declared my position on my user page Chris, have you? I hope the other editors who side with the Dalai Lama's view of things will also declare their position honestly.Truthsayer62 (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, I have let you know about this on your user talk page and also added additional info to my user page. I have also always edited under my own name and not an alias. Chris Fynn (talk) 07:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the content of this article, my only concern is that it is WP:NPOV but it is far from it at the moment. The introduction doesn't even explain what the controversy is and requires considerable rework. Truthsayer62 (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes you declared your position, so please stop editing these topics. Heicth (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Raimondo Bultrini's 'The Dalai Lama and the King Demon'

I totally agree that we should be using only reliable sources so unfortunately Bultrini's book which is more like a novel and self-published by Tibet House is inadmissible as WP:RS.Truthsayer62 (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Obviously you don't understand what self-published means. And what do you mean its like a novel? The book is fully endorsed by academic Robert Thurman, who wrote the forward to the book. Heicth (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It's self-published (Tibet House), not an academic reference and was probably not peer reviewed so it is unsuitable as an academic reference. We can debate this on the reliable sources page if you like. Truthsayer62 (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

How does Tibet House mean self-published? Tibet House is a publisher just like any other publisher. Heicth (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Tibet House is not like any other publisher. it's not third party, it's like Tharpa Publications. As you know, Tibet House is the cultural centre of the Dalai Lama and so this book is just a one-sided propaganda exercise written in the form of a novel. Truthsayer62 (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Its not written in the form of a novel, as you can see from the quotes. And it is endorsed by academic Robert Thurman who wrote the forward. Lastly, Tibet House is just a regular publisher.Heicth (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's like Robert Thurman published it and we know what view he has of the controversy. The book is unsuitable to be used because it's not an academic peer reviewed reference and is not neutral in its approach which is what is required of an academic reference. Truthsayer62 (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

See the above comments of Chris Fynn regarding Robert Thurman.Heicth (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Heicth – I think is probably fair to distinguish between what Robert Thurman writes in academic journals and scholarly publications or lectures he gives at an academic conference, — and what he says in his role as a pro-Tibet activist and student of the Dalai Lama or when he expresses a personal opinion. The former would count as solid primary sources the latter maybe only as an expert on the subject expressing a personal opinion. If he is publishing in an academic journal or presenting a paper at an academic conference it will be Peer review - so that has more credibility. Chris Fynn (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Raimondo Bultrini is a respected Italian journalist who is the Asia correspondent for la Repubblica. He did 10 years of research on his book "Il demone e il Dalai lama" - which is a long piece of in-depth Investigative journalism by a professional, not a "novel". Bultrini interviewed people on both sides of the issue including several prominent pro-Shugden lamas, members of the Dorje Shugden Charitable Society and critics of the Dalai Lama. He also had several extended interviews with the Dalai Lama about DS and interviewed members of the Indian police who investigated the 1997 murder of Geshe Lobsang Gyatso and two other monks in Dharamsala. He cites his sources in the book. The English version of the book, translated by Maria Simmons, was originally to be published by Hay House - but, I'm told, they and other publishers backed out when they received threats of legal action from expensive lawyers representing pro-Shugden organisations - which is why the publication of the English version ended up with Tibet House. Anyway the book was originally published in Italian by another publisher. Chris Fynn (talk) 03:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The original publisher was Baldini & Castoldi--Auric talk 15:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

References

1. http://www.hayhouse.com/dalai-lama-and-the-king-demon
2. http://www.hayhouse.com/authorbio/raimondo-bultrini
3. Raimondo Bultrini (2008). Il demone e il Dalai Lama: tra Tibet e Cina, mistica di un triplice delitto (in Italian). Baldini Castoldi Dalai. ISBN 978-88-6073-457-0.

Truthsayer62's claim that the Bultrini book is not RS

As usual, Truthsayer62 is using constantly changing arguments to discount a secondary source which he disagrees with, just like he does with the great academic Robert Thurman, who by the way wrote the forward to the book.Heicth (talk) 22:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Kay

I'm attempting to make the introduction WP:NPOV and to actually state what the controversy is. At the moment, it's just a rant against Dorje Shugden and is really unsuitable to represent the controversy. I therefore changed the introduction but Heicth reverted it claiming that I had misrepresented Kay, even though I quoted directly from his book. Perhaps Heicth would like to say in what way this is misrepresented when it's a direct quote? Truthsayer62 (talk) 07:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Current views have nothing to do with historical truths. You are mixing up two different topics. You deleted the academic info from Dreyfus who says that Shugden was a gyalpo and an angry vengeful spirit. For example, the Padmasambhava article should also mention that Padmasambhava is 99.9% nonhistorical. Heicth (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm saying what Kay says - there is no misrepresentation. For 350 years Dorje Shugden has been regarded as an enlightened being and you can't change history in a few decades. You are stating one view of Shugden, which is just a view. There are two views of Dorje Shugden and for the article to be truthful and neutral, both must be included. Truthsayer62 (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

False. 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) 15:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Truthsayer62's constant denial of Chinese involvement

A tiny sample from Bultrini's book with Thurman's foreward:

"In March 1998, shortly after we met, these two men were in Kathmandu, Nepal, with other Shugden followers and a member of the Communist Party of the Autonomous Region of Tibet, Gungthang Ngodup, who had come especially from Lhasa. A few days afterwards, wrote Director Ngodup, an adviser from the Chinese embassy in Nepal, one “Mr. Wang,” visited Ganchen’s house. As far as he could determine, the discussion revolved around the type of collaboration to be established between the Shugden followers and the Chinese authorities, including possible financial support. In December of the same year, as reported by the Indian Express and the Tribune, the under-secretary of the Chinese embassy in Delhi, Zhao Hongang, went to the Ganden Monastery in India, accompanied by a devotee from Bylakuppe, Thupten Kunsang, and a monk who had arrived from Sera Mey. In July 1999, also in Kathmandu, other meetings were held between pro-Shugden activists and Chinese representatives. This time, “Mr. Wang” met with Chimi Tsering and other directors of the Delhi “Shugden Society,” Lobsang Gyaltsen, Konchok Gyaltsen, Gelek Gyatso, and Soepa Tokhmey, the society’s treasurer. After the final meeting, a letter was drafted to be presented to the United Front Department of the Communist Party to ask for help in countering those discriminating against Shugden practitioners in India…. In January 2000, after the meeting in Kathmandu between representatives of the cult and the Chinese emissaries, the Nepal National Dorje Shugden Society was born, with an office and a full-time staff of three, paid—according to the Dharamsala Security Services—with Communist Party funds funneled through the Chinese embassy. Ganchen Tulku was on the Committee of Consultants. ….Despite the formal denials of the cult’s practitioners, the common strategy of the Chinese authorities by now was obvious. In 2001 the Chinese ambassador was guest of honor at “The Millennium Conference on Human Rights” organized by the Shugden Devotees Religious and Charitable Society of Delhi and held March 20–22 at the most prestigious venue in the Indian capital, the India International Centre. If the reports of the pro-Shugden convention financed by the embassy were only “rumor” spread by World Tibetan News, the ambassador’s presence at the Millennium Conference was hard to reconcile with his routine duties as a diplomat."

Heicth (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

This is hardly evidence, it's just what one person has written in a book. There are no pictures, no receipts, no documented evidence, just hearsay and there is no documented academic source that is making such allegations. We can include it but it must remain as a 'claim' not as a statement of fact. Truthsayer62 (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The continued legalistic nonsense of Truthsayer62

Explain why the facts documented by Ben Hillman (in academic journal of the University of Chicago) or Bultrini (see Chris Fynn's comment) are "hearsay". Explain why Misplaced Pages is a place for you to dispute and delete reliable sources despite numerous warnings from other users.Heicth (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It is necessary for this article to present a neutral and balanced account of the controversy which means if there is more than one view, is must be presented. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to spread propaganda about how Dorje Shugden is an evil spirit backed by the Chinese. Let's present a balanced view please and stop making things personal. Truthsayer62 (talk) 08:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Explain why the facts documented by Ben Hillman (in academic journal of the University of Chicago) or Bultrini (see Chris Fynn's comment) are "propaganda". Explain why Misplaced Pages is a place for you to dispute and delete reliable sources despite numerous warnings from other users.Heicth (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yet again, Truthsayer62 deleted RS and inserted non-RS Shugden websites despite consensus and wikipedia policies.

Moreover Kay says "Ling Rinpoche, who was from Drepung monastery, was not a devotee of Dorje Shugden."

And Man, Monk, Mystic actually quotes the Dalai Lama as saying: "However, everyone is completely free to say....We will not change our tradition of propitiating Dolgyal."

So Truthsayer62 is lying again. Heicth (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Someone wrote and asked me "Is it proper for to insert a large amount of Shugden websites at Dorje Shugden Controversy?"

Any article should rely mainly on neutral secondary sources - if really necessary, primary sources may be used (sparingly) as well. An encylopedia article should reflect the balance of current academic opinion on the subject- and not what "pro" or "anti" advocates of the subject (or you or I) happen to think or beleive is right. In this case it seems Shugden devotees are not happy with anything that doesn't reflect their own rose tinted view of Shugden as some Buddha and any history that does have a hagiographical tone or agree with the myth of Shugden as taught to them by their teachers - whose words they consider to be fact. Of course nobody can actually prove anything about Shugden as he isn't a physical entity and anything any lama says about him is belief not fact. However scholars can determine quite a lot about the history of the practice and development of beliefs about Shugden from carefully investigating textual sources and histories. It is not the place of Misplaced Pages editors to do their own research on the subject or inject material from what others might be consider dodgy or questionable sources.

Pro or anti "Shugden websites" are quite obviously not neutral sources - they were created just to put forward a particular POV - so I think quotes from any "Shugden website" (and similar sources) should only be be used sparingly and with caution - if at all. On a controversial subject like this, any illustrative quotes from sources on one side or other side of the issue also need to be flagged as such.

There is other hard evidence scholars may use too - archaeology, art, artifacts, etc. In this case it is significant that the Tibetan art historian Jeff Watt has noted Shugden does not appear in any known Gelugpa "refuge tree" thangkha paintings until the 20th century - a notable omission. If Shugden was considered one of the main protectors of the Gelugpa tradition before that date why was he not included? Of course some much older "refuge tree" paintings including Shugden may turn up one day - in which case scholars will have to change their views - but until then the current art historical evidence is that Shugden was not considered a main protector by Gelugpas until the date paintings which include him as a main protector. The advantage of this sort of evidence is that it cam be reliably dated. Some contemporary lama may write that another lama back in the 15th century wrote this or that about Shugden and devotees may accept this as fact. But unless we have a physical text actually printed in the 15th century or a manuscript written at the time there is no hard proof.

Anyway I think a good article could be written on Dorje Shugden relying only on peer reviewed academic sources. No need to quote from any pro or anti Shugden websites or books put out by publishers tied to organisations on one side of the debate about Shugden or the other. However for how long would Shugden devotees and anti Shugden campaigners leave such an article alone? I suspect such an article would soon be once again subject to endless edit wars.

Chris Fynn (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

"Neutral and Balanced"

Someone wrote above: "It is necessary for this article to present a neutral and balanced account of the controversy which means if there is more than one view, is must be presented.". The trouble is devotees of Shugden lamas on one hand and devotees of the Dalai Lama (and other anti-Shugden campaigners) on the other will never agree on what a "neutral and balanced account" of this issue is. The edit wars on this article almost since its inception are ample proof of this. An encyclopaedia article should not reflect what Misplaced Pages editors doing their own research happen to believe is "neutral and balanced". What a good encyclopaedia article should be is a neutral and balanced summary of what current academic sources say about the subject. Individual editors may think the academic sources are wrong or right - and of course academic opinion may change over time as new evidence comes to light and more research is done on the subject. As I've said above, a good article could be now be written on Dorje Shugden reflecting the consensus of current academic opinion on the subject and to avoid argument relying only on peer reviewed academic sources. Would current editors of this article agree to something like that - or are editors more interested trying to see that the article reflects their own beliefs about Shugden and their own partisan view of the Shugden controversy? Chris Fynn (talk) 07:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. The book 'Heart Jewel' by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso is mentioned under the reference section on the Wikiepdia article for Je Tsongkapa. It is also used a source for the Wikiepdia article on Panchen Sonam Dragpa. If it can be used on these articles, can it be used on this article?

The article on Tara uses sources by Snow Lion Publications and Shamabala Publications. If it is okay to used sources from these publications in this article can publications from Tharpa Publications be used in this article?

Various newspapers in the USA had information recently about the demonstrations outside talks given by the Dalai Lama. These included Reuters and the Washington Post. Can these be used as sources for this article?

As for a neutral and balanced article, I suggested an introduction a few weeks ago which I felt summed up both sides. I didn't add references as I wanted to wait until it was going on the main page before doing more work. What do editors think of that introduction I suggested? Good or bad?

Thanks March22nd (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages article on Je Tsongkhapa contains a single quote from Heart Jewel which is in fact just a quote from somewhere else ('jam-dpal rtsa-rgyud or Manjusri Root Tantra) Other translations of the sane quote can be found in other sources as well. All the other sources used in the Je Tsongkhapa article (except the link to http://www.nyackbuddhism.org/k - which isn't a proper reference) are to very good academic sources.

Shambhala Publications and Snow Lion Publications, although not strictly academic publishers, are independent publishers not associated with any particular religious group or sect. Snow Lion is now owned by Shambhala Publications. Shambhala / Snow Lion do publish books by many well known academics, as well as books by well known Buddhist teachers of all traditions, and other authors. They are distributed by Random House. On the other hand Tharpa Publications was set up to publish books "by Buddhist author and scholar Geshe Kelsang Gyatso" - one of the main players in the Dorje Shugden controversy. (They do not seem to publish any significant books by anyone else.) So in this matter it cannot be regarded as neutral. Tharpa Publications us also not an independent publisher - it was established by a devotee of Geshe Kelsang and any profits apparently go to NKT related organisations. (

Yes Reuters and the Washington Post are acceptable "mainstram press" sources (but they are press reports not academic sources which are preferable when they are available) - Any quotation should be representative of the whole source document and editors should be very careful to avoid misrepresentation of the argument in the source. Selective quotes used to buttress one side of an argument are not acceptable.

The introduction you suggested earlier was already commented on at the time you made it.

Chris Fynn (talk) 08:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Sources

Poor sources for an encyclopaedic article like this includes all material based on faith in lamas or gurus and what they have said or written — rather than in any critical study of scholarly Western-language materials on the subject; all material that uncritically accepts miracles attributed to Buddhist masters, deities, protectors, or supernatural beings; hagiographical accounts of a persons life rather than critical biographies or critical studies of traditional biographical materials; and material that uncritically accepts traditional genealogies, supposed re-incarnations, and super-mundane or super-natural visions, deeds etc.. Uncritical translations of Tibetan texts are also rather poor sources.

Although they may be given some credence, blogs or opinion articles written by scholars who are experts on the subject are nowhere near as good sources as are properly referenced and peer reviewed articles written by the same people and published in an academic journal or presented at an academic conference.

Articles published in mainstream newspapers or media may be good sources for accounts of contemporary events they are reporting but when as 'background' these articles stray into trying to explain areas of Tibetan religion the journalist probably has no real expertise on, they may be poor sources. Often the journalist is just repeating or paraphrasing whatever their particular informants tell them or claim about these things.

Chris Fynn (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Another problem is that the media have often poorly investigated the claims and reported what they believed or was told to them without sober background knowledge and in almost ALL cases, they missed to contact or asked academic experts. Although Time magazine at least asked Robert Barnett, Barnett complained of having been misrepresented. Now all these distortions of events, backgrounds and facts are in the article. A total mess. I would recommend to clean up the article by strictly abiding with academic sources and than at the end to add a section of media coverage. Then at least there would be a reliable basis at the beginning. Kt66 (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with both of you on these problematic media accounts.Heicth (talk) 16:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

strange claims in the article

I removed this strange claim:

On July 17, 2008, a large mob of Dalai Lama supporters, who had been attending one of the Dalai Lama's teachings at the Radio City Music Hall in New York, clashed with Shugden protestors after the event, spitting, screaming, and throwing money at them, indicating that they believed that the Shugden protestors were paid by the Chinese government. The New York riot police led the protestors away to safety.

because 1) it leaves out the fact that at that time the Tibetans gathered to listen to the Dalai Lama in a benefice event and that the Western Shugden Society was provoking them with their abusive slogans. 2) Also this type of one-sided phrasing as given here is not in those articles quoted and it leaves also out the fact that there were also Tibetans that cooled down some upset Tibetans. The passage is unbalanced and one-sided. Thats why I deleted it for the time being until it is either made neutral or quoted correctly. Kt66 (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

This article has two "Further Reading" sections

This article has two "Further Reading" sections. Please correct.Heicth (talk) 06:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

pure religious issue

I balanced Chandler’s view that the Shugden issue is purely religious by quoting Dodin who holds a opposite view. Kt66 (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

misrepresentation and spin of sources

The article has still material that if from the former highly manipulated Shugden article that included a lot of misrepresentation of sources. I marked that in the article. The misrepresentations try to make the reader thinking that claims were facts or they quote out of context to give a wrong impression. I think the whole section from the template I inserted onwards needs to be checked by consulting the sources. I lack time to do that. Kt66 (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Introduction

Hi! The introduction does not actually explain what the controversy is about! Does anyone have any ideas how to improve this? Kjangdom (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The DS controversy relates to the controversy between Tibetan Buddhists (whichever groups, I dunno) who practice the veneration/worship of DS, and the Dalai Lama and his particular order. In (year), the DL said (whatever), which indicated that he did not find worship/veneration of DS acceptable in his particular TB tradition. Since that time, a dispute has arisen between the DL and his supporters and those who have historically worshipped or venerated DS regarding the acceptability of DS verneration and the denominational status of those TBs who continue to venerate DS.

Acknowledging the abbreviations, and the fact that I don't know right off all the details involved, something along the lines of the above, without the abbreviations and blanks of course, might be an acceptable first paragraph. John Carter (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC).

Hi. I suggested this as an introduction a few months ago but I didn't get a lot of feedback. I'm confident that sources can be used to support these statements, I'm not at the moment going to put time into looking for them if this won't be added to the article, but if we decide to use this text or something similar then we can look for the sources.

"There are different views on Dorje Shugden. Some people in the Gelug and Sakya schools of Buddhism consider him to be an enlightened being, a Buddha. Others, including the current Dalai Lama, consider him a spirit which damages the life of the Dalai Lama and harms Tibet. They often refer to him as Doygal.

The Dalai Lama first criticised the Dorje Shugden practise in 1996. He said he was following the advice of the 5th and 13th Dalai Lama's. Following this, the Tibet Government in Exile based in India passed resolutions in regard to the Dorje Shugden practice and people who are Dorje Shugden practitioners. In the 1990s, 2008 and 2014 there were protests outside venues when the Dalai Lama was teaching from Dorje Shugden practitioners. They accused him of lying and of banning the practice. In response, he has said that he hasn't banned the practice and people have religious freedom. Others have accused the protesters of being funded by the Chinese Government and of the Chinese Government using the issue to damage the future of Tibet." — Preceding unsigned comment added by March22nd (talk • contribs) 19:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC) March22nd (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks good, as the starting point of discussion. I agree that the first paragraph should relate to Dorje Shugden and his/its status within Tibetan Buddhism as per the recent statements of the Dalai Lama. A second paragraph could deal with the various statements by the Dalai Lama and his Government in Exile regarding the status of Dorye Shugden worshippers. A third might cover how Dorye Shugden venerators/worshippers reacted in the short term to those statements, and a fourth might cover the matters of protests, protest groups, and the like. Four paragraphs for now if the greatest recommended length of a lead section, and I think it would make sense to take advantage of the opportunity of using all four paragraphs to allow for summary of all the basic points involved. John Carter (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

March22nd... Yet again reread the comments of Chris Fynn, since you continuously propose the same thing over and over again.Heicth (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

As per WP:TPG, please comment on the proposal itself, rather than making apparent personal aspersions on other editors, and, if possible, maybe directly address the nature of the changes proposed. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I've tried to rework the intro so that it describes the actual controversy in hand (i.e. the ban, and resulting ostracization) and to bring the article article up to date by mentioning the recent demonstrations (which also form part of the controversy. I've also included a number of valuable sources that used to be in the article describing the ban. Does anyone have a reference we can use where the Dalai Lama says "there is no ban". That would be useful. I think that the introduction is still too long and that some of the later paragraphs should be removed but we can come back to that. Kjangdom (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

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/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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Religion and philosophy Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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 . 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 Misplaced Pages'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. Cullen 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)

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. Cullen 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. Cullen 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)

Article Deletion Proposal

Per admin Guy's comment, I propose the article be deleted, and the content be merged into Dorje Shugden. For example, Misplaced Pages: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. Cullen 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. Cullen 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/Criticism_of_the_Catholic_Church than https://en.wikipedia.org/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/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 Misplaced Pages? 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. Cullen 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

Requested move

It has been proposed in this section that Dorje Shugden controversy be renamed and moved to History of Dorje Shugden worship. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Dorje Shugden controversy → History of Dorje Shugden worship – For example, Misplaced Pages: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)

• 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. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Self published sources

There seems to be a misconception here that self published sources are completely unacceptable on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages'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. Cullen 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Cullen 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. Cullen 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 Misplaced Pages policy as you are. Please don't take the attitude that you are the only one aware of Misplaced Pages policies.Heicth (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

1. Midtown Clash over Dalai by Pilar Conci and Jamie Schram, New York Post, 2008-07-18, retrieved 2008-12-04
2. David Van Biema (July 18, 2008). "The Dalai Lama's Buddhist Foes". Time.com. Retrieved July 15, 2011.

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• C-Class Tibet articles
• Mid-importance Tibet articles
• WikiProject Tibet articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment
• Requested moves