Talk:Dorje Shugden

Archives
Talk Page Archive 1 (stuff before 18 July 2006) Talk Page Archive 2 (stuff 30 Dec 2006) Talk Page Archive 3 (stuff from 30 Dec 2006 to 04 May 2008)

Suggested inclusion of Glen Mullin brief discussion of Dorje Shugden

Hello, I'm new in here. I noticed that Glen Mullin's discussion of Dorje Shugden in his book "The Fourteen Dalai Lamas: A Sacred Legacy of Reincarnation" has not been taken into account here. I would like to discuss the inclusion of some of the material found on p.208:

-'Another controversy surrounding the Great Fifth concerns the details of the death of Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen, a famous Gelugpa lama of the period. He was one of the most prominent lamas of his day, and in fact in some circles was held in even higher regard than was the Great Fifth, for the Fifth at the time was still in his youth. One day Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen was mysteriously murdered. His followers claimed that the culprits were followers of the Fifth Dalai Lama, although there was no suggestion that the Great Fifth was personally even aware of the plan. The theory was that the Great Fifth was being eclipsed by the towering stature of Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen, and thus would greatly benefit from the death. As long as Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen was alive the Fifth Dalai Lama would be number two in the Gelugpa School; his death allowed the Great Fifth to rise to the position of number one. Whether or not the followers of the Great Fifth were involved in Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen’s murder was never proved, but the rumours persisted.The tale, already somewhat bizarre, now takes an even more exotic twist. It is said that the soul of the murdered monk wandered in the hereafter for some time as a disturbed spirit, creating havoc for the people of Lhasa. Eventually the Great Fifth contracted a group of Nyingmapa shamans to exorcise and pacify it, but they failed. He then contracted a group of Gelugpa shaman monks. As a result of the rituals of this second group the spirit of Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen was eventually pacified and transformed into the Dharma Protector Dorje Shugden. This spirit was later adopted as a guardian angel by numerous Gelugpa monks who disapproved of the Fifth Dalai Lama’s manner of combining the Gelugpa and Nyingmapa doctrines. Although the Great Fifth tried to discourage the practice of worshipping this deity, it caught on with many monasteries. The practice continued over the generations to follow, and eventually became one of the most popular Protector Deity practices within the Gelugpa School. In particular, during the late 1800s, when four Dalai Lamas died young, it became an all-pervasive monthly practice within almost all provincial Gelugpa monasteries,and was especially popular with Gelugpa aristocratic families. The controversy surrounding the murder of Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen and the deity that emerged from his disturbed spirit has shadowed the Dalai Lama office until the present day. By the time the Tibetans came into exile in 1959, worshipping Dorje Shugden was still a common monthly practice of most Gelugpas. In recent decades the present Dalai Lama has attempted to discourage the practice, but with little success. It is as strong today as ever, if not stronger; for with the Dalai Lama discouraging it in India, the Chinese are fully promoting it in Tibet.-

I think this qualifies a serious objective material, unlike Dreyfuss' articles which is filled with inaccuracies and vague allegations.

There are also some of René de Nebresky information on Dorje Shugden found in Oracles and Demons of Tibet which need to be discussed but I'll keep that for another time. I am not yet sure how this wiki thing works of if I've done things correctly here. Sorry for any mistakes...Act72 (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)act72

Undiscussed changes by Kt66

Drear Kt66, I would like to point out the the changes you made on 12:35, 27 April 2008 where not discussed by anyone on wikipedia. I am fine with the changes but please except a very large change to the section below that without prior discussion. Thanks, Wisdombuddha (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you WisdomBuddha, you are right. Things which are obvious or the editor guesses nobody will disagree or are against the Guidilines of articles can be changed without discussion. I felt, these changes are not so difficult to accept. However, if you wish to discuss, we can do. Your insertion of the Trijang Rinpoche view is fine, it would be nice if you also add the publisher/book, source. This is especially important, the reader must be able to check if this view really exist and was not made up by someone. So I like to ask you to complete the source, this means include please the publisher, year of publishing or the text where you have taken the information from. You can see I completely overworked the section on the opponents view, because there was no source at all. If you have WP:reliable sources you can improve the Proponent's section, but please: no anonymous website. Geshe Kelsangs text Heart Jewel can help you or the NKT website on the protector, but of course we have to state whose view that is, because we can not speak for all Proponents by citing only GKG or NKT websites. Thank you for your help. --Kt66 (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You continue to make changes to the overview without discussing. The few changes I made you deleted entirely. Lets be more fair about this...Wisdombuddha (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The content: "In his first commentaries on the practice, he dealt with him as worldly (unenlightened) Dharmapalas are dealt with: the disciple has to control him by his Tantric Power and give him orders. Later Shugden was considered to be a manifestation of the enlightened Buddha Manjushri." is in Brück's research, I get the book next week and will add the page number. --Kt66 (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Biased article

This is an extremely biased article. It uses George Dreyfuss' research extensively, even though much of what he says disagrees with the writings of Trijang Rinpoche, although these are not quoted. I seriously have to question the neutrality of this article which seems almost exclusively to be written by detractors of Dorje Shugden so I've placed a note to say that the neutrality of the article is in question. I hope we can work together to produce a more balanced view. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

kt66, please, you do not have the right to undo the contributions of other editors, especially where clear citations are given as evidence. There are many claims made in this article which do not have citations and as such, are inadmissible. I propose that we remove them or find citations for them

Please explain why the article is not in accordance with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, the POV template is not for editors who out of dislike can put a template there. You should give reasonable reasons for adding it. That Dreyfus contradicts Trijang Rinpoche is no reason to include the template. Trijang Rinoche is just one proponent and you can include his POV, where it suits. Because Research Articles are WP:reliable source and strongly recommended it is not POV to make use of him. However, I agree the article needs improvement. Thank you so far. - Kt66 (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear kt66, I have placed the POV template on this article because it is not neutral. On the 14th Dalai Lama page you said that the Kamarpa information was written only from the side of Sharmar Rinpoche. This article is written mainly from a critical point of view, trying to show that the practice of Dorje Shugden is a practice of spirit worship based mainly on Dreyfuss' article which can be found on the Tibetan Government website. If Dreyfuss' article supported the view that Dorje Shugden is a Buddha it wouldn't be on their website! My point is that there are many claims made in this article which are not supported by citations and are therefore 'hearsay' which is not acceptable for an encyclopedia and it is not balanced by citations from the work of Trijang Rinpoche, which I intend to include. If you doubt that this article is NPOV, this is also the view of editor Jossi because he has removed the reference to this article from the 14th Dalai Lama's article saying "These articles are not NPOV, and require a lot of work. Once these are corrected, a summary of them can be placed here. Not before" Thank you kt66. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 09:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Truthsayer62, please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 before you add a minor opinion in a article of that context based on self-sources. Thank you. --Kt66 (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that the neutrality of the article is in question. If you compare the amount of content from those who oppose Dorje Shugden to those who rely on him, it is about 80% opposing and 20% pro Dorje Shugden. The sheer amount of time Kay is used in the article is an indication to this. I think that banner needs to stay there until this is more even sided.24.39.153.186 (talk) 11:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, also! It can not be neutral, because it does not state what the Western Shugden Society thinks, that the Dalai Lama is a saffron robed Muslim and that there is valid evidence to prove that he is not Buddhist that he has stolen Buddhist teachings from Trijang Rinpoche and that he has cheated people throughout the world. In summary, it is clear that his real nature is cruel and very evil. see WSS website. - I am joking ;-) I accept the POV check it can only help to improve the article and make the reader aware that the article is in process. That's fine. --Kt66 (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact of the matter the "Shukden Affair" is an essay by Dreyfus, which allows him biase, mistakes and personal views. It is NOT official research. Nevertheless I am still planning to write to JIATS to check their official stance on this. There are many inaccuracies and biases I have specifically going to point out to them. If it is supposed to neutral a retraction may be in order.Tkalsang (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Tkalsang, nice that you are back again. As you can see in the discussion above, Dreyfus is at the moment the most acceptable academical source, and it was also stated in the Thesis of the work you have offered above, from all available sources on Shugden's origin, "it is the most thoroughly". Although the paper seems to lack a review, it is used in other researches (e.g. Kay) and is also recommended at least in one scholarly bibliography. I will look if I can make more use of Kay, so that Dreyfus is not given undue weight. What you do now is Original Research, please see: Wikipedia:No original research However it is always helpful to learn more. Thank you for your effort. --Kt66 (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree, these arguments are not original research I am proposing to have on the main WP page, they are for talk only. I am pointing the Dreyfus essay is not a reliable source. Not only that, I have cited independent sources, I have not made up any ideas of my own. I would argue for some of these I should be able to include these sources as well on the main page provided I don't add interpretation. Moreover, as far as I know Kay's work is not directly on Shugden, more on NKT and their related issues. These would probably be better on the NKT Wikipedia page, as Shugden has been practiced for 300 years while NKT has existed about 20 years. The scope of this Wiki page is already way too wide.Tkalsang (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I meant, if you "write to JIATS to check their official stance on this" this is Original Research, however it is most welcome to have their POV, but we can't use it in the article. I didn't wish to reject your effort but rather make you aware on that subject of Original Research. So I am still waiting to learn from you academical sources which contradict Dreyfus or support your POV, that Dreyfus' research is not acceptable or bias, or not a reliable source. Which academical research states this? The researches I know accept him, I think also Brück is using him, not only Kay, but I have to check when I get my books back. Of course we can use any WP:reliable source I never said something against this. Kay made a chapter on Shugden and this is far enough to make use of him. He has been published also by Routledge and his paper has been reviewed. He is explaining the subject Dorje Shugden in detail. I can give you the exact pages when I have the book. Many Regards, --Kt66 (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

But the "Shukden Affair" is by the author's own admission in the opening paragraphs an essay which basically excuses the author from any academic standards, it is not official research. It's that simple, a letter from JIATS would merely confirm that, it is not for publishing.Tkalsang (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Another thing, if you consider quoting "Shukden Affair" acceptable, so can "Himalayan Dialog" by Stan Mumford can be quoted as well. He specifically did research on Shugden practice in Nepal. This is not "new research" as somebody alleged earlier.Tkalsang (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

As we have only few academical sources but plenitude of bias sources, any accepted academical source is welcomed. Mumford is used as a source by Kay as well. I see no problem using Mumford, Dreyfus, Kay and Brück. All four are accepted scholars and their papers are used by other scholars. --Kt66 (talk) 08:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, Ursula Bernis did hold a PhD, that is confirmed here as well: http://ms.cc.sunysb.edu/~hsilverman/PLACEMENT/SB-PhilosophyDoctorates.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkalsang (talk • contribs) 23:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, she holds a philosophical doctorate; good to know. Because she is not mentioned in any academical work on Shugden and Shugden Followers operate quite easily with titles, like Kundeling who is announced as Prof. Dr., I am always quite sceptical when titles appear. Again thank you for clarification. --Kt66 (talk) 08:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Now I am myself concerned regarding the NPOV of the article, the views of Shugden followers and their opposition to the Dalai Lama is less presented. This may be due to the fact, that there are only antonym webpages and also very questionable webpages, which hold extreme views (WSS), which can't be used as WP:reliable sources and that editors did not add so much to the article or didn't use acceptable WP:RS. (The fault is also mine, because I focused also one-sided.) I will check the academical sources to find more material which can be used to present their POV, and like to encourage everybody to do this as well or to balance the sections with WP:RS. --user:kt66 09:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

And the quotations from http://www.tibet.com/dholgyal/shugden-history.html are WP:reliable sources? This holds extreme views as well. Also let me state how flawed some of this academic "research" is, this is not new research it is simply reading the existing papers. Dreyfuss in his essay states FOLLOWERS of Pabonkha Rinpoche destroyed Guru Rinpoche statues, with no source so it can't be trust. Then Kay merely references this and ADDS Panbongkha and followers destroyed Guru Rinpoche statues. So not only is the first source unreferenced, we have the second source adding more unbased distortion on top of this. Does Kay have some new unnamed source that can back up these claims.Tkalsang (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear User:Tkalsang, it is possible to cite from the official websites of the parties involved. This has been done also by citing GKG, or the NKT Shugden site or the NKT festival site, among other. By making clear that it is the source of the TGI/NKT/GKG it is clear who is behind that view. It is also clear that Trijang Rinpoche's text at dorjeshugden.com can usually not be used at all for the article, because it is original research and published at an antonym website. In a way I think we must find a compromise here. If you start to argue like this, we can almost offer no article at all. Further when three (!) researcher, Kay, Dreyfus and Samuel state that this events happened and you can find the same in Autobiographies, like that of Chagdug Tulku, then it is properly fine to add it to the article. SF have a strong sense of rejection and denying of almost everything what their POV opposes. But WP just presents what is there on the factual level according to WP:reliable sources and Kay, Samual and Dreyfus fulfil that criteria. --Kt66 (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue with allegation of Pabongkha destroying monasteries, etc. is this is very serious with ramifications far beyond the Shugden issue. An essay makes this claim with no verifiable source, then this is merely quoted by the other "academic" works. I don't think it is WP's position to publish serious allegations for something that can't be verified that happened 100 years ago. Also, the Trijang book was publish in Gangtok Sikkim in 1967, and is available on TBRC as well, the link provided is just an English translation to conform with WP policy for non-English works.Tkalsang (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

There are the sources so we can state that, but not only that I asked a high Gelug lama and close disciple of Trijang Rinpoche, he confirmed that issue, that disciples of Pabongkha did that, and added but he does not believe that Pabongkha personally was involved. If you try further to reject the use of academical resources (moreover without any suggestion of other academical sources) than we can do

• Request for comment --Kt66 (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

@Tkalsang

I think your conflict with the article comes exactly through your own bias, it is just funny how you reject academical sources without suggesting other academical sources, how you ignore, that Dreyfus is used in other academical sources and suggested in bibliographies, that you ignore the fact that at least three acknowledged researchers: Dreyfus, Kay and Samuel reported about this events of violence. I'd like to give you a note from Buddhist Theology: Critical Reflections by Contemporary Buddhist Scholars, John J. Makransky, Roger Reid Jackson, 2000, Routledge, ISBN:0700712038. John J. Makransky states at page 20, in his introduction Contemporary Academic Buddhist Theology; Its emergence and rationale:

A stunning recent example of this: some Tibetan monks who now introduce Westerners to practices centered on a native Tibetan deity, without informing them that one of its primary functions has been to assert hegemony over rival sects! The current Dalai Lama, seeking to combat the ancient, virulent sectarianisms operative in such quarters, has strongly discouraged the worship of the "protector" deity known as Dorje Shugden, because one of its functions has been to force conformity to the dGe lugs pa sect (with which the Dalai Lama himself is most closely associated) and to assert power over competing sects. Western followers of a few dGe lugs pa monks who worship that deity, lacking any critical awareness of its sectarian functions in Tibet, have recently followed the Dalai Lama to his speaking engagements to protest his strong stance (for non-sectarianism) in the name of their "religious freedom" to promulgate, now in the West, an embodiment of Tibetan sectarianism. If it were not so harmful to persons and traditions, this would surely be one of the funniest examples of the cross-cultural confusion that lack of critical reflection continues to create.

--Kt66 (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No I've read the "Shukden Affair" in great detail, and there are some big mistakes and gaping holes for missing references. Moreover, it is not an academic research, it is an essay. How many times do I need to say this? If other researchers have failed to recognize this and have referenced this it is a fault in their own work. It is not neutral, it is not peer reviewed. I'm not trying to get my own "new research on the front page. That's funny you can quote all of the academic opinion you want, nobody has ever approached me to pressure me into getting a Shugden initiation. If the quote above indicates an issue in the NKT dissemination of Shugden practice, that is a fault of the NKT and not Shugden. This is not the normal way Shugden practice is disseminated with traditional Tibetan teachers, which I have been involved with. Tkalsang (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

if you have personal claims that all the researcher failed, than this is your POV, but there are rules in WP for using sources and all academical sources - and these are the only available - meet WP standards. So they can be used and I use them, if you further disagree we can ask the opinion of other WP:editors as I suggested above. Nobody ever said or claimed, that someone is "pressured to into getting a Shugden initiation". There is a strong sense of "turning a blind eye" on the historical and cultural facts on the site of SF, and a lot of mere claims and beliefs, which have no source at all, at the site of the SF, that's why neutral research is needed. Especially what there is transmitted in the oral lineage is quite questionable and bias. Until now you rejected every academical source which researched the subject, still very funny, by claiming they are biased, and relying on your own POV. --Kt66 (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, then when I included quotes from Mumford why are they removed?Tkalsang (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Which quote you inserted? Sorry if I removed it, I can not remember. Please insert again. You can see that I accepted the passage you inserted:

In the 18th and 19th centuries rituals related to Dorje Shugden began to be written by prominent Gelug masters. The Fifth On-rGyal-Sras Rinpoche (1743-1811, skal bzang thub bstan 'jigs med rgya mtsho), an important Lama and a tutor (yongs 'dzin) to the 9th Dalai Lama wrote a torma offering ritual[35]. Also, the Fourth Jetsun Dampa (1775 - 1813, blo bzang thub bstan dbang phyug 'jigs med rgya mtsho), the head of Gelug sect in Mongolia also wrote a torma offering to Shugden in the context of Shambhala and Kalachakra[36] although this is WP:OR and usually not acceptable, and I think it is not important at all, however I accepted just for the sake of collaboration. For me there is no reason to delete Mumford. Sorry again, when this happned. --Kt66 (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Mumford quotes above on this page and some other ones, but I'm going to have to wait to add this stuff because the legitimate stuff is being lost by the massive edit wars going back and forth. Also, to improve verifiability I will include sources with links to TBRC, because these can be treated as primary sources as long as there is no interpretation added.Tkalsang (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Tkalsang, I am very sorry, you may be based in India and belonging to the Tibetan Community. There was a big difference between how DSS and the Delhi protesters arranged their criticism and how they protested. The research of Mills shows this aspect very clearly. Because the Indian protests and POV and actions are quite less presented, maybe you can include them in the article. Although you may not be able to afford the books of Mills and Kay, you can use google-book-search as described below. As you can see Kay:2004 uses all material available and he is neutral, unbiased and very to the point. Mills includes the perspective of human rights. I think both texts can serve for all involved to get a better understanding upon each other. I would appreciate when our article here, can do the same work. You are right, with TBRC. But please make it NPOV: like "according to TBRC, ...." It is no problem for the article when different opinions oppose each other, this is the nature of the conflict. But the presentation must be NPOV. many regards, thank you for your effort and contributions. --Kt66 (talk) 15:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Western Shugden Society - New Kadampa Tradition's new activities

The Western Shugden Society and their Webpages fulfil not any of the criteria of Wikipedia. They are funny enough to claim, the Dalai Lama would be a Muslim:

"According to some sources, you were born in a Muslim family. When you were a child who did not know anything, some ignorant Tibetans acting as representatives of the Tibetan Government chose that boy as the reincarnation of the Tibetan Dalai Lama. Since that time, that boy wore saffron robes, and the local people jokingly nicknamed you as ´The Saffron Robed Muslim´. In this way, you received the position of the Tibetan Dalai Lama. Because of this, many people now keep your photograph on their shrines and worship you." "...All these horrible situations have developed through the power of your evil actions. This is our valid evidence to prove that you are not Buddhist. Because of this, we also believe that you are the saffron robed Muslim. Throughout your life you have pretended to be a Buddhist holy being giving Buddhist teachings that you have stolen from Trijang Rinpoche. By doing this, you have cheated people throughout the world. In summary, it is clear that your real nature is cruel and very evil. Copyright © 2008 WesternShugdenSociety.org. All Rights Reserved. The Western Shugden Society is only the community or confederation of Wisdom Buddha Dorje Shugden practitioners -- it has no leader nor registered office." very interesting... see: 21st Century Buddhist Dictator - The Dalai Lama or [21st Century Buddhist Dictator - The Dalai Lama]

Truthsayer62 already tried to link to that site and giving references from it in the article Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama, see its history. --Kt66 (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

To proof my claim that NKT is behind WSS, see Colgate UNI, the first image is Kelsang Khyenrab, the present successor of Kelsang Gyatso, the the rest you know yourself. I removed the link from the link section. --Kt66 (talk)

Dear kt66, it's unfair to say that the WSS is the new activity of the New Kadampa Tradition. NKT members are 'involved' in that Geshe Kelsang is organising the demonstrations against the Dalai Lama's inhumane and totalitarian actions on behalf of the WSS but if you check the photos you will also see Tibetan Geshes and students present at the demonstration. The WSS speaks for all Western Shugden practitioners, both Westerners and Tibetans who are living in the West.--Truthsayer62 (talk) 12:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You will also see many Tibetans speaking to the Dalai Lama's representative: http://www.westernshugdensociety.org/en/colgate-university-ny-demonstration-overview Wisdombuddha (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, as long as there are some non-NKT it is not a sole NKT activity. The question is, who is mainly behind it, and how many NKT people and how many Tibetans support this. I am quite sure it is mainly NKT, because I read some of the emails NKT passed to followers. So if you say: "Many" Tibetans. How many? How many Tibetans were at the demonstrations and how many from NKT? BTW, who wrote the text on the 21st Century Dictator, Geshe Kelsang? I saw people in lay cloths who seem to be NKT monks and nuns but seem to have to decide to wore lay cloth. I saw no Tibetan Geshe. How many Geshes and Rinpoches were there? The photo serie start with the NKT successor, this is clearly indicating who is the main force. Am I wrong here? However, there is no need to stress this subject further here, because WSS is no WP source or suited to be used, so we can neglect it for that article completely.

Geshe Kelsang himself is the main force behind this, but there were several Geshes and Rinpoches at the protest as well. There were 50 Tibetans and 150 NKT supporters. The protests in India that are coming soon will be 99% Tibetans.Wisdombuddha (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I saw the video. It is clear that Khyenrab, the successor of GKG, and Dekyong, GKG's representative in USA, are the leading figures of the demonstration, and the speaker of WSS, Kelsang Pema, is also NKT; further the Tibetans who discuss with HHDL's representative, say, they may become a member in the future of WSS, it follows, they are not part of WSS. So my statement that WSS is a new activity of NKT seems to be quite correct. However, interesting Video, thank you for the hint. --Kt66 (talk) 08:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I am still in the process of re-reading many articles - at the moment those on the website of the Dalai Lama - until I get hopefully tomorrow my books on that subject by academics (I left those books abroad). Until I re-read the academical works, I will make no further major improvement or suggestion for improving, but maybe some minor improvement, mainly coming from reviewing the articles at the DL's homepage. I would be happy if you or anyone of the new editors or whomever like, tries to find WP:reliable sources to improve the understanding and POV of Shugden Followers or opposing views/papers on Kay's/Dreyfus's research etc. Also for the last section on the view of Dorje Shugden Followers, which has almost no reference at all, it would be good to have WP:reliable sources which can be used as reference to the statements there. Until now there are almost no references at all in that section. To state what exactly is not acceptable or needs to be balanced or violates the NPOV rules would be fine too. Trijang Rinpoche's view is included now, what else is missed? Thank you and the other editors very much, --14:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I finished my insertions from the DL's webpage, I hope I can balance sections better when I got my books on academical research. --Kt66 (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

removal of a repeated inserted section that lacks sources etc.

Some editors put again and again the following passage in the section on the overview of the dispute:

The Dalai Lama has “banned” the practice of Dorje Shugden and in so doing caused a rift in the Tibetan community as it is a widespread practice.[6] Tibetan and Western practitioners are currently organizing demonstrations against the Dalai Lama's ban wherever the Dalai Lama appears, accusing him of denying them religious freedom.[7] The representative of the Dalai Lama appeared in Hamilton New York to say that from a legal standpoint there is no ban. However, he was contradicted by the practical examples and stories of Dorje Shugden practitioners which clearly indicate that while legally there may be no ban, from the point of view of discrimination there is clearly a ban in effect and it arises from the Dalai Lama’s words. The representative said that he would look into all the evidences of human rights abuse within the Tibetan community in India and agreed that they were wrong.[8]

The reasons of my removals are:

1. this lacks any sources
2. to put it at that place destroys the chronic order of that section

--Kt66 (talk) 08:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The reasons why this article needs to be changed

Seeing as we all seem to be in agreement about rewriting this article, can I suggest a few following guidelines? Let me know if you approve and if people want I can put together a new simplified article and the rest of you can then add to it.

Keeping it simple seems the main thing. · Getting rid of a lot of those sections that are repetitive and irrelevant to an encyclopedic entry on Dorje Shugden himself. (Some of those sections may belong in another Wikipedia entry, I don't know, but they don't all seem to belong here.) · Starting by explaining the nature and function and origin of Dorje Shugden from the positive angle for a change, with references from Trijang Rinpoche's text, the Dalai Lama's praise, and Geshe Kelsang's Heart Jewel. Then for balance a few short references to all that background and discussion about his being a spirit. This could be followed by Geshe Kelsang's (or anyone else's) opinion on the two views of Dorje Shugden (one being superstitious, one being from the point of view of practitioners). · A little bit about the ban and persecution, but short and simple if we can? · Also, avoiding such long references to the NKT as there are far more practitioners of Dorje Shugden worldwide (one million by some counts, if Tibet and China are included) and it detracts from that. · Cut out most of Kay’s verbiage – people can go and read it themselves if they’re interested in all that long tedious and largely irrelevant detail, it can be put on the anti-links. · Get rid of that unproven stuff about the murders once and for all to avoid slander.

Is there anything else that would really need to be on the article? How long does it need to be anyway?

I also agree that the article needs to be pared down and presented in a more relevant fashion. It is highly repetitive and very biased against faithful Dorje Shugden practitioners, who are put on the defensive by the actions of the Dalai Lama. I would help contribute suggestions if it is helpful. (Geoffduggan (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC))

I could not agree more that this article needs to be changed substantially. I believe it was written some time ago by a team of editors who are hostile to practitioners of Dorje Shugden and who support the Dalai Lama despite his intolerant and unreasonable actions. Ths article is by nature therefore biased and misleading, even appallingly verging on slanderous at times. It is plain wrong to keep bringing up unproven accusations of murder, for example, against innocent people.

Those who hold opposing views, who are actually practitioners of this Buddhist Deity and Protector, have not been represented at all on this Wikipedia entry until just recently. Practically all their changes, cited or not, are being reverted by the previous team of editors, especially KT66, and I don't buy the reason that the article should stay biased just because it started out that way. (Trudy21 (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

Thank you everyone for discussing this.

Dear Editors,

I believe this article needs to be changed or even re-written for the following reasons:

1. The structure is unclear. There are a great many sections and it is difficult to read and get an overview of. I don't think that the structure is logical and I feel that it has developed "organically" due to the input of many editors, perhaps. I would propose a review of the structure.

2. The article is very one-sided,and sometimes (not always) even when the arguments of Shugden proponents are given, they are misrepresented (for example, "Guru Obedience"). Just because Shugden practitioners are following the tradition that their Teachers have given them they are painted as being 'blindly obedient', whereas the Dalai Lama, who has arguably shown the worst example of Guru Devotion in the history of Buddhism is painted as a logical and reasonable (using the Kalama Sutra, for example) even though he is destroying the tradition of his own Teachers. Also, saying things like 'Guru obedience' is a complete misrepresentation of what reliance on a Spiritual Guide is all about and I am concerned that it misrepresents Buddhism.

3. The article relies too heavily on hearsay from unreliable sources. Dreyfus is quoted as 'fact' even though his 'facts' are refuted by other sources such as the work of Trijang Rinpoche. There are also many quotes from unreliable sources such as self-authored websites.

I do appreciate the great effort that kt66 has made so far on this article, but I do feel that now is the time to change it substantially. Do any of the editors agree? --Truthsayer62 (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have thought the same thing about this article. Until now I have just been making small changes that make it slightly more balanced, but it is very confusing and one sided. Kt66 seems to insist that if it has a reference, it should be included in the article. I may just paste giant chucks of text from Trijang Rinpoche and Geshe Kelsang sources and put a reference to the text. Then he won't be able to remove them if he uses his own reasonings lol. I am only joking of course. Wisdombuddha (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree in the following points:

• structure unclear
• needs more balanced POV's
• many redundant passages and difficult to read to readers

I don't agree:

• article is from hearsay
• Dreyfus is refuted by Trijang Rinpoche

I suggest to discuss structure, and then what should be presented in the sections. The article is also for me hardly acceptable but a start, and not that bad. Moreover it is much more acceptable than many other articles in the WWW on that highly controversial and very complex subject. I will make a pause until Sunday, the 4th of May, 2008, and then I'll check what other editors suggest. I would be happy if also experienced editors participate in the improvement, leave their comments or suggestions or if editors participate who know the academical sources. If not I will probably quit my work at Wikipedia. The new editors I like to encourage to read the academical papers available or to suggest accepted academical papers. I will make use of Kay, Mills, Dreyfus, Brück, Lopez, Samuel, all of them fulfil the criteria of WP:RS regarding scholarship. --Kt66 (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Obedience towards the Guru

Do any of the other editors have a problem with this section? Firstly, where it appears is out of context and secondly, what it is saying is that detractors of Dorje Shugden are logical and reasonable whereas those who practise Dorje Shugden are merely 'obeying' their Gurus. There is nothing in Buddhism that says that we should obey our Teachers, but if we also don't follow our Teachers, having ascertained that they are genuine Spiritual Guides, where will our knowledge and spiritual realizations come from? I find the quote from Brück particularly objectionable and it seems to have been included merely to imply that Dorje Shugden practitioners slavishly follow their Gurus without investigation. Geshe Kelsang gives two reasons why we want to do this practice from the Newsweek reply:

...we do not wish to give up this practice because it is a commitment received from our root Gurus, and because we know from our own experience that it is a very meaningful practice for the development of spiritual realizations. So now we are in a very sad and difficult situation.

So firstly we are doing this practice because we received it from our root Gurus, who we first checked to see that they were valid Teachers before relying upon them and we know from our own experience that the practice is beneficial. In other words, it's not blind obedience but reliance on our Teachers and, more importantly, having practised Dorje Shugden we know that this practice is successful to inducing spiritual realizations.

In the past I have tried to delete this section because it is both misleading from the point of view of why we are practising Dorje Shugden and from the point of view of reliance on the Spiritual Guide, but it keeps coming back! The main reason given for reversion seems to be that it contains properly referenced material, but I say that this material is misleading. What do people think we should do? --Truthsayer62 (talk) 07:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I will look on this tomorrow, as you can see, I focused in my last first aid edits, on the inclusion of scholarly, dispassionate POV and quotes. Please try to find WP:RS for the unsourced statements of GKG and SF. Google.groups &sf are not acceptable. --Kt66 (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but just because something is a scholarly quote doesn't mean it is reliable, it means it was published by a scholar. Any scholar who talks about Guru obedience in Buddhism doesn't understand Buddhism. I'm sure you understand this, so why have you quoted it? --Truthsayer62 (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

last changes by the new editors

the last inclusions are really damaging the article in full, give undue weight to an minor opinion (that he is enlightened), and lack accordance with academical neutral researches, instead they give a strong weight to the POVs of Kelsang Gyatso or are based on an antonym website or sources which are questionable. The last actual and neutral research which is accepted and where there is also a peer-review is Kay:2004. He uses as academical sources all what is available, including Dreyfus. To avoid that the article gets totally corrupted I will base my edits mainly on his research. If you wish to get informed see: Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain: Transplantation, Development and Adaptation @ Google Book search. you can read Mills' research also at google books: Human Rights in Global Perspective: Anthropological Studies of Rights @ Google Book search thanks, --Kt66 (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Truthsayer, you and WisdomBuddha put a lot of POV and WP contradicting material in the article without discussion, so please don't revert my changes of what I improved and removed according to WP:Guidelines. I am open to discuss anything, but I could not face such a poor and horrible article. You can see in the history that other editors saw it likewise. I hope we can collaborate. You can see I accepted also your structure changes of AI and the like. Many Regards, --Kt66 (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You undid the last change I made which simply rearranged one section of the overview. You rewrote the entire overview without consulting anyone on it. Then when anyone else rewrites sections you complain about it and revert. I have made very few changes, yet you still try to blame me every time. It is your own karma and one sidedness that are responsible for the edit wars you create.Wisdombuddha (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kt66, I agree it is a poor and horrible article, but for reasons other than those you have quoted. This article is horribly biased and gives a completely one sided view of this controversy, the view that you wish to portray. I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with your apparently friendly demeanor saying that "you will discuss anything", I don't see any evidence of that. You've reverted the changes of two editors of this article without any discussion whatsoever. We can collaborate when you are co-operative and open to the inclusion of more NPOV material. Thank you. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Open Letter to Kt66

Dear kt66,

At the moment, you are interfering with the improvement of this article. The article is POV because it is one sided. As others have remarked, it is 80% in favour of the Dalai Lama's mistaken position and 20% in favour of Shugden practitioners. It is precisely because this article is so one sided that it is POV and needs to be corrected. Even other editors such as jossi have agreed that it is POV and one sided. Maybe your idea of POV is that it contains even a slightly positive view of Dorje Shugden and you want to fill this article with negative but so called 'academic' references to people like Kay and Dreyfuss in order to justify your position.

It seems to me that at the moment you are saying that you want to make a better article and that what you are doing is in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines but in reality you are jealousy guarding this article, removing material included by editors who are sympathetic to a positive view of Dorje Shugden (even factual information that is fully referenced to the Newsweek article). In short, you are attempting to control the content of this article because you want to show Dorje Shugden practice in a negative light and you are stubbornly refusing to accept any changes by anyone who would show a positive view. I'm sure that isn't wikipedia policy. Furthermore you are making major structural and content changes to this article without consultation with the other editors. On the one hand, you are saying that you are open to reasonable changes to the article, but when this happens you revert them or replace them with something else that opposes the view of Dorje Shugden practitioners and that exonerates the Dalai Lama for his negative view of this Deity.

If this continues, I will have no choice but to report your obstructive and non-co-operative actions to Wikipedia and have this article edited by only a very small number of editors, under supervision. Please co-operate with us. Don't delete material simply because it does not accord with your own view, and do not be disrespectful to the valid inclusion of information from other editors, otherwise there will be an edit war. I'm asking for reasonable co-operation. Thank you.--Truthsayer62 (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Dear Truthsayer62, you and WisdomBuddha have made substantial changes in a very POV and questionaable manner, without discussion, please don't aks me to discuss the removal of that stuff and the insertion of reliable academical sources to avoid future discussion just based on your and WisdomBuddhas lack of knowledge of the subject matter. Please look in the history, it was not me who added the tons of POV and questionable sources. And they were reverted also by other editors, it was you and WisdomBuddha. My request is: please get knowledge of the subject and read the WPGuidelines: WP:RS, WO:link etc. I will now include a reference section of accepted academical sources, so that the reader can see, were the article is based upon. I hope for better collaboration. Thanks, --Kt66 (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Again you are blaming me for two changes I made. I am going to start helping these other editors if you are accusing me of it anyway. At least there is proof now that we are discussing and you are not!Wisdombuddha (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Kt66, I don't see why you have changed the overview so it relies entirely on Kay. I do not approve of this. I think it was much better before when it showed many points of view that all had valid references. I would revert it but you and the other editors are to busy engaging in and edit war. Wisdombuddha (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are both a bit funny, did you check your huge amount of changes you made without discussion? Did you check, who inserted so many POV and poor sources things (from google group) etc, moreover both of your additions were also reverted by other editors, so I am not the only one who disagrees. I think you used the gap, that I was absent ;-) --Kt66 (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kt66, you are understandably concerned that this article contains properly sourced materials, but I'd like to question your definition of these. I've been doing some investigation. Wikipedia:Verifiability is the source page for policy regarding verifiability. On this page it states:

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

In other words, not just academic sources. It says that reputable magazines are reliable sources, but you deleted the quotations I supplied from Newsweek, even though yourself have used them. This is inconsistent.

With regard to self-published websites it says:

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.

Personal websites and blogs are not acceptable, but websites by organizations are.

Therefore, if any of the editors wish to included material from websites by organizations (such as censur, Dorje Shugden.com or the Western Shugden Society), this is acceptable as are newspaper or magazine material, such as those that have reported on the recent demonstrations against the Dalai Lama. Therefore, in future it would be appreciated if you would not delete any such properly sourced material. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)