Talk:Ole Nydahl

Tendentious editing

It might be useful for everyone to review WP:TE and WP:DE. --Editor2020 (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleting invalid source?

According to the wikipedia rules, “Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer” .

Now, the source used to verify the claim about Ole Nydahl not being a lama is exactly that; A self-published story making a strong claim, that the Lama is in fact no lama. And it is even in Danish, so unless you are a native Danish speaker (like myself), you can't check for yourself. It is by the way not very convincing, but that is yet another talk.

Shouldn't it be deleted?

Siru108

Please be more specific. Which reference are you talking about?

Footnote #?--Editor2020 (talk) 15:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I thought i linked to it... Here it is: http://www.sangyetashiling.dk/kt/namsebio2.htm

It is actually a general problem in this article, that unverifiable references are used, especially in the controversies part. Siru108 —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC).

It could be something like this:

"Ole Nydahl has met criticism on the internet for using the title “lama”, however Shamar Rinpoche addresses this issue and states that it is "absolutely appropriate" for Nydahl to hold the title of Lama. (Ref: official letter from Shamarpa)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siru108 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

So, since no objections, I changed the text to: "Ole Nydahl has met a lot of criticism on the internet for using the title “Lama”, however Shamar Rinpoche addresses this issue and states that it is "absolutely appropriate" for Nydahl to hold the title of Lama."" This s verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siru108 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Siru108, the reference: http://www.sangyetashiling.dk/kt/namsebio2.htm is to hearsay. If we are going for more than opinion then the reference and the argument it supports should be removed – eg. That Ole Nydahl is not a lama – which definitely supports a minority view of the situation.

It is not in English – which is another issue – how about linking to references in English on the English wikipedia. I ran it through babelfish and it amounts to something like – in 1977 I heard 16th Karmapa say to Lama Ole he should not behave as a Lama – which is taken out of context and could have meant any number of things. This argument should be replaced by the official 2006 letter addressing this exact issue http://www.lama-ole-nydahl.org/olesite/pages/person/ole_shamar_letter.pdf by the head of the lineage Shamarpa Mipam Choki Lodro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JK108 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I bring a translation of that part, then we can discuss it further:

After Denmark we travelled to Norway and the center in Norway. At that time there was a person named Ole Nydahl. One day we went with him and His Holiness Karmapa and some others out on a boat to have an small trip. At that occasion Karmapa told Ole Nydahl that he was allowed to talk a little with people, but he was not allowed to behave like a lama. He could tell about refuge and so, but he wasn't allowed to give any initiations. He told Ole Nydahl: "You are not a lama. You have met many lamas, but you are not one of them yourself. What you can do is telling others about Dharma, but you cannot behave like a lama."

16th Karmapa saying like this contradicts any written letter he left regarding Ole Nydahl. He indeed wanted him to teach, and indeed wanted him to bring buddhism to the west. Many of these letters are reprinted in books like "Entering the Diamondway" and "Riding the Tiger". Siru108 (talk) 12:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

DBU and the context of criticism

This is referring to a despute with the DBU (German Buddhist Union) in 1999/2000:

“According to Oliver Freiberger, assistant professor at the University of Texas at Austin,[18] there is an "ongoing controversy"[19] about Ole Nydahl. Freiberger reports that the German Buddhist Union's periodical Lotusblatter claims that Nydahl's statements and activities offend a number of German Buddhists who claim that his conduct is not appropriate for a Buddhist teacher.[19] "Nydahl has been accused not only of speaking in a conceited and militaristic way, but also of being right wing, racist, sexist, and hostile to foreigners. His unusual activities (e.g., bungee jumping, fast motor cycles and parachuting) also annoy Buddhists who are not his followers—be they other adherents of the Karma Kagyü school or not."[19][20][21] “

The sourses for this part:

Oliver Freiberger, Department for the Study of Religion University of Bayreuth, Germany, in Inter Buddhist and Inter-Religious Relations in the West

German Buddhist Union (DBU) Magazine Lotusblätter 13, no. 4, [1999], 64f.

Lotusblätter 14, no. 1, [2000], 56-61

They are all referring to the criticism raised towards Ole Nydahl at that time. However the dispute was solved, and the DBU decided to cooperate with Ole Nydahl and DW. The context seems to be totally missing, as well as the outcome. This is to me not NPOV. Oliver Freiberger also puts the criticism out of context, unless of course the article was written at that time (Date of release is missing!).

I would like to rewrite it like this:

In 1999-2000 there was a dispute between the DBU (German Buddhist Union) and Ole Nydahl. Oliver Freiberger, assistant professor at the University of Texas at Austin, notes that Nydahl's statements and activities has offended a number of German Buddhists who claimed that his conduct was not appropriate for a Buddhist teacher. He refers to DBU's periodical Lotusblatter: "Nydahl has been accused not only of speaking in a conceited and militaristic way, but also of being right wing, racist, sexist, and hostile to foreigners. His unusual activities (e.g., bungee jumping, fast motor cycles and parachuting) also annoy Buddhists who are not his followers—be they other adherents of the Karma Kagyü school or not." The dispute was solved in October 2000 and despite different views, both sides agreed to cooperate. The conversation was described as “a first step” that "should eliminate misunderstandings, and lead to clarity and cooperation.“

Siru108 "10:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siru108 (talk • contribs)

Overview in the controvercies section

I think this part is everything but friendly towards readers. I would like to arrange it into subheadlines, so that information about each topic is collected under a headline. Like this:

Main: Critiques and Controversies

Lama Title No further explanation needed I think

Teachings Buddhism Light or Flawless transmission

Dispute with DBU As I suggested in the topic above

Karmapa controversy This also explains itself

Contrvercial statements Controvercial statements and why Ole Nydahl made them

Siru108 Siru108 (talk) 11:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems very clear and easy to read to me. It's just a couple of paragraphs, and I don't see any need to break it down into six different sections. Mostly we need to avoid the long history of edit warring and disruptive edits that this article has been subject to, so if you would like to expand the section, any scholarly, third-party, reliably referenced material you would like to have considered can be brought to this discussion page and we'll work out a NPOV version for addition to the article. If it gets long enough to break into sections, no problem.--Editor2020 (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. But what about the part about DBU? It seems unfair to use an 8 year old source of critism without bringing the context. The "ongoing controversy" was solved 8 years ago. Today DW in Germany is in charge of teaching buddhism in schools for the DBU. Is it NPOV to leave the happy endning and the agreement out? (talk)"Siru108 (talk) 11:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)"

Actually how about deleting the Oliver Freiberger source? It is placed out of context with very limited chance to find english sources to verify the context. The Wwire article adresses the same issues anyway, AND it is a newer source. Siru108 (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Controversies cleanup - why?

Here is what I removed and why:

Read these: WP:NONENG - WP:REDFLAG - WP:LIVE (!!!) - WP:VERIFY - WP:SOURCES - WP:QS

I removed the Oliver Freiberger sorces. The Wilamette Newspaper states exacly the same, so this must be sufficient. Especially since Oliver Freiberger is quoted out of context, date of release is unknown (a qualified guess is no later than october 2000, since this is when the dispute was solved.)

Martin Baumann source is deleted, it is in German and most users have very little chance to check the fact themselves. It is a quite exeptional claim that this is Buddhism-light, and thus require better sources than a non-english one

Canada Tibet Committee is removed. It has EVERY aspect of a poor source. Most improtant is that the person behind tha harsh claims is not even named. This is basically an article referring to an article referreing to statements made by someone unnamed.

What this is is merely a continuatin of gossip, this is not intended in wikipedia!

Siru108 (talk) 08:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I also posted the following on the Diamond Way Buddhism discussion page to explain why we should remove the word controversial from the first few sentences of each article.

We cannot call Lama Ole Nydahl or Diamond Way controversial. We can say there is controversy surrounding them, but by controversial we are editorializing the page, clearly advocating the bias that there is something negative about him and the organization. There is no way to separate a negative connotation from the word controversial, no matter what the definition out of the dictionary says. We can state facts, but once we put describe it in this way, we are judging it and saying there is something inherently bad there. Further, what is our standard for "controversial"? If it is simply that certain persons or parties disagree with something or do not like it, then nearly anything is controversial. Every public figure has opposition, and we should list what that is, but it's too big of a jump to then define that person or organization as negative. --Gautamsingh (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Siru108 (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Text originated from Oliver Freiberger source has been edited: The former Text quoted the footnotes rather than the actual text by Oliver Freiberger. New text reflects his article as he wrote it. Of it have to stay, it has to fit with the source at least.

Canada Tibet Committee is removed again. It has EVERY aspect of a poor source. Most improtant is that the person behind tha harsh claims is not even named. This is basically an article referring to an article referreing to statements made by someone unnamed. It is not fit on a biography of a living person.

If you fo not agree, please participate in discussion. Siru108 (talk) 10:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Note I see the parts has been replaced again. Why? Please notice that this article should be extra well-sourced, as it is a Biography of a Living Person. I will remake the edits if no objections. Please participate in discussion!

Improper references to self-published sources?

I can't see any, can anyone else find "improper references to self-published sources"? Else the template should be removed. Siru108 (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Me neither, removing template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandizzle (talk • contribs) 21:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Removed self-published source template. No arguments to the reason why they are there. Consensus seems to be remove it. Siru108 (talk) 07:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Removed Newsrelease templates: Seem placed for no reason, no explanation given. Siru108 (talk) 07:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Replaced NON-ENG template. Non-english sources are used in some sections, therefore this template. Siru108 (talk) 07:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

In Denmark

I added a short notice about the influence of Ole Nydahl in his native Denmark. Since it is significant, and the source is based on scientific research (Borup is the most active researcher in the field of Buddhism in Denmark, often referred to by the newspapers), I cannot imagine anyone has serious objections?

Borup, University of Aarhus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siru108 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Controversy Section

• Changed Oliver Freiberger. It was misquoted, text did NOT reflect the source. The quoted part was a footnote.
• RemovingCanada Tibet Committee, hearsay, fails verification. Discussion about this has also been made on Talk:Diamond Way Buddhism:

"Canada Tibet Committee was removed several times before. It has EVERY aspect of a poor source. Most improtant is that the person behind tha harsh claims is not even named. This is basically an article referring to an article referreing to statements made by someone unnamed. This is a clear violation of WP:BLP to called a man a "Quasi-cult leader" an accusing his groups of violence on such a poor basis.

What this is is merely a continuatin of gossip, this is not intended in wikipedia!

--Siru108 (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

* Removing. The story quotes an American Buddhist, so it's hearsay and doesn't belong in the article. I can also find no mention of violence in the quote, so that fails verification. Removing the one sentence linked to the Telegraph story as printed by CTC. —C.Fred (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)"

Siru108 (talk) 08:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Lama Title

• Why is it called disputed in the factbox? It doesn't seem to be a fact, no sources except a letter from Shamarpa, who adresses that there has been "some critism in this regard". However several letters from prominent Lamas confirm the title, as well as any books published by Ole Nydahl are puplished by "Lama Ole Nydahl". Can somebody provide e reliable source reliable source to confirn that the title is disputet? Else it appears as just another point of view, violating WP:NPOV, and will therefore be removed. The critism are mentioned under controversies, this appears to be enough, as it is not really proved that it is disputed. In the introduction it would also be appropriate to mention "Hi is often referred to as Lama Ole Nydahl or Lama Ole"--Siru108 (talk) 08:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It is disputed by many, and has been so ever since he started using the title after the 16th Karmapa's death. This is mentioned in the controversies section. The only NPOV way to do this is to either say it is disputed in the box, or remove it from the box altogether. This dispute is also why the Wikipedia article is (rightfully IMO) called "Ole Nydahl" and not "Lama Ole Nydahl" as it was called at first when created by his followers (see the history). Peter Robinson Scott (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)