Talk:Dorje Shugden

Archives
Shugden Talk - Archive 1 (to: 2006,07,18) Shugden Talk - Archive 2 (to: 2006,12,30) Shugden Talk - Archive 3 (from: 2006,12,30 to 2008,05,03) Shugden Talk - Archive 4 (to: 2008,10,29)

Since nothing new had been added for ten days, I took the opportunity to archive the discussion to date again as once more it had grown very large. (see: Talk:Dorje Shugden/archive4)

Please add any new sections from top to bottom! Chris Fynn (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View (NPOV)

— Please put discussion related to the neutrality of this article here —

To try to make this a little more neutral, I've added "some" and removed "all" in the first sentence of the second para in the opening summary - Sakya practitioners who see DS as a mundane protector obviously do not consider DS to be an incarnation or Emanation of Manjusri. Similarly I've removed from this para the perhaps contentious claim that the DL "practiced it himself until he was in his forties" and the "although they have provided no evidence of this when requested" - as this stuff doesn't really belong in the opening section which should present an overall summary. It might be appropriate in the Controversy section. I've also changed the "particularly the present Dalai Lama" to "including the present Dalai Lama" since there is no conclusive evidence that he does so any more particularly than others who oppose the practice.

"Heart Jewel" is a primary source written and published by DS practitioners involved in the Controversy ~ therefore not an independent or neutral source. Chris Fynn (talk) 11:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Heart Jewel is based closely on the teachings of one of the greatest Dorje Shugden practitioners of the last century, Trijang Rinpoche, the Guru of the Dalai Lama and hundreds of other Gelugpa Lamas, and a Ganden Throne Holder. It is written by Geshe Kelsang, a close disciple of Trijang Rinpoche and one of the foremost proponents of Dorje Shugden practice. He is a highly respected Buddhist master, who has written 22 acclaimed Buddhist books. The practice of relying upon Dorje Shugden as a Wisdom Protector -- who safeguards our realizations of compassion, wisdom and spiritual power -- was handed down to Geshe Kelsang by the lineage Gurus of the Gelug tradition. It certainly merits being included in this article as a source! If it does not, then all references to the Dalai Lama's works must also likewise be considered neither independent nor neutral sources. Heart Jewel is just Dharma, unmixed with politics. The Dalai Lama's website www.dalailama.com, along with most of his pronouncements on the subject, are arguably far less neutral and reliable sources for this article on the nature of Dorje Shugden, as they are not Dharma but politics. They belong in the Controversy article. (Truthbody (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC))

Also, Chris, the sad thing is that since the Dalai Lama made this into a political issue and not just a religious practice, everyone is now involved in the controversy to one extent or another -- practitioners and non-practitioners alike. Some are defending their right to practice and some are opposing the practice. This is chronicled in the Controversy article. (Truthbody (talk)18:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC))

I've reinstated the point that the DL practised Dorje Shugden until he was into his forties as he has said so himself. The DL wrote a praise to Dorje Shugden that is widely available on the internet. Also I've reinstated 'particularly' because it is due to the actions of the present Dalai Lama that Dorje Shugden has become such a controversial figure. Other Tibetan Lamas only support the view of the DL, so he has to bear primary responsibility for the present division in the Buddhist Sangha.--Truthsayer62 (talk) 15:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if this section is to be added to the opening paragraphs (though I feel it is redundant as it is all covered in the controversy), it needs to be clear that the source of all the controversy is the Dalai Lama's own actions. Until he spoke out against and then banned the practice of Dorje Shugden, there was no controversy. Everyone practiced their own traditions. No one was forcing anyone else to stop practicing their tradition. No one had the power to do this until the 14th Dalai Lama assumed this power. All this is now well documented. (Truthbody (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC))

The Yellow Book is also based closely on the teachings of Trijang Rinpoche, yet it's mention here is stronly rejected as GKG denies its validity. Although unrelated to the discussion, I'd also like to know if there is any reasoning for why Lama Tsong Khapa never mentioned this protector is he were to be so important in protecting his lineage.

Jmlee369 (talk) 07:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This argument has never held much weight for me; we have to look at the timeline. Je Tsongkhapa (1357-1419) lived two-hundred-plus years before Dragpa Gyaltsen’s (1619-1656) manifestation as Dorje Shugden (1656-present). It would be nonsense for me to counter with “Well, Je Tsongkhapa never mentioned the institution of the Dalai Lama during his lifetime either” because this came later, too. Emptymountains (talk) 12:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point Empty Mountains. Taken in the grand scheme of things, there are countless Buddhas and Bodhisattvas and Protectors who have appeared in different forms to help sentient beings since beginningless time, and it is unreasonable to suppose that they were all talked about long before they appeared. Some were predicted by other Buddhas, but by no means all, of course. (Truthbody (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC))

It's interesting that you mention the Dalai Lama lineage. FYI, Gedun Drub was a direct disciple of Lama Tsong Khapa and furthermore, the Dalai Lama lineage was predicted by the Buddha in the White Lotus sutra.

Jmlee369 (talk) 07:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

But the "first" Dalai Lama was not recognized as such during his own lifetime (or Je Tsongkhapa's). A posthumous fulfillment of prophecy? After all, the "first" Dalai Lama was not until the third, Sonam Gyatso. In regards to Dorje Shugden, the Sakya master Kunkhyen Ngawang Kunga Lodroe praises him saying, "In the middle, in front of many Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, having generated the aspiring and entering Bodhicitta, you obtained the prophecy as a protector of the teaching of the Dharma, thus you protect all the teachings of the Bodhisattvas without exception, to you I prostrate."[1] Emptymountains (talk) 13:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that the Dalai Lama lineage was predicted by Buddha as the so-called Ocean Lamas were first and foremost a political appointment by the Altan Khan and also, as Empty Mountains points out, the lineage was established posthumously. Also, the lineage in its entirety has not all been that fabulous has it? e.g. the 5th and the 13th were warlords. Did a lot of Dalai Lamas die young? On Wikipedia it says that Thubten Jigme Norbu, the elder brother of the present 14th Dalai Lama, describes these unfortunate events as follows: "It is perhaps more than a coincidence that between the seventh and the thirteenth holders of that office, only one reached his majority. The eighth, Gyampal Gyatso, died when he was in his thirties, Lungtog Gyatso when he was eleven, Tsultrim Gyatso at eighteen, Khadrup Gyatso when he was eighteen also, and Krinla Gyatso at about the same age. The circumstances are such that it is very likely some, if not all, were poisoned, either by loyal Tibetans for being Chinese-appointed impostors, or by the Chinese for not being properly manageable." I wonder if some of the choices of reincarnated Dalai Lamas were politically motivated and organized and thus somewhat suspect? I don't know enough about the history but imagine the institution of the Dalai Lama was open to some abuse due to warring partisan factions. I'd be interested to see the quote from the White Lotus Sutra if you have it. Thanks. (Truthbody (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC))

Emptymountains:Just because the title of Dalai Lama was not conferred on the first and second lamas, does not invalidate the reincarnation lineage. Also, it was the second birth of this line that initiated the predictions at Lhamo Lhatso, establishing a definite line of tulkus. Now in that prayer by the Sakya master, does it mention from whom Shugden obtained the prophecy and what that prophecy is to be exact?

Truthbody:I'm sure that the incarnation lineage has been manipulated since the time of the Great Fifth. But that would also indicate that the great masters were wrong. Even GKG dedicated one of his books to the long life of the Dalai Lama. So whether or not you accept the validity of the current birth, you cannot deny that the greatest masters of our time have shown the greatest respect for him. As for the White Lotus sutra quote, I found it here - www.lamayeshe.com/index.php?sect=article&id=371

Jmlee369 (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

They have shown respect because it is expected as much as because they feel it. Many people have reported being bitterly disappointed and let down by the Dalai Lama, after years of tireless service and devotion to him. The Dalai Lama is to be respected -- that is his position. Geshe Kelsang was happy to go along with it until the Dalai Lama attempted to destroy the lineage of his spiritual masters by calling them spirit worshippers and banning their religious practice. Then he broke ranks, and you can see how much venom poured upon him for daring to do so. I'll check out the quote, thank you. (Truthbody (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC))

There seems to be nothing in that quote from the White Lotus Sutra to indicate that it is referring to the Dalai Lama!!! And Lama Zopa has broken with the legacy of his own teacher Lama Yeshe to follow the policy of the Dalai Lama, so why is he to be trusted on this -- why should Lama Zopa's saying it is so make it so? (Truthbody (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC))

Also from the link:"His Holiness Serkong Dorje Chang, who passed away in Tibet, had a dream in which a spontaneously arisen statue of Avalokiteshvara with five faces predicted that he would see the Compassion Buddha the following day. The next day he saw His Holiness.

One day the great scholar-yogi Tehor Kyoerpen Rinpoche, renowned in Sera, Gaden and Drepung Monasteries, told all his disciples that they were going to meet Dromtonpa, an incarnation of Compassion Buddha. They then went to see His Holiness."

Also, with Lama Zopa, he was close to Lama Yeshe up to his passing and even then, he jointly conducted the many practices with Zong Rinpoche afterwards, hardly a relationship that has been broken. I also think you should be careful not to put words into the mouth of lamas. As for this whole ban thing, I think you should remember that this all started with HH asking people not to take initiations or teachings from him if they practiced Shugden. A vajramaster has the right to do this, just as Chatral Rinpoche says that anyone who wishes to be his disciple must be vegetarian. As for the lineage of spiritual masters, I hardly think HH broke any lineage with Ling Rinpoche by not practicing Shugden, nor with Kirti Tsenshab Rinpoche. I know this isn't very convincing to you, but I don't have the time right now to elaborate.

Lama Zopa is also an amazing bodhisattva who has lead countless beings on the path to Buddhahood who never rests to aid others - something that very few of us can say. So even though I am not his disciple, I still have great faith in his actions.

Jmlee369 (talk) 06:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the Dalai Lama did break with his teachers (including Trijang Dorjechang and Ling Rinpoche) in so far as he called them "wrong, all wrong" and spirit worshippers. Conventionally speaking, those are not recognizable actions of Guru devotion! -- perhaps in his heart he keeps a purer view, I don't know. I don't know whether the lineage of the Dalai Lamas is authentic or not, i just know it is open to abuse, and that the current Dalai Lama's actions with respect to thousands of Shugden practitioners are more in keeping with a ruthless theocrat than with a loving manifestation of Avalokiteshvara (even if he has done some good things here and there, we are all mixed.) As for Lama Zopa, how tolerant is it to disallow any Shugden practitioner from attending your teachings? (Let alone from getting ordained or teaching at your Centers?) Non-Buddhists are allowed, but Buddhist Shugden practitioners? Stay away! This apartheid does not seem in keeping with the behavior of a Bodhisattva, despite his other good qualities. Perhaps he justifies his behavior by his allegiance to the Dalai Lama and the Dalai Lama's political will. However, I do not believe that Lama Yeshe would have approved of any of this. He never gave up his Dorje Shugden practice or reliance on Trijang Rinpoche. And where is Lama Osel now? How can he stay associated with those who are destroying his Guru's lineage? I guess we'll see what happens there. (Truthbody (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC))

Was it not Ling Rinpoche who advised HH not to take the Shugden life entrustment? Also, considering that Chatral Rinpoche does not allow anyone who is not vegetarian to be his disciple, isn't that even more intolerant? Furthermore, it is his right as a guru to choose his disciples. As for oridnation, what non-Buddhist would take ordination? Even when taking teachings, they are not there for a serious commitmnet. Established practitioners who are doing protector practices definitely go beyond the mere realms of curiousity. Lama Osel also said that his world and the FPMT's world will merge in the future.

Jmlee369 (talk) 03:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is fruitless, when and where did Ling Rinpoche speak against Shugden? I have a torma offering written by him that includes Mahakala, Vaishranava, Mahadevi and Dorje Shugden. It's funny Serkong Dorje Chang is mentioned, he is one of the lineage holders of the Dalai Lama's Kalachakra who wrote an extensive kangso to Dorje Shugden and praised him as the protector of the Gelug.Tkalsang (talk) 05:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I do realise the whole thing with Serkong Dorje Chang as being slightly ironic, but does that mean he was wrong about both, neither, one or the other? As for Ling Rinpoche's advice, I cannot remember my sources, but it has been mentioned before. But neutrality is something that will be difficult to achieve and I still feel that this page presents a one-sided enlightened view of Shugden only and when the worldly side is mentioned, it seems less convincing.

Jmlee369 (talk) 06:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Even if Ling Rinpoche did advise the DL not to take the life entrustment empowerment, why is this always read as Ling Rinpoche was anti-Shugden? He probably realized that the DL would turn against Dorje Shugden and his own Gurus and that by taking the life entrustment he would be digging an even bigger karmic hole for himself. How kind the Buddhas are! --Truthsayer62 (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

In this video the Dalai Lama tries to make the case that Shugden practitioners tried to "restrict his religious freedom" by using the example of Ling Rinpoche advising him against receiving a particular terma transmission. Ling Rinpoche was a practitioner of Dorje Shugden, although not as strongly as Trijang Rinpoche. It's ridiculous to assert that Ling Rinpoche was anti-Shugden. Peaceful5 (talk) 09:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Link to Dr. Michael von Brück's paper

I noticed this links to a paper translated from German written by Dr. Michael von Brück. However, I also compared to the original German paper on: http://info-buddhismus.de/shugden.html. There are several important components not translated from the original German to English, which address historical evidence of Shugden. These include the reference to Morchen Kunga Lhundrup's writings as well as Lobsang Tayang who collected many of the early texts. In particular:

"Eines der frühen Dokumente des Kultes um Shugden ist ein Text namens Lam de cha pa des Sakya Morchen Kunga Lhundup, der zu Beginn des 18. Jh. in der Dol-Gegend lebte.[27] Er erwähnt darin, daß er Rituale für Shugden vollzogen und diesen als dharmapala akzeptiert habe, Rituale wie z.B. die Konsekration einer Mantrarolle für Shugden, die in eine Statue Shugdens eingelassen worden sei. Des weiteren erwähnt er ein Orakelmedium (sku rten) Shugdens zu dieser Zeit und scheint zumindest teilweise selbst von Shugden besessen worden zu sein. Unter den Lehren, die er empfangen habe, listet er auch Lehren über Shugden auf, was bedeutet, daß es bereits vor ihm eine Kulttradition dieser Gottheit gegeben haben muß."

"Losang Tayang

Am Anfang der Tradition in diesem Jahrhundert steht der mongolische Meister Losang Tayang (blo bzang na dbyangs), dessen Wirken während der letzten Dekade des 19. Jahrhunderts begonnen hat und um 1920, vor der russischen Eroberung der Mongolei, kulminierte. Er schrieb eine lange "Liste von Texten über Gyalchen Dorje Shugden, den einzigartigen dharmapala des zweiten Buddha Jamgön"[29]. Dies bedeutet, daß Shugden hier als der Beschützer Tsongkhapas gilt, denn Jamgön (Jam mgon) ist Tsongkhapa, identifiziert als Manjushri, der sich in Tsongkhapa manifestiert. Der Text verdient unsere besondere Aufmerksamkeit, denn er stellt die erste Evidenz eines ausgedehnten Shugden-Kults dar. Er listet mehr als sechzig Texte auf, von denen die meisten verloren gegangen oder zumindest noch nicht gefunden worden sind. Einige der Texte sind Biographien von Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen einschließlich einiger Gebete an unterschiedliche Inkarnationen desselben; ferner werden erwähnt: 37 Verse des Kaschmir Pandita Shribhadra mit einem Kommentar von Thurpu Lotsawa, eine Biographie von Panchen Sonam Drakpa von dem Eremiten Lhawang Gyatso, Gebete für die Inkarnation des Panchen Sonam Drakpa von Khenchen Ngawang Khedrup aus der Mongolei, ein Lobpreis an Panchen Sonam Drakpa von Tulku Losang Thrinlay aus Amdo, ein Gebet anläßlich der Bitte um eine Reihe von Reinkarnationen des Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen von Panchen Losang Choekyi Gyaltsen, ein Gebet um langes Leben für den Ngari Rinpoche (in Gestalt einer Liste seiner Inkarnationen) von Kelsang Tulku usw. Zwei Schlußfolgerungen können wir aus der Gestalt dieser Liste ziehen:

Erstens ist die Shugden-Tradition eng verbunden mit der Geschichte von Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen und seinen weiteren Inkarnationen, zweitens hat Shugden eine nicht näher erläuterte Beziehung zu den Ngari Rinpoches (der gegenwärtige Ngari Rmpoche ist der jüngere Bruder des Dalai Lama). "

I realize this is not a Wikipedia issue, but the WP article is linking to a translation that is clearly filtering out parts not desired and cannot be treated as a true representation of the original.Tkalsang (talk) 06:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The following link has been removed until a complete English translation is provided: *Canonicity and Divine Interference: The Tulkus and the Shugden-Controversy by Prof. Dr. Michael von Brück

By omitting translated paragraphs from this paper this misrepresents the author's views and also slants the POV to suit the POV of the person hosting and presenting this translation. If there is an issue with this I suggest contacting Dr. Michael von Brück to get his opinion on this matter of omitting portions of his work.Tkalsang (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Tkalsang, the paper by von Brück is exactly the same paper as it has been published in:

Charisma and Canon: Essays on the Religious History of the Indian Subcontinent Edited by Vasudha Dalmia, Angelika Malinar, and Martin Christof. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2001, ISBN-13: 978-0195666205, pages 328-349 Review

It is correct that some essentials of the German paper are summed in that edition published by Oxford University Press and that this edition of the paper is not that detailed as the German is. But this is no reason to remove the link from the article. That the paper is not that detailed as the German one (or sums some detailed points) is due to demands by the book publisher. I added also a piece by Williams so the the section reads now as it follows... --Kt66 (talk) 10:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC):

• Canonicity and Divine Interference: The Tulkus and the Shugden-Controversy by Michael von Brück (German professor)
• Letting Daylight into Magic by Stephen Batchelor
• A quick note on Dorje Shugden (rDo rje shugs ldan) by Paul Williams (British professor)

I agree with Tkalsang, the article does not represent the author's original content and, being POV and unrepresentative, shouldn't be included --Truthsayer62 (talk) 11:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

My problem with this section is this is essentially an attempt to tilt the balance of the external links. As it currently stands, there are four links supporting DS, four links against. This is balanced and this is fair. Adding additional sections for links just invites endless back and forth on the links.

Can I propose that we establish a rule (we can also extend this to the DS controversy article) that each side can choose their own links, but they each only get 3 or 4 links total. We limit it that way. What do other editors think of this proposal.--Dspak08 (talk) 13:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If anything, citing those scholarly sources should be worked into the article itself such that there is no need to list them in the external links section. This is what is recommended in WP:EL. Emptymountains (talk) 13:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

So now we have three reference sources, one of scholars, one pro and one against - except that two of the articles in the 'scholars' section are ostensibly negative, so how is this balancing the links as Dspak08 suggested? --Truthsayer62 (talk) 14:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, like I said, the entire section of scholarly essays should be removed and whoever wants to can just cite them in the article, where they belong. If they're that good, why aren't they being cited? Emptymountains (talk) 14:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Less is More

As with the Dorje Shugden controversy article, I took the liberty to do a makeover of this article (including the external links section). Hopefully, the editors will feel more satisfied with this new and improved version of the article than before. The last version before my edits was 10:54, 26 November 2008. Emptymountains (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

edits on Sakya and 5th Dalai Lama

I added sources and balanced the claims in those sections. As far as I know Mumford didn't research Shugden solely among Nyingmas. Please add the correct citation or explain here exactly what he states. I removed that claim, because it sounded as that Nyingmas naturally practice Shudgen and there was a great tradition among them to do this, which is probably not the case as far as I know. I removed the wrong and misleading claim which was attributed to Glenn Mullin, that since 300 years Shugden would be a central element in the Gelug school, he states correctly as other sources that "eventually" it became one of the most popular practices. Eventually is not precise and in general the meaning is: from Pabongkha Rinpoche onwards as other sources state it. Amazing to see how sources are read or interpreted so wrongly. I add 3rd party WP:RS for that. Best wishes. --Kt66 (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It is in the book that is referenced, there is no online copy I'm afraid, but there is no good reason for you to disbelieve that it is WP:RS. Please discuss with tkalsang and other editors before simply removing it, especially as tkalsang he has done a lot of scholarly research on the subject and translated many Tibetan texts. Thanks. (Truthbody (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC))

Kt66, I don't understand why you deleted this part of the article:

According to anthropologist Mumford, who studied the practice of Dorje Shugden in Nepal, the 5th Dalai Lama unsuccessfully tried to subjugate through various rituals the reincarnation of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen. (Mumford, Stan. Himalayan dialogue: Tibetan lamas and Gurung shamans in Nepal, page 126. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989)

Your edit summary explaining your reason ("the 5th dalai lama made rituals to stop shugden who was seen as the incarnation of dragpa gyaltsen.") seems to say the exact same thing as what you deleted. Emptymountains (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Mumford page 125, it's quite a long thing to quote: "The Tibetan guardian deity called Shugs-ldan provides a special case study of the Tibetan Srungma and its transmutation. He is extremely popular and held in awe and feared among Tibetans because he is highly punitive. Dawa Tsering a merchant of Tshad-med village, has done very well with Shugs-ldan as his guardian deity: Long ago in Tibet, rGyal-po Shugs-ldan was a powerful, learned lama who was more than the Dalai Lama himself. Other lama envied him and tried to kill him[...]. The above is a Tibetan villager's version of the Shugs-ldan legend."Tkalsang (talk) 14:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually as things are being edited quite rapidly by various people it may lead to certain references being spun, it's not necessarily purposes. I would recommend adding short quotations where possible to avoid deviating too much from the original. However, I see no reason to showcase long block quotations.Tkalsang (talk) 14:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments and clarification with respect to Mumford. The final result of the criticisms and changes can be found below (History) and in the article. I think it could be a result acceptable to all. --Kt66 (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Template: additional citations for verification

I added also the template to add more sources to verify the claims. It is not possible to make a "fansite" by using references to blogs of Shugden followers. Really this is rather poor style. --Kt66 (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, so can we take all references to your info buddhism website and anti-WSS and anti-NKT blog out too? Other than the DL's website, these are the most anti-Shugden sources on the Internet, as far as I can see. (Truthbody (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC))

Unlike the blogs and wesites of Shugden followers this website has articles by named authors and the quoted material is published by academic publishers. --Kt66 (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Give me a break, this is not a fansite, nor is it a trash site as your edits are intended to make it. Are references to the DL's website and your own anti-Shugden website more reliable and neutral than Mumford and Mullin.Tkalsang (talk) 03:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Mullin was quoted incorrectly and out of context. In general both are completely acceptable but not to spin what they say. The spin by misinterpreting Mullin was 'since 400 or 300 years Shugden would be the "central element" in Gelug school' but this is neither what he says nor what is in accordance with the facts and academic research. With respect to Mumford I have not the text, I assumed also he is quoted wrongly or in a spin-way. Therefore I asked to give a clear reference and quote/citation at the talk page, what exactly he is stating. I am happy if you can clarify this. --Kt66 (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I made quite radical changes, I think everyone can see that they make some sense. Many times sources were quoted wrongly or it was put a spin on the facts, other passages were mainly like a fan site of devotees using strongly their blogs and websites. I will look if I find time to look again on the article this was just a "emergency edit". Best wishes. --Kt66 (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to consider using the "in use" tag during your next "emergency edit," so that we don't have so many edit conflicts. Tomorrow morning, I'll go through and standardize the formatting of all the references on this page as I did on the controversy page. (Eventually, I'll do the same for the NKT and GKG pages.) I implore everyone to always provide complete references (including title and retrieval dates of webpages, and page numbers from books and PDFs); that way, it will be easier to check whether something has been quoted correctly. Thanks! Emptymountains (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits and acceptance. I just glanced through the previous article and felt 'no it can not stay like this'. I would prefer to discuss details before on the talkpage, but in some cases brave for edits is encouraged. I think the points with the Sakya pov and the claims about the 5th Dalai Lama are more clear and balanced now. I'll look from 12.12. onwards, again and will take more time. Best wishes. I think the templates can soon be removed, with the second glance now it appeared quite acceptable but still somewhat unbalanced. This gives me hope with respect to the other related articles and user:despak's proposal on NKT. Again, thanks for the time being. I just ordered from India 'Oracles and Demons of Tibet' by Rene De Nebesky-Wjkowitzand 'Civilized Shamans: Buddhism in Tibetan Societies' by Prof. Samuel for further reference and to proof certain quotes. --Kt66 (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I will balance the section about Shugden's enlightened lineage, this is a claim established by Trijang Rinpoche and according to research (Drefyfus, Brück) lacks historical evidence. This is approved by the statements of HH Sakya Trizin, that Shugden was put in the lowest category in the pantheon of deities in Sakya school. With respect to the use of sources, the trials of some to rely heavily on anonymous websites with unverified claims by anonymous authors while strongly rejecting accepted academic works and scholars, e.g. Dreyfus who is recommended and used in almost every academic literature and also two recent thesis (2007) on this subject won't have any support by me. This is not what Wikipedia is all about. Such opinions from anonymous authors can be placed on blogs but not here. That I use quotes or statements from the video of HHDL's website although this is WP:SPS is mainly due to that this is an interview with the head of the school (minute 2-4) and his opinions is just relevant. The same what he says can be verified with Dreyfus or other resewarch, but these have been rejected so strongly here, that I fear again baseless discussion about if it would be appropriate to quote Dreyfus. So to avoid that I take the direct speech. Claims in the article Shugden would be the "Protector of Buddhism" are just ridiculous. Here is the transcript:

Sakya Trizin, the present head of the Sakya tradition, states that some Sakyas worshipped Shugden as a lower deity, but Shugden was never part of the Sakya institutions. Lama Jampa Thaye, an English teacher within both the Sakya and the Kagyu traditions and founder of the Dechen Community, maintains that "The Sakyas generally have been ambivalent about Shugden [...] The usual Sakya view about Shugden is that he is controlled by a particular Mahakala, the Mahakala known as Four-Faced Mahakala. So he is a 'jig rten pai srung ma, a worldly deity, or demon, who is no harm to the Sakya tradition because he is under the influence of this particular Mahakala." According to Jeff Watt, a scholar of the Sakya tradition, "within the Sakya School there is no initiation or 'life-entrusting' (Tibetan: srog gtad) ritual for Shugden as found in the Gelug School."

In an interview Sakya Trizin explains:

“In the beginning the Sakya throneholder Sakya Sönam Rinchen bound Shugden to protect Dharma. However, neither Shudgen nor other worldly spirits were depended upon during prayer meeting at Sakya. The statue of Shugden was in some shrine rooms but in the lowest category in the pantheon. No Sakya follower has ever taken life pledging empowerment through the medium of Shugden.”

Later Shugden worship decreased strongly among Sakyas due to the efforts of three leading Sakya lineage lamas, including the root Guru of Sakya Trizin, who was “extremely unhappy with Shugden practice and advised on the demerits of Shugden practice.” One of his disciples, Ngawang Yönten Gyatso, took strong actions to remove Shugden statues from the Sakya monasteries and to destroy them. Khyentse Dorje Chang Chökyi Lodrö was “also very unhappy with Shugden practice, although he didn’t destroy statues, he performed rituals to banish Shugden.”

Sakya Trizin concludes: "Since these three leading Sakya Lamas were against Shugden, this practice declined greatly among Sakya followers."

Interview with HHDL:

:“In his autobiography the 5th Dalai Lama writes that he performed a fire ritual against Shugden during which he composed a prayer to protect the deities. In the prayer the 5th Dalai Lama says that he is performing this ritual to went Dorje Shugden who is harming the Buddhadharma and sentient beings. He clearly says that Dragpa Gyaltsen’s negative prayer resulted in his rebirth as Shugden.” The 5th Dalai Lama talks about this in both his open and his secret teachings. He concludes: “So there is no truth made in the claims by some people that the 5th Dalai Lama practiced Shugden.”

--Kt66 (talk) 08:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

There are more clear statements by eminent masters of Tibetan Buddhism on Shugden, including the heads of school:

The late 101. Ganden Tripa, head of the Gelugpa school’s states: “[???] Gelug Lamas of the past would have taken notice of Shugden if he was really the embodiment of the three refuge. But there is no historical record to show that they took any interest in Shugden. Therefore I can not accept Shugden as the embodiment of the Three Refuge."

Tai Situ Rinpoche: “We Kaygue followers normally do not mention this name without fear. There is no Shugden practitioner among Kagyue followers. The reason why we fear the one I name just now, is because we believe that he causes obstacles to spiritual practice and brings discord in families and among the community of monks.”

Mindolling Trichen Rinpoche: “Shugden is a ghost. We Nyingma practitioner do not follow him. We propagate only those protectors that were bound by Padmasambhava. Shugden came after Padmasambhava. Shugden is a hungry ghost in the human realm.”

--Kt66 (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

factual inaccuracy: The history claim that it would be the central element of Gelug school since 300 years

as already stated this claim is incorrect and contradicts the academic sources. Although Mullin states that it was finally the central element of Gelug school (which is correct) the passage suggest wrongly it would be the central element in Gelug school since 300 years which is plain wrong, and also Mullin does not claim this. The practice was marginal in the beginning and controversial from the start and only due to Pabongkha's influence in the 19th century it became widespread in Gelug school. The passage claims it would be so since 300 years which clearly spins the facts.

sources:

• Pabongkha Rinpoche, a Gelug Lama of the 20th century, who received this practice from his root guru, is attributed with spreading reliance on Dorje Shugden widely within the Gelug tradition "during the 1930s and 1940s, and in this way a formerly marginal practice became a central element of the Gelug tradition." David N. Kay: Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain: Transplantation, Development and Adaptation, London and New York, published by RoutledgeCurzon, ISBN 0-415-29765-6, page 48

• "The 5th Dalai Lama: In order to determine the quality and nature of Shugden his history needs to be taken into account. However, there is little documented historical evidence before the beginning of this century, though many oral traditions—sometimes mutually contradictory—have to be taken into account." von Brück
• "Pabongkha suggests that he is the protector of the Gelug tradition, replacing the protectors appointed by Tsongkhapa himself. This impression is confirmed by one of the stories that Shugden's partisans use to justify their claim. According to this story, the Dharma-king has left this world to retire in the pure land of Tushita having entrusted the protection of the Gelug tradition to Shugden. Thus, Shugden has become the main Gelug protector." Dreyfus
• "Where Pabongkha was innovative was in making formerly secondary teachings widespread and central to the Gelug tradition and claiming that they represented the essence of Tsongkhapa's teaching. This pattern, which is typical of a revival movement, also holds true for Pabongkha's wide diffusion, particularly at the end of his life, of the practice of Dorje Shugden as the central protector of the Gelug tradition. Whereas previously Shugden seems to have been a relatively minor protector in the Gelug tradition, Pabongkha made him into one of the main protectors of the tradition. In this way, he founded a new and distinct way of conceiving the teachings of the Gelug tradition that is central to the "Shugden Affair." Dreyfus
• "In promoting Shuk-den as the protector of his charismatic movement, Pa-bong-ka did not invent the practice of this deity, which he seems to have received from his teachers, [34] but he transformed a marginal practice into a central element of the Ge-luk tradition. This transformation is illustrated by the epithets used to refer to Shuk-den. Instead of being just "The Spirit from Dol" (dol rgyal), or even the "Great Magical Spirit Endowed with the Adamantine Force" (rgyal chen rdo rje shugs ldan rtsal), he is described now by Pa-bong-ka and his disciples as "the protector of the tradition of the victorious lord Manjushri (i.e., Dzong-ka-ba)" ('jam mgon rgyal ba'i bstan srung)[35] and "the supreme protective deity of the Ge-den (i.e., Ge-luk) tradition" (dge ldan bstan bsrung ba'i lha mchog).[36]" Dreyfus

--Kt66 (talk) 09:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Well let's see, Kay references Dreyfus, and Dreyfus's paper is just an essay with no reference to back this up, hardly academic. Regarding the other point from von Bruck, if there is little evidence then there is little evidence to deny Shugden was not a main protector as well. You are the one adding interpretation and new research.Tkalsang (talk) 14:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Mullin is clearly not precise in his short statement over two sides while those three offered an extensive research which shows the different perspectives of the respective claimers, with Mullin it is not even clear which sources he uses and from which perspective he is portraying the short view on the history. This is very different from the precise researches. The WP article section claims to tell something about the history yet tells rather nothing about it. I am not against Mullin at all, my aim is that the article should be precise and the sentence from Mullin is neither precise nor is it acttual what he is saying, he said: "eventually" it became the main practice. This is congruent with Kay, Drefus and also HHDL who said that finally (in Exile) almost every Gelug monk practised it, including him, and only rare voices in Gelug school spoke against the practice. The passage makes all this - the development, Pabongkha's influence and the changes not clear, and Mullin is just not precise to tell why, and when by whom it became so widespread. The summery of what he is saying is also simplified and somewhat misleading. As my reasons matter please don't delete - who ever did it - the template again. My suggestion to solve this issue (I will latest at the weekend pick up this task) is, to use all four sources. Starting with Brück, quoting Dreyfus and Kay and including Mullin, according to Mullin ... The present section is rather a fraud because it claims to tell the history but states not much about it. I wonder how you can prefer a short condensed piece by Mullin without any source and rather superficial, rather a bit fuzzy, while rejecting proper sourced academic material which is very precise. Much more the latter academic sources are accepted and often quoted sources in other academic works - especially Dreyfus. Also Geoffrey Samuel used Dreyfus - recently for a court case. Show me a reference in any academic paper to Mullin. I like Mullin, but not to spin the facts or the sources. --Kt66 (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This is now clearly solved: the article cites WP:RS.

Atisha's cook (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Mullin is wise not to attribute the spread of Shugden to Pabongkha which is merely hearsay as none of the scholars mentioned have sources for this to show for. The problems with the Shugden Affair are manifold. Here are just a few:

• "One of the sources in this essay is the present Dalai Lama": WP::COI
• Dreyfuss claims Shugden practice was not present at Ngor monastery, David Jackson in Lungta 2001 says one of the most important shrines was there and a 20th century abbot mentioned in his essay widely Shugden practice in Kham.
• Dreyfuss has the wrong year (1636) for a chronology to prove Dholgyal came before Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen's death, however the year is actually after his death. This totally debunks one of his key arguments that Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen and Shugden are not the same entity.
• Contradictory statements: claims that "Pabongkha... developed this practice" yet says later "He did not introduce these practices himself."
• Dreyfus attributes certain long quotes to Pabongkha, as they are in his collected works, however Pabongkha is explicitly citing a Mongolian author called Ngag-gi Dbang-po. This is plain to see looking at the original Tibetan text and can be verified as it has been published independently. Yet Dreyfus fails to mention this and attributes it to Pabongkha himself, talk about spin!
• Dreyfus claims Pabongkha made up the epithets that promoted Shugden such as 'Jam mgon rgyal ba'i gnyis pa'i bstan srung, yet this has been mentioned by 18th/19th century masters. For example, this can be found in Oracles and Demons which showcases the ritual written by Ye shes bzangs po who founded Nyungne temple in Lhasa in the 18th century. You can find the colophon and the ritual written in Wylie in the appendix of Oracles and Demons. Also, on TBRC you can find this epithet mentioned by 19th century Kirti Rinpoche.
• Last but not least he claims the Thirteenth DL banned Shugs-ldan except from certain locations. I can't find the information in the Pabongkha biography published according to the footnote. This claim may not be verifiable but I will keep looking.
• There are also other accounts that contradict the claim the 13th DL banned Shugden: In Minyag, Kham there was a public Cham held on July 29, 1924 for Palden Lhamo and Dorje Shugden, as documented by Paul Sherap in A Tibetan on Tibet, pages 197-199, London, T.F. Unwin, ltd., 1926. Also, the National Geographic article which claims to have been witnessed the oracle in 1927-28.

These problems reach far beyond WP which is why I mention with hesitation here.Tkalsang (talk) 06:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Tkalsang. (I misread initially what you said as user:AtishaCook's reply, so I correct now my remarks and address it correctly to you.) If there are inconsistencies and you have other material which show a fault, this should be made clear and information can balanced or corrected, there is no problem in this. However, original research can not be included but will help to evaluate the sources. If there are contradictions they can be pointed out, and it can be looked what source is more precise. The letter with the apology by Pabongkha to the 13th Dalai Lama can be found in Dharma Losang Dorje's Biography of Phabongkhapa, Vol 14 (Lhasa Edition), page 471 ff. Pabongkha wrote this letter of excuse to the 13th Dalai Lama, in which he excused for having violated the refuge and to have provoked the wrath of Nechung and in which he promises to stop Shugden worship. Full title in Tibetan: Rigs dang dkyil 'khor rga mtsho 'l khyab bdag heruka dpal ngur smrig gar rolskyabs gchig pha bongkha pa bde chen snying po dpal bzang po'l rnam thar pa don ldan tshangs p'al dbyangs snyan.

For me it is clear that some Shugden followers may dislike Dreyfus' paper, and I have no problems to find compromises, but I have a problem when some editors repress history and offer a misinterpretation or narrow minded version of history. Besides scholars / academics like Kay, Brück, and Dreyfus who researched that subject thoroughly, offering a precise line of who is claiming what in well referenced papers, we can also use Lopez, Mills or Samuel. I see the attempt to reduce the history of Shugden into one even misinterpreted quote by Mullin (wasn't this sentence I moaned added by you?) as an attempt to offer a fuzzy or simplified version of history as it is so common findable by some of the followers. Maybe I am wrong here but the article as it was some weeks ago strongly suggest such an attempt.

That Shugden was established as a worldly protector is also clear by reading Mullin or since what Buddhas have to been "exorcised", "transformed" and "pacified"? The claim that he would be enlightened came probably by Trijang Rinpoche or at the end of the life of Pabongkha Rinpoche. Pabongkha Rinpoche excused himself to the 13th Dalai Lama for having violated the principles of the Refuge in a letter which can be found in his biography. There would be no reason for this if Shugden was commonly accepted to be enlightened. Also that the Sakya's saw him in the lowest class of protectors does not suggest that he is enlightened.

I lack time to improve the section Tkalsang. If your are interested in a proper history account the first step could be (if you prefer Mullin as reference) to explain correctly what he said and not a narrow minded or fuzzy summery. To sum it, he states that the mind of the diseased / murdered Dragpa Gyaltsen turned into a spirit who made trouble in Lhasa "the soul of the murdered monk wandered in the hereafter for some time as a disturbed spirit, creating havoc for the people of Lhasa", then the 5th Dalai Lama to "exorcise and pacify it" asked first Nyingma shamans to subdue him, but when they failed he asked Gelugpa shamans who were finally successful. The spirit of the diseased lama was tamed and bound ("pacified and transformed") as the Dharma Protector Dorje Shugden (- which clearly indicates him as a worldly spirit). This version is also what Dreyfus and Kay state but they are able to put it into perspective that this is a version of those propagating Shugden what Mullin does not. Mullin also mentions that the practice was later (when?) adopted by "numerous Gelug" lamas who disapproved the 5th Dalai Lama's manner of combining Nyingma and Gelug practice and that the 5th Dalai Lama tried to discourage the practice, but "it caught on in many monasteries". He states then "The practice continued over the generations to follow, and eventually became one of the most popular Protector Deity practices within the Gelugpa school." He adds, "In particular, during the late 1800s, when four Dalai Lama died young, it became an all pervasive monthly practice within almost all provincial Gelugpa monasteries, and was especially popular with Gelugpa aristocratic families." I can not support a simplified version of history as expressed in the present sentence:

• "Over the course of the last 300 years, Dorje Shugden became a central Dharma Protector practice for almost every Gelugpa Monastery in Tibet and in exile.[38]"

Although this sentence is much better than the previous one, which I initially criticised:

• "Over the last 300 years, Dorje Shugden practice has been a central Protector practice of almost every Gelugpa Monastery in Tibet and in exile."[32]

The present sentence:

• "Over the course of the last 300 years, Dorje Shugden became a central Dharma Protector practice for almost every Gelugpa Monastery in Tibet and in exile.[38]"

It still is not able to express the history accurate and in a differentiated manner, and invites rather for historical misrepresentation, then for clarification. Also to perform this puja monthly and that it was popular does not indicate that it was central - as this sentence claims - much more as the central protectors for Gelugpas are Mahakala, Vaishravana and Kalarupa, before Pabongkha's mission to spread Shugden and to replace the three origin protectors established by Je Tsongkhapa by Dorje Shugden. (This is not only pointed out correctly by Dreyfus but also Geshe Kelsang states that Pabongkha made clear that the protectors bound by Je Tsongkhapa "have gone to their pure lands", that people "have no Karma with them anymore" so they would not be able to protect beings therefore "now is the time to rely on Dorje Shugden".) I hope you and other editors are able to see the differences. History has to been differentiated. The newly added claim:

• "The practice of relying upon Dharma Protectors began in ancient India as part of the Buddhist Tantric tradition, and spread to Tibet:"

can not be found in any research on Shugden, who claims this? What source proves this? A sentence like

• "There were also Sakya and Nyingma[39] practitioners of Dorje Shugden."

is ok but does not help much for a correct history account. The headline claims to explain something about the history. --Kt66 (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

In a first aid I changed to this much more accurate section. I hope this version overcomes the weak points of the previous one and as it accepts Mullin strongly is also accepted by the other editors. --Kt66 (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

History

The emergence of the practice is strongly related to Tulku Drapga Gyaltsen, a contemporary of the Lozang Gyatso, 5th Dalai Lama about whom exist different stories. According to researcher von Brück, in general, there is little documented historical evidence before the beginning of the 19th century and although there exist different orally-transmitted versions of his origins, they contradict each other in the key points.

Von Brück traces the root of the link between the death of Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen and the worship of Dorje Shugden back to "the power struggles of the 5th Dalai Lama and the successful centralization of power in his hands after the death of the Mongol Gushri Khan."

According to Mullin the soul of the murdered monk Dragpa Gyaltsen wandered after his death for some time as a disturbed spirit, who created trouble for the people of Lhasa. The 5th Dalai Lama to "exorcise and pacify" him asked first Nyingma shamans to subdue him, but when they failed he asked Gelugpa shamans who were finally successful. By this measures the spirit of the diseased lama was "pacified and transformed" as the Dharma Protector Dorje Shugden. Mullin continues that the practice was later adopted by "numerous Gelug lamas" who disapproved the 5th Dalai Lama's manner of combining Nyingma and Gelug practice and that the 5th Dalai Lama tried to discourage the practice, but "it caught on in many monasteries". According to Mullin "The practice continued over the generations to follow, and eventually became one of the most popular Protector Deity practices within the Gelugpa school." The practice became more popular during the late 1800s. During that time four Dalai Lama died young, and according to Mullin Dorje Shugden "became an all pervasive monthly practice within almost all provincial Gelugpa monasteries, and was especially popular with Gelugpa aristocratic families."

There were also Sakya and Nyingma practitioners of Dorje Shugden.

According to Ursula Bernis, "Some of the most widely revered Buddhist masters in the last three hundred fifty years of Tibetan history relied on Dorje Shugden as their guardian, including the Dalai Lama until the mid-1970s."

According to anthropologist Mumford, who studied the practice of Dorje Shugden in Nepal, the 5th Dalai Lama unsuccessfully tried to subjugate Dorje Shugden through a fire exorcism and "invited the still-wandering spirit to become a Srungma of the Gelugpa order, with result that Shugs-ldan became one of the most popular Srungmas in Tibet. With the encouragement of local lamas, kin groups all over Tibet took on Shugs-ldan as their lineage guardian." According to some Gelug Lamas, there is evidence to show that the Lozang Gyatso, 5th Dalai Lama realized he was mistaken in considering Dorje Shugden a spirit, and then composed a prayer praising Dorje Shugden as a Buddha and crafted a statue to show his respect for Dorje Shugden. However, 14th Dalai Lama has denied that the 5th Dalai Lama compose such a prayer. Also von Brück denies the historical evidence of such a claim, stating "The problem is that this position has no historical evidence, neither in the biography of the 5th Dalai Lama or elsewhere."

In the 18th and 19th centuries, rituals related to Dorje Shugden as an enlightened being began to be written by prominent Gelug masters. The Fifth On-rGyal-Sras Rinpoche (1743-1811, Kelsang Thubten Jigme Gyatso - 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. The Fourth Jetsun Dampa (1775 - 1813, Losang Thubten Wangchuk Jigme Gyatso - 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. The prolific Mongolian scholar Lobsang Tamdin (1867-1937) collected many of the early Dorje Shugden rituals written by the earlier Sakya, Mongolian and Tibetan Gelug lamas. This collection also includes a biographies of Panchen Sonam Dragpa, the Indian master Shakya Shri Bhadra and a table of contents (dkar chag) and introduction written by Lobsang Tamdin.

The history section is more balanced now, with an equal amount of airtime for those who believe in the two conflicting versions of the origin of Dorje Shugden. (Truthbody (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC))

template removal

I removed all templates, the article is quite proper now. To quote claims made by the WP:SPS http://www.shugdensociety.info/historyEventsEN.html which has no author and reference and spins the historical facts is unacceptable for the intro. That's why I removed:

He has been relied upon for 400 years as a protector of the teachings of Buddha and revered by many of the most venerated Masters of the Gelug and Sakya traditions of Tibetan Buddhism, "as well as by many monasteries, families and entire regions."

"evil Deity."

--Kt66 (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kt66 that the content from the DSDCRS website is a "self-published source" and therefore should not be included in the introduction. Emptymountains (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

the article including the changes by user:emptymountains and truthsayer is completely acceptable to me and fine. Maybe now the missing references should be added. Thank you so far. However, I won't accept a reinsertion of the above site in the intro section. I wrote to emptymountains:

You can see my changes and the final removal of the misleading statement by the Indian Shugden Society in the intro. As the article is now it is fully acceptable for me and I think all weaknesses are removed and the templates not needed anymore. However, if again sources like http://www.shugdensociety.info/historyEventsEN.html are used for reference which hold unverifiable or extreme views, which are contradicted by WP:RS and have no authors I will add templates according to the situation and changes. If somewhere at the end of the article (but not in the intro) it is stated in NPOV manner that the Indian Shugden Society holds this or that belief/view, I have no problem, but to quote it in the intro as a fact is just not appropriate for WP. I would be happy if you can help and explain this to the editor who might re-add it again. It is clear that for some it is difficult to accept what I say. Thanks a lot. --Kt66 (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the last change by an anonymous editor because I see the present article as the result by all present editors. I hope you can agree. Thank you em for your comment. best wishes, --Kt66 (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

PRC news claim removed

An editor added this misleading claim to the introduction section:

• The Dalai Lama sometimes refers to him as a "pro-Chinese demon".

The Dalai Lama is known to be precise and it is very very unlikely that he has ever stated something like this. If you follow the reference http://en.rian.ru/world/20081212/118827618.html it is clear that the claim was made by an editorial on Xinhua, the official government news agency of PRC and belongs to the propaganda section (using phrases like "Dalai clique") and not to be judged as WP:RS. So I removed that propaganda. --Kt66 (talk) 09:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that the PRC view of the Dorje Shugden controversy is notable and should be reported factually. This does not imply that WP endorses that view. Of course it can be described as "propaganda", but we are in the realm of belief systems here, or ideology, not fact. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to include the view from the PRC news agancy it can be done of course somewhere in the article but not as a statement of fact in the introduction and without making it even WP:NPOV. Such a claim lacks the support by 3rd party WP:RS and can't be offered as a fact in the introduction. --Kt66 (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The earliest instance I can find online right now of this "Chinese demon" quote is the 2000 interview with Kundeling Rinpoche at http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1726/17260840.htm. However, I cannot find a direct quote attributable to the Dalai Lama himself. It doesn't mean he didn't say it, but we should try to find the original source for something so important. (I'm guessing people want to use the quote to show how the Dorje Shugden issue is used by the Dalai Lama for political purposes?) I personally would not go by hearsay, even if it is in a WP:RS. Emptymountains (talk) 14:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't mean to imply that it should be attributed directly to the Dalai Lama. That would be quite inappropriate. It should be attributed to the Xinhua editorial and/or the interview with Kundeling Rinpoche. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

sorry Emptymountains but this Kundeling is not seen as being the recognized Kundeling Tulku, he has no official recognition as the Kundeling tulku, therefore Tibetans refer to him as Nga-Lama, I-Lama, who recognized himself. He is probably no WP:RS either. He can be quoted as the PRC news agency can be quoted but in WP:NPOV and not as a matter of fact. for more see:

http://www.tibet.net/en/prelease/2002/190702.html

http://www.kundeling.net/tagtsha.htm

http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?article=Organisations+accuse+Dhoegyal+Society+of+undermining+Tibetan+freedom+struggle&id=21174

I agree with Itsmejudith, when it is clearly attributed to the Xinhua editorial and/or the interview with Kundeling Rinpoche, then this is appropriate. But in general, as both are rather controversial and not WP:RS I oppose presently the inclusion in the introduction section or are there reasons why a rather unverifiable view should be stated in the intro? --Kt66 (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You both have misread me. I invite you to go back and read what I actually said. Thanks! Emptymountains (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The two articles

Dear All,

I'm noticing some content from the Dorje Shugden controversy article creeping into this more 'general' article. One example is the "Shugden is a ghost" quote from the late head of the Nyingma school. (This was in the "Popularization of the 20th Century" section of the DS article, but I think that whole pagraph beginning with "While Mumford claims..." should be removed since the Nyingmapa's view and the Ganden Tripa's view are more pertinent to the DS controversy article.) Granted, there is bound to be overlap between the two articles, but I would think that this would happen only with the general information, not something so specific.

So, I would like to ask, what is the purpose of each of these articles in terms of content? What information is one article supposed to cover that is unique and not included in the other? If we cannot answer these questions clearly, then maybe it's time to merge the two articles together? I personally would like to keep them separate, but in that case we should strive to avoid needless repetition. Emptymountains (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

As long as the articles quotes in a partisan and misleading way Bernis and Mumford without balancing it by the statements who have the highest spiritual authority in this, I see a need to balance this. If you remove Bernis and Mumford, the balance-quotes can also be removed. Otherwise this section is strongly misleading by claiming things as facts or suggesting / implying an importance to Shugden that he never had as seen by the heads of the schools. Especially Bernis is in general rather a questionable source, and Mumford's inclusion suggests that Nyingma were in a way keen adepts, which is ridiculous. This is just not correct. So I include it again until the section has been balanced properly. I took exact two quotes: first to balance Mumford, second to balance Bernis. --Kt66 (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

With the complete removal to the controversy article I can agree, thanks :-) --Kt66 (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I had only looked at the second paragraph. I hadn't noticed that Bernis and Mumford were first mentioned in the first paragraph. Emptymountains (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I am happy that you are a reasonable editor. I will presently not take a look on the Dorje Shugden controversy, I fear to much work and thoughts. However, maybe you have time to include the quote by Tai Situ Rinpoche, about the Kaguyepa's fear of Shudgen and that they do not like to even speak his name. (This has been reported to me also different times orally by Kagyuepas, including a Tibetan Tibetologist from Hamburg University.) This claim is also congruent with Mumford, who states: Dorje Shugden is "extremely popular, but held in awe and feared among Tibetans because he is highly punitive.” Mumford 1989:125-126. Tai Situ Rinpoche states in the interview:

“We Kagyue followers normally do not mention this name without fear. There is no Shugden practitioner among Kagyue followers. The reason why we fear the one I name just now, is because we believe that he causes obstacles to spiritual practice and brings discord in families and among the community of monks.” this is also in the film documentary with interviews of heads of Tibetan Schools or eminent Tibetan masters: Dorjee Shugden, The Spirit and the Controversy by the Tibetan Government in Exile, http://dalailama.com/page.157.htm. Although this is a WP:SPS and should treated with care, with respect to the interviews it is highly informative because it offers the opinion of the head of schools or eminent Tibetan masters which are rarely known.

Best wishes, --Kt66 (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

With respect to that Kagyu quote from Tai Situ Rinpoche, it is astonishing to hear a Buddhist master talk in this way -- it is like someone out of Harry Potter 'not' talking about Voldemort: "He who must not be named"!! If Tai Situ and others are actually going for refuge to Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, let alone if they possess actual Dharma realizations, what are they afraid of?! Even if they believe Dorje Shugden is a spirit, a spirit cannot harm someone who goes for refuge -- this is basic Buddhist understanding. This comment is so very sad and makes so little sense but is indicative of the problem of superstition, baseless fear and so on amongst those who oppose the practice of Dorje Shugden. Thank you for including it here.(Truthbody (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC))

Improving Referencing Style

(Yes, there is already a "fear" quote in the article that was added before.)

When citing videos, please provide the start and end times of the quote (and its context, if helpful). This is akin to providing a page reference in a book. For a 'documentary' that is nearly an hour long, this would be a big favor to readers and editors who want to verify the quote.

Also, for books, please do not use a named reference tag. How could this work for us if different citations refer to different page numbers in the same book? Please follow Itsmejudith's example: Kay (2004:230), where the number before the colon is the year of publication (in case we are citing from more than one work by that author), and the number after the colon is the page reference. Emptymountains (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

kt66's latest round of additions/amendments

in my view, these are more examples of wilful misinterpretation of sources and WP guidelines. what is wrong with the article as it stands? if there is a consensus, then we can try to agree on changes. Atisha's cook (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

you asked for more WP:RS - a eeasonable request, which i'll try to fulfill in the near future. thank you. Atisha's cook (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Atisha's cook you may lack the academic sources, otherwise you could easily check that many sources like woikowitz are mispresented. Woikowoitz, mumford and all the other researches show clearly that shugden was defined as a worldly protector. you can not spin these facts or exclude them from the article. when you have the sources we can discuss. i gave precise references. --Kt66 (talk) 13:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

yes, but i may not, eh? like i said - please wait. the article's been fairly static for almost a fortnight: let's leave it so until we have our sources together.Atisha's cook (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

and before you start, by "we" i mean you and me, both - not me and my gang of PRC-sponsored sock-puppets!Atisha's cook (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Atisha's cook is strongly suggest to read the quoted texts before you remove them, they all are WP:RS and they are mainstream and accepted, moreover their content is mainly consistent. If WP:RS were used at all like Wojkowitz than even with misrepresenting what they state. The article is no fan site for NKT or Shugden followers. All views should be reported and the main weight should have WP:RS] My additions fulfil WP requirements. --Kt66 (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

with respect, this may be a language issue? N-W is quite correctly referenced. by stating: "According to Renée de Nebresky-Wojkowitz, followers of Dorje Shugden see him..." the article means, precisely, that this is the view of "followers of Dorje Shugden" as explained by N-W, *not* that this is the view of N-W. your edit actually attributes a view of DS to N-W! Atisha's cook (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

He is quite misrepresented. The point is that the issue of succeeding pehar is misrepresented and that Nebresky-Wojkowitz clearly shows him to be a mundane protector. Moreover he states "A Tibetan tradition" by using Nebresky-Wojkowitz and Kay it is clear that "A Tibetan tradition" refers to Pabongkhapa and by using the full quote misrepresentations are avoided. By adding Batchelor it is clear that there are motives behind such developments. Another point is that Nebresky-Wojkowitz stated the other sentence you quote ""regard him as dutiful guardian of their temples and particularly the Ganden (dGa' ldan) monastery. In most temples of the Dge lugs pa one finds paintings and images of this dharmapala in the mgon khang, the room reserved for the worship of protectors of religion." in the end of the 1950/60 without mentioning this thequote gives a misrepresentation of the actual situation. Therefore I added the year and put it in the past tense.

The full passage reads like this in Nebresky-Wojkowitz:

A Tibetan tradition claims that the guardian-deity rDo rje shugs Idan, "Powerful Thunderbolt", will succeed Pe har as the head of all 'jig rten pai srung ma once the latter god advances into the rank of those guardian-deities who stand already outside the wordly spheres. Compared with other dharmapalas, rDo rje shugs Idan - who bears the titles dgra lha'i rgyal chen, "great king of the dgra lha" and srog bdag, "life-master" - is a divinity of comparatively recent origin. The following legend explains, how and when rDo rje shugs Idan came into existence....

This is very different to what you claim he states:

According to Renée de Nebresky-Wojkowitz, followers of Dorje Shugden see him as succeeding Nechung (Pehar) as the head of the wrathful forces protecting Buddhism against evil, and according to this view, Dorje Shugden is a particularly important deity in the Tibetan pantheon, since he would replace the present state oracle, Nechung.

Nebresky-Wojkowitz states clearly that he is a mundane protector who "will succeed Pe har as the head of all 'jig rten pai srung ma once the latter god advances into the rank of those guardian-deities who stand already outside the wordly spheres." using the quote as Key does it avoids such misrepresentations.

And Kay '97 (strongly advised by CESNUR) states:

Scholarly English language accounts of rDo rje shugs Idan reliance seem to corroborate the latter of the two positions emerging from within the Tibetan tradition, suggesting that the status and importance of rDo rje shugs Idan was gradually elevated from around the time of Phabongkha Rinpoche. De Nebesky-Wojkowitz presents rDo rje shugs Idan as a deity “of comparatively recent origin” (1956: 134), who is one of the main dGe lugs protective deities operating in the worldly spheres, and Mumford’s references (1989) indicate how modern-day dGe lugs and Sa skya Buddhists in Nepal still regard the deity as a popular ‘jig rten pa’i srung ma. rDo rje shugs Idan’s rise to prominence through the sectarian activities of Phabongkha Rinpoche has already been mentioned. This appears to have preceded another important development whereby, during the 1930s and 1940s, Phabongkha supporters began to proclaim the fulfilment of the tradition “that the guardian-deity rDo rje shugs Idan … will succeed Pe har as the head of all ‘jig rten pa’i srung ma once the latter god advances into the rank of those guardian-deities who stand already outside the worldly spheres” (de Nebesky-Wojkowitz, 1956: 134) and maintain that the Tibetan government should turn its allegiance away from Pe har, the State protector, to rDo rje shugs Idan.9

It is unclear when belief in rDo rje shugs Idan as an enlightened being first developed; the likelihood is that it emerged gradually as the Dharma-protector grew in prominence. This belief seems to have been in place by the time the young Fourteenth Dalai Larna was introduced to the practice by Trijang Rinpoche prior to the exile of the Tibetan Buddhist community in 1959.

Therefore I revert to my correct presentation and which used a correct quote instead of a rather misleading summery. --Kt66 (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

once again - with respect - you've misread and misunderstood. N-W does *not* state "clearly that he is a mundane protector who "will succeed..." " at all. he states that this is the view of "a Tibetan tradition" - which is the meaning of the original wording you're trying to change here. i say this with all due respect (my German is appalling) but you seem to be having difficulty with basic English comprehension.

i have to ask - why are you, a non-Dorje Shugden practising, non-Gelugpa monk, who has no connection with any Shugden-practising tradition, going to such lengths to put forward your own view on this matter in a WP article written in a language you don't even speak fluently? Atisha's cook (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Atisha's cook of course he does clearly state that his is a worldly protector, a ‘jig rten pa’i srung ma, see page 4 + 134 and the complete research or see Kay or Mumford and try to understand from their or other research that ‘jig rten pa’i srung ma is a worldly protector. this has to be explained to the reader, therefore I put it in brackets. Moreover "A Tibetan tradition" refers to pabongkha's followers, as it is also explained by Kay. If you remove this again, I will replace it completely by Kay. Then this is solved. Or we give a precise quote of both Kay and Wojkowitz, you clearly misrepresent Wojkowitz. For personal issues don't uses this talk page. It is wrong that I would "forward my own view", I forward the views of WP:RS as stated by academic research. --Kt66 (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

maybe my word "misrepresenting" is too harsh and has to be explained to make it more clear. Probably "inaccurate" or "fuzzy" would be a better and more moderate term to label my criticism to that passage. when you write:

• According to Renée de Nebresky-Wojkowitz, followers of Dorje Shugden see him as succeeding Nechung (Pehar) as the head of the wrathful forces protecting Buddhism against evil, and according to this view, Dorje Shugden is a particularly important deity in the Tibetan pantheon, since he would replace the present state oracle, Nechung.

such a statement covers up that Shugden is seen in that context as a mundane protector, and that it will only succeed Pehar, when Pehar attained enlightenment. In such a case Shugden would be the head of the mundane (worldly) protectors. The phrasing is so fuzzy that these details are faded out and it can be misread. Also a phrasing like "protecting Buddhism against evil" is rather misleading because Shugden is clearly shown as a clan-deity and a Gelug deity and not as someone protecting Buddhism (in general). moreover if he succeeds pehar he would be mainly the protector of tibet and would be closely associated with the government or the governing of Tibet - for political issues. nechung's or the state protector's function is not mainly "protecting Buddhism against evil". this is rather a task of supramundane protectors. --Kt66 (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Problem is, Kt66 is starting from this viewpoint clearly spoken here i.e. that Dorje Shugden does not protect Buddhism in general (which according to many great Lamas and sincere practitioners he does) and that he is not a supramundane Protector (which according to many great Lamas and sincere practitioners he is), and holds his own view as supreme, trying to distort sources that may be quite neutral to back himself up. This is not the first time he has done this. The purpose of Wikipedia however is to be balanced and objective and in the last two weeks this article has been deteriorating fast to the "world according to kt66" again and needs more balance and NPOV. (Truthbody (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC))

Dear Truthbody please read WP:RS. You won't get the article balanced by favouring Geshe Kelsang and NKT's blog pages but by using neutral academic research - 3rd party sources. --Kt66 (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

removal of quotes from anonymous websites which lacks verifiable sources

I removed:

and the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, who wrote a praise to him as an enlightened Protector.

the reason is that this website http://www.wisdombuddhadorjeshugden.org/dorjeshugden03.php is rather an anonymous blog which holds rather extreme views, it has no qualified authors etc and has no sources which could be verified by consulting WP:RS. --Kt66 (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The website is not anonymous. It says clearly: "This website is compiled by some Western and Tibetan supporters in the Western Shugden Society. Contact Us. The Western Shugden Society (WSS) is an ad hoc coalition of Dorje Shugden practitioners from many different countries. The immediate aims of the WSS are expressed in a letter sent to the Dalai Lama. © Copyright 2008 WisdomBuddhaDorjeShugden.org" This website and its associated blog includes a huge amount of documented material and legitimate sources, as well as first-hand accounts of persecution, news reports, documentaries, and so on. It has plenty of verifiable sources throughout it and also throughout its associated blog. It is composed, compiled, researched etc by a large number of people. It receives many views per day and is considered by many to be a valuable resource on the subject of Dorje Shugden and the Dalai Lama's ban of the practice, including journalists and neutral observers. It makes no pretense at being anything other than supportive of the practice of Dorje Shugden and against the Dalai Lama's ban of the practice, so it is not pretending to be something it is not (unlike kt66's individual websites and blogs, which claim to hold the supreme truth of the matter, but which in fact are very biased and jaundiced yet still get used in wikipedia.) It is perfectly permissible, and indeed helpful, to use quotations and other research from www.wisdombuddhadorjeshugden.org. (Truthbody (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC))

Truthbody blog pages are no reliable source for wikipedia, the removal of proper WP:RS is inappropriate. Wikipedia prefers heavily WP:RS which were deleted by you to favour fringe views established by blog pages you prefer to favour the pov of the New Kadampa Tradition. Further your changes spin sources or present them in a prartial manner. As you have reverted my corrections which included correct full quotes without discussion (while I gave extensive reasons previously for my correction) and your changes spin the article e.g. Mullin and put an undue weight to favour Kelsang Gyatso's pov + anonymous webblogs I added the two template warnings. the article is now neiter accurate nor neutral and it is based too much on WP:SPS thoough reliable 3rd party WP:RS exist. --Kt66 (talk)

You have not read what is said above. I have not spun sources -- you are just saying that to try and sound like you know what you are talking about, when ironically you are one of the masters of spin! I have presented the material in a partial manner. I have not reverted your corrections but added WP:NPOV. This article was accepted by other editors to be both accurate and neutral, with a great deal of WP:RS, it is only you who do not like it as it is not entirely in keeping with your own views. (Truthbody (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

I think you do not understand Wikipedia. Anonymous Blog pages and blogs in general are no sources for an encyclopaedia - though there are some exceptions e.g. when the article is about a blog or the blog was quoted in WP:RS etc. The preferred sources are academic research, not blogs and books by a rather controversial author, though he can be quoted of course but not favoured. --Kt66 (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You are very condescending. I understand Wikipedia as well as you do. And if you read what I had written, you will see that the blog is not anonymous etc. Why do you make people repeat themselves over and over again? All the authors on this page are controversial to someone or another, by the way. I find your sources, and especially your own blogs and websites, highly controversial. So, we have to bear with each other. (Truthbody (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

of course it is, it has not any reputable and acknowledged author. WP:RS are preferred. The academic research I added and which you have either removed or put a spin on it, fulfil that standard. --Kt66 (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You are not listening. I have not removed sources and I have not added spins. I would suggest that you are the one who is hell-bent on spinning this article as you add edits that are undiscussed and your own WP:POV -- there is nothing wrong with academic sources (and I intend to use more of them on this article shortly); but you tend to try and use them in an unbalanced manner. (Truthbody (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

What should I listen, I see the changes and removals of WP:RS and the inclusion of WP:SPS from the blogosphere by just looking in the history. You could not even accept the proper WP:RS for the intro-section. --Kt66 (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

kt66's addition of unbalanced template

For as long as kt66 himself tries to upset the balance of this article, an article that was pretty balanced and NPOV before, perhaps it warrants this unbalanced template -- but for the opposite reasons he would assert. He seems to be attempting to bias it back toward an anti-Shugden viewpoint. (Truthbody (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

Sorry Truthbody, as I said you different times 3rd party WP:RS sources which were discussed detailed above, and also accepted by other users, like user:emptymountains. You have removed it without any discussion. You further added sources from private blogs with no authors who all belong to WP:SPS and your favour the one-sidedly the point of view of the New Kadampa Tradition by not only using all their blogs but also including heavily claims by its founder Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. On top of that you spin sources and you removed passages from formerly accepted sources like Mullin and include your personal pov. All this is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia, and there exist enough 3rd party WP:RS. Due to all of this I added the two templates until these weaknesses of the article are removed. --Kt66 (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I have done none of those things. (Truthbody (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

You have removed WP:RS and added WP:SPS from blog pages as anybody can see by viewing the history. --Kt66 (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to let people judge from the historical facts who is doing what. (Truthbody (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

Maybe again for you and Atisha's Cook:

Wikipedia articles[1] should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made; if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for queries about the reliability of particular sources. see WP:RS --Kt66 (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Tenzin - you said: "as I said you different times 3rd party WP:RS sources which were discussed detailed above, and also accepted by other users, like user:emptymountains. You have removed it without any discussion. You further added sources from private blogs with no authors who all belong to WP:SPS and your favour the one-sidedly the point of view of the New Kadampa Tradition by not only using all their blogs but also including heavily claims by its founder Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. On top of that you spin sources and you removed passages from formerly accepted sources like Mullin and include your personal pov."

when were any of these things done? just because you don't agree with a source does not make it unreliable! Atisha's cook (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

look in the history of the article --Kt66 (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Kt66 POV

User:Kt66 is not fit to edit any article concerning the Buddhist Deity Dorje Shugden, the New Kadampa Tradition, its founder Geshe Kelsang Gystso, or its lineage gurus. I move to seek a ban on this editor contributing further to these topics. He has made no secret of his identity, so it is not "outing" him here to refer, as evidence supporting my position, to his numerous blogs, websites and forum contributions across the www promoting his view on this topic. He has stated his intention to "warn" the world about the evils of this cult/these practices/these individuals. It is clear, therefore, that he has *no interest in contributing simple, factual content to these topics in this encylopedia* - his aim is solely to promote his own POV. The sheer volume of his highly opinionated and selectively-referenced work throughout the www undermines his claims to neutrality and provide some evidence for a charge of obsession on his part. His opus dwarfs that of any other writer on the topic!

It is a truism that any article concerning religion will attract strong views, and there are editors on these articles that are in favour of this Deity, etc., but none of them has shown anything like the single-minded determination of User:Kt66 in promoting their views. Many of them, such as User:Truthbody and User:emptymountains have engaged in thoughtful discussion and editing, carefully including differing and opposing viewpoints and the sources that demonstrate them; while they may have a POV on these topics, as I do, they at least are careful not to promote their own POV above others. In contrast, User:Kt66 consistently seeks to find any and all "3rd party" sources to support his own view, while seeking to devalue any source that contradicts his ideas. His contributions skew the balance of the article strongly in favour of one POV, his own.

Of course, WP should be democratic and all viewpoints must be given where they contribute to the overall understanding of a topic. But allowing such a confessed and vehement anti-Dorje Shugden editor to monopolise this article is comparable to allowing a vehement and open anti-Christian to monopolise the editing of an article on Christianity. It cannot lead to a balanced article, as evidenced (over the years now) by his edits.

He cannot edit neutrally on these topics. For the sake of the articles' validity and credibility, this user should be banned from editing them. Atisha's cook (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Notice on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard - blog pages as sources?

see for the opinion of other editors: Noticeboard Dorje_Shugden

Someone replied:

Avoid these web sites, I think. Google returns quite a few sites claiming to be the "official" voice, and it would be very difficult to decide which, if any, has any standing outside its own contributors. If you have 3rd party academic sources, make sure they are fairly recent as books by "outsider" academics can themselves contain misunderstandings - for example Margaret Mead's Coming of Age in Samoa is still controversial. You should be prepared to cite works that express differing views - this is actually pretty common in the types of science article I edit, I know from my student experiences that it's common in philosophy, and I'd expect it to be common in history (it certainly is in chess history) - and I notice that there's a historical / theological controversy around Dorje Shugden. --Philcha (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

--Kt66 (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I found what user:Philcha said very interesting, thank you. He or she said: "If you have 3rd party academic sources, make sure they are fairly recent as books by "outsider" academics can themselves contain misunderstandings - for example Margaret Mead's Coming of Age in Samoa is still controversial. You should be prepared to cite works that express differing views - this is actually pretty common in the types of science article I edit, I know from my student experiences that it's common in philosophy, and I'd expect it to be common in history (it certainly is in chess history) - and I notice that there's a historical / theological controversy around Dorje Shugden. --Philcha (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)"

I replied that most editors on the article think that kt66 has overused Kay, making him judge and jury of the controversy. kt66 has never cited "works that express differing views". The sources for these academic studies themselves include a lot of propaganda from the tibetan government in exile and very little from the point of view of Buddhists practicing Shugden. These studies are all done by "outsider" academics and do inevitably "contain misunderstandings". They are almost all over ten years old and there has been a huge amount of research since then that brings them into question. (Truthbody (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

The books and article that kt66 listed on the the reliable sources noticeboard are all perfectly acceptable academic texts. What you need to do now is to make a case for the sources you want to use. It may be that one or more of them is also acceptable and can be cited alongside the others for the sake of balance. I will leave a message at WikiProject Tibetan Buddhism for more help with this article. Although I've had it watchlisted for a while now, I don't understand enough about these traditions to be able to get fully involved. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Truthbody you added some funny sources which can't be verified, please read again WP:RS. This should be published material and a precise reference should be made, some of your addition lack the qualification to be verifiable like: "Address delivered by the Dalai Lama at the preparatory session of Tamdrin Yangsang and Sangdrub empowerments, March 21 1996" this is WP:original research that's why I removed it. Please precise also Tagpo Kelsang Khedrub Rinpoche praise of Dorje Shugden, Infinite Aeons, published??, year??, page?? which you quote. Thanks --Kt66 (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I included again the "self-published"-template until this has been solved. This is a highly controversial topic and it will not help to have a proper encyclopaedic article by quoting from anonymous blogs with anonymous hobby authors. There exist enough WP:RS. --Kt66 (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Overview

The overview is perfectly clear and simple and expresses both points of view. Everyone was happy with it before. Please stop trying to reintroduce a thesis by Kay at that point -- his material comes later in detail in any case. (Truthbody (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC))

Ok kt66, i personally think it is okay to make the overview shorter as you suggest. (Truthbody (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC))

fine. Thanks. --Kt66 (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Links again

I added again three papers which are from respected sources and either used in other research or advised by other researchers. All three papers were not used for the article. My inclusion is backed up by WP:link policy which states:

1. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
2. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

thanks --Kt66 (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sachen Kunlo Reference

Would it be possible to find and add that reference from Sachen Kunlo's own writings rather than from one of GKG's works? Jmlee369 (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)