Talk:Dorje Shugden controversy/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 9

Reclaimed history of Dorje Shugden

A scholarly, well researched and accurate history of this Deity is now, thankfully, available on the Internet : www.dorjeshugdenhistory.org. It would be great if editors of this article (both Dorje Shugden practitioners and Dorje Shugden detractors) could take the time to have a look at this crucial and illuminating website (if you haven't done so already) because it sets the record straight on many aspects of Dorje Shugden's history that were distorted by George Dreyfus and those who copied him. The author has done this by means of thorough translations of ritual texts and so on from before the twentieth century: Dorje Shugden History [1] (It is clear from this site that David Kay's work, for example, is credulous and poorly researched in that it relies heavily on Dreyfus rather than upon original research, and Dreyfus is largely discredited by the author's translations.) (Truthbody (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC))

Copyvio

At least in the paragraph (Dorje_Shugden_controversy#By_the_Tibetan_Government_in_Exile), and may be elsewhere in the article, a citation from a journalist is given. Citations from celebrities are accepted on wikipedia, but citation from journalist might be viewed a form of copyvio. Please, check all the article, and history of the article. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 13:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Just go ahead and re-write that section if you think part of it was copied from somewhere. Why are you bothering with this massive and annoying copyright violation template??? Peaceful5 (talk) 13:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio? Quoting from published articles in newspapers etc. - since when has that ever been seen as a copyvio? Redateur - you have to be joking. Have you really sunk so low? This is utter desperation on your part! Shame on you.

Exactly what are you trying to achieve? Atisha's cook (talk) 13:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The sentences cited in the article are : "No one saw the attackers slip in and out of the monastery chamber on the frosty night of February 4. There are no real suspects in hand, only suspicions, potential witnesses and the suggestive tale of an angry split in Tibetan Buddhism. As much as anything, the Shugdens are suspect because no alternative theory has emerged to explain this unholy crime. But the mystery of the Dharamsala murders is far from solved." from Newsweek April 28, 1997, [1]

My point is that it is an easy "copie and paste"-way to write articles on wikipedia citing books and newspaper articles, that might be viewed as a hidden copyvio-way. I am afraid this method is not only used in the paragraph where I first notice this point, but elsewhere througout the article, which appeared to overuse this citation-method. I believe this should be corrected by extracting meanings (in neutral way) out of citation, and leaving the links as references only. The outcome will be a shorter article, and hopefully neutral. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 13:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

What? That's nonsense! I don't think an Admin. will think favourably of your action, but I might be wrong. You can wait and see if you want, but if I were you I'd remove it. Atisha's cook (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rédacteur Tibet. As you asked me: with respect to articles on controversial subjects it is ok to give a full quote from a WP:RS but of course it should made be known that it is a quote. --Kt66 (talk) 09:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Article fully protected

This article is fully protected for the next two weeks. I urge all parties to work out the disputes here on the talk page. If resolution can be reached on specific points in keeping with WP:CONSENSUS, you may use the {{editprotected}} template to request that an administrator make the necessary change. Please note, however, that administrators will not change text if there is no evidence of agreement, or if there is evidence that the proposed text is disputed. Risker (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

IMO If this separate Dorje Shugden Controversy article is necessary, then it should simply summarize the history of the actual controversy (demonstrations, bans, speeches by the Dalai Lama, alleged incidents of discrimination, and so on) over the last 25 years mainly relying on published academic sources and newspaper and other media accounts relating those events.
All detailed discussion of the nature of Dorje Shugden, including differing "historical" accounts and claims, should be re-merged with the main Dorje Shugden article where it belongs as one cannot write a balanced article on Dorje Shugden without going into the different opinions as to the nature of this entity long held by different groups of adherents of Tibetan Buddhism. Chris Fynn (talk) 08:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that it should all be merged back into one article. There was a great deal of discussion leading to the decision to make it two articles -- please check the archives. For example, to put both in one muddies the water and makes the article even more impossibly long and unreadable. Plus, the nature and function of Dorje Shugden is a spiritual subject quite unrelated to the political controversy caused by the political actions of the Dalai Lama and the following witch hunt of Shugden practitioners. (Truthbody (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC))
Keeping everything in one article does not necessarily either "muddy the water" or make an article "long and unreadable". If an objectively minded editor having some familiarity with Tibetan Buddhism - but no prior involvement in this issue - read the ample academic and historical sources available in English, I'm sure that person could easily write a clear and concise NPOV encyclopedic article summarizing the academic views on the whole subject and the views of the proponents & opponents of this entity - with little difficulty. Whether the "Shugden devotees" or "Shugden opponents" would accept this as neutral and avoid adding long winded and obfuscatory edits to such an article is another matter.
Chris Fynn (talk) 06:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Third-Party Sources

If this article tried to confine itself to using reliable, third-party publications as sources; and if material based on primary sources, particularly sources closely affiliated with the controversy which is the subject of the article, were largely eliminated it would be a vast improvement. Right now it seems to be just another battleground for the controversy itself. Chris Fynn (talk) 05:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a reasonable suggestion, but I'm not sure it'll work here. The article's about the controversy, and to try to explain it without representing the opposing views would be somewhat pointless! Also, as a DS practitioner with a clearly biased POV, I (and, I suggest, many others) often find it difficult to accept the neutrality of many of the "academic", 3rd party sources I've read. This is because many of them appear to see the Dalai Lama (and to a lesser extent, the TGIE) as a reliable source for information on all things Buddhist.
History is being rewritten wrt Phabongkha Rinpoche and Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche so that they are now almost reviled as sectarian politicians - these are Dorje Shugden Lamas whose reputations as spiritual teachers during their lifetimes amongst a very large section of Tibetan society were almost equal to those of the 13th and 14th Dalai Lamas respectively. This is one example of the power of the 14th DL's words to shape common perceptions of accepted truth.
The Dorje Shugden proponents' view is almost necessarily opposed to that of the majority of scholars and experts nowadays. To rely solely on 3rd party sources could, I feel, introduce a bias into the article in favour of one side of this controversy, and misrepresent the other.
Atisha's cook (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Atisha's Cook -- it is hard to find neutral third-party sources, especially since 1995 as there has been a great deal of propaganda stemming from the Dalai Lama and TGIE, rewriting history about Dorje Shugden, which many Dalai Lama devotees have swallowed lock, stock and barrel. (See the discussion on the German Wikipedia article (if you can read German) -- no one could come up with any adverse comments about the lineage Gurus or even Dorje Shugden before 1995 to answer one editor's question.) Most of the bad stuff seems to have materialized only since the 1990s. There is a good reason for this. Journalists and academics didn't bother reporting on Dorje Shugden practice while everyone was harmoniously practicing it or harmoniously not practicing it. They only jumped in when it became a controversy of course (due to the Dalai Lama's ban)-- by which time, the propaganda about Dorje Shugden being a Chinese demon etc was by necessity out in force. Nowadays, through attrition, there are only a few brave souls who dare to buck the party line. (Truthbody (talk) 00:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC))
I do know of just one 1990s third-party source (apart from the Swiss videos themselves) that is not biased against Dorje Shugden practitioners, from Christopher Hitchens of Vanity Fair:

Supporters of the Dorge Shugden deity -- a "Dharma protector" and an ancient object of worship and propitiation in Tibet -- have been threatened with violence and ostracism and even death following the Dalai Lama's abrupt prohibition of this once-venerated godhead. A Swiss television documentary graphically intercuts footage of His Holiness, denying all knowledge of menace and intimidation, with scenes of his followers' enthusiastically promulgating "Wanted" posters and other paraphernalia of excommunication and persecution.

[2] (Truthbody (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC))

I think, it's your fault if you don't know other 3rd party sources. Also the Swiss TV is no WP:RS and the docu was discussed in the Swiss press as being very controversial, and made even fun of the program director. Finally the TV had to produce more parts of the docu to balance the first part, and only for the other parts (not published by NKT on youtube of course) neutral academic specialists were consulted. for more on this see here (use google translation to get an idea): http://www.tibetfocus.com/shugden/index.html best wishes --Kt66 (talk) 14:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Chris Fynn, I agree with you. There is a collection of published 3rd party sources by academics which clearly fulfil the WP:RS criteria: Academic Research regarding Shugden Controversy and New Kadampa Tradition-IKBU. Sadly since April 2008 almost all the 3rd party sources were removed by the present editors to favour WP:SPS and an one-sided view. The academic sources were repeatedly attacked as being biased or wrong, including the editors. --Kt66 (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

But, Kt66, "Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y" is not a personal attack, as per Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks. Emptymountains (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree, kt66's statement here should be disqualified. "Attacked" is emotive language, intended to bias people against other editors who don't happen to share this editor's view by making them appear aggressive or unreasonable. But nothing and no one was attacked. Sensible reasons have been discussed respectfully and in accordance with Wiki guidelines for not overusing and overemphasizing some sources, and to add a selection of sources, in order to make a more balanced article than the one originally created by kt66. These discussions appear in this section and elsewhere on the talk page and archives. Thanks. (Truthbody (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC))
I have also moved this latest discussion to the bottom of this section so as not to interrupt the original discussion between other editors above. (Truthbody (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC))
Dear Emptymountains. What do you mean with "Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y" is not"? Did I made something wrong or against WP policies? If yes, please be so kind to explain and show it clearly. If there is something I missed or made wrong, I am happy if you point it out. Thanks. --Kt66 (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Dear Truthbody, when I spoke of "attacking" I summarized the attitudes of a group of editors which appeared two weeks before NKT via WSS started their media campagin against the Dalai Lama in April 2008 ("against the Dalai Lama" is a term used by WSS in their press releases). If you want to have a look in the past maybe you re-read the talk pages or this notice to the Admin board, made by someone else: POV edits from a group of users on Dorje Shugden, some of the contributors were also warned by Admins, and one of the Admins stated clearly that the article (before its corruption) had proper 3rd party sources and that the additions of the new contributors had not and that it is not up to the old editors to prove the new additions but up to the new ones. Looking in the history and talk pages makes it very clear that the new editors violated different WP principles. Also a warning of an Admin was deleted at the talk page, which is seen also against WP policies of course... Also you emtymountains and truthbody use harassment as described in WP:outing as can be recognized in the Talk:New_Kadampa_Tradition. There were also warnings on the NKT talk page, that I should not wonder if one day someone appears at my door to beat me up. I hope this clarifies what I stated as correct, refutes the spins on "disqualified .. emotive language", and helps to avoid such conduct in the future. Regarding the third party sources, there was not one third party source which was not rejected by claiming the researcher is biased etc. Best Wishes. --Kt66 (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Kt66, I'm a lover--not a fighter. Besides, I hate to travel, so I will never appear at your doorstep. Anyone who wants to keep up with Kt66's self-outing, please see this discussion at the admin's page where he reported it. Emptymountains (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
you may be a lover but you spin the facts Emptymountains, I have not outed myself and from about 50 links on my user page there is only one referring to a personal page, and even if you find this easily, also the impressum is only at the end of the page to be found. you need a lot of effort to uncover the identity and you have taken it upon yourself to apply WP:outing. however, I see that we can work together according to WP principles and I appreciate this. so the past is the past. --Kt66 (talk) 14:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
You're right, it was quite easy to pick out which of those many links is your private webpage, for on your userpage you say, "I put all articles ... on that website: Tibetan Buddhism goes West...." The impressum of your website basically tells us who wrote it and why. Your website links to your blog, and the impressum on there is at the top of the page; it even includes your picture! From my perspective, the past is not the past until, as I requested on your talk page, you remove from the admin board the allegation that I outted you here. Emptymountains (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
In some points right, in some points wrong. I wish to excuse to you, you are right, it was not you who outed the IP.. as 'Tenzin', as I wrongly claimed. I will correct this also at the NKT talk page, if you wish also at the Admin board, but there it has been already archived. While one admin seems not to have taken time to investigate this issue another Admin wrote - and this is what I agree with:
Although it should be noted that unless a user is currently publicly and overtly claiming their identity (such as using their own name as a user name, or repeatedly using their own real name in discussions) it is bad form to dig through such reports in order to "Out" a user. Yes, you could probably dig up my real name and address if you are dedicated enough, but that doesn't mean that because you could find it, posting such information would not be a violation of WP:OUTING. It is bad etiquette of the worst kind to publish another user's real information without there consent, regardless of how easy it was for you to find it on your own. If people don't want to be known by their real name at Wikipedia, we must respect that at all costs... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
If you put things into perspective the repeatedly name calling here at WP and other places constitute harassment as portrayed in WP:outing. There is no indication that my user page or any of my comments are meant to out my private name, and as already stated, WP:outing started before I added the link, and also in WP Germany WP:outing has been applied by NKT members by creating a user account with my name and referring to my WP:user name. However, in the case of the IP I was wrong. I'll check if I can correct this in the Archive. Thanks for your corrections. --Kt66 (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Shugden proponents' views

Atisha's cook wrote above: The Dorje Shugden proponents' view is almost necessarily opposed to that of the majority of scholars and experts nowadays. To rely solely on 3rd party sources could, I feel, introduce a bias into the article in favour of one side of this controversy, and misrepresent the other. - I'm glad AC realises that The Dorje Shugden proponents view "is opposed to that of the majority of scholars and experts nowadays". In all fairness, doesn't an encyclopedia pretty well have to give precedence to the views of the "majority of scholars and experts" over that of the "proponents" or "devotees" of something or some practice? Scholars and academic experts are supposed be objective and for better or worse their writings are generally accepted to be the most reliable sources. The views expressed in their writings hopefully being based on objective research of their own and/or by their reading and consideration of the results of serious research of others published in peer-reviewed articles and books. Trying to "correct" a bias some editors perceive in the the views of this majority of scholars and experts by introducing and giving equal or more weight to a slew of material produced by adherents of the small minority of Tibetan Buddhists (and majority of NKT members) who fervently believe in the unverifiable proposition that "Dorje Shugden is a Wisdom Buddha" does not, IMO, lead to balanced objective articles on the subject.

Even using the name "Dorje Shugden" (the name favored by this entity's devotees) rather than "Dolgyal Shugden" or "Gyalchen Shugden" (which are probably the more common names) - or simply "Shugden" in the titles of the articles may be a bias in favor of Shugden proponents views.
Chris Fynn (talk) 08:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you on the name- 'Dorje Shugden' (or some alternate transliteration thereof) is by far the most common name used in the (neutral) media. 'Dolgyal' seems to be specific to the TGIE and the Dalai Lama- Tricycle Magazine, Donald Lopez, and other scholars all call him Dorje Shugden in their articles- and as I've mentioned below when Atisha's Cook proposed renaming the 'Controversy' article, WP:NAME leans heavily in favor of the most common name, particularly in situations where the name itself is the subject of controversy. I agree with a lot of what you say here, but I think there's a distinction to be made here in terms of emic and etic views of the subject. WP articles on figures in religion have an overall emic frame- we describe Thor as a Norse deity, not as a mythical being believed by his followers to be a god, and Jesus in terms of his position in Christianity, rather than a purely historical perspective. That makes sense because the primary significance of these figures lies in their importance to the faith traditions around them, rather than as historical figures. The NKT and pro-Shugden people writing believe that the Dalai Lama and TGIE view of Shugden is an etic perspective- it's a critique by outsiders, rather than a record of what insiders believe. I disagree with that perspective- I think that the NKT/Shugden and the DL's views are both emic perspectives, albeit ones that disagree about the significance and role of the critter under discussion. --Clay Collier (talk) 09:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
The historical accounts (not praises) of this entity in the Tibetan language tend to use "Gyalpo", "Gyalchen" or "Dolgyal" Shugden rather than "Dorje" Shugden the name now favored by adherents. "Gyalpo" which means "King" seems to refer to the fact that this entity is depicted in the appearance of one of the "King" (Gyalpo) spirits - it is not a derogatory word. Anyway if we are trying to be neutral perhaps simply "Shugden" would be best - everyone uses that part of the name. Dorje Shugden is also easily confused with "Dorje Shug", another Tibetan deity.
I agree with you that both the Dalai Lama and the NKT have an emic POV - the Dalai Lama now claiming this entity is a "harmful spirit" and the other side that it is a "Wisdom Buddha". Calling this entity a "Tibetan deity" seems OK. Reporting the fact that his proponents consider him to be a "Wisdom Buddha" or an "Enlightened Dharma Protector" while others consider him to be a "harmful spirit", "oath breaking diety" (damsri) etc. is also OK. If the article anywhere states that this entity is one of these things that would be wrong. It seems to me that, prior to the time of Phabongkha, this entity was generally considered to be one member of a whole class of Gyalpo spirits which abound in Tibetan Buddhism some of which are propitiated in every Tibetan tradition.
Chris Fynn (talk) 09:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
The historical classification is part of the conflict- gyalpo is a type of entity, I believe, that NKT people reject as a label for him, whereas Dorje Shugden remains the common name in third-party sources today. I don't know of any party saying the 'Shugden' without any qualifier is the proper name. Again, I'd say that WP:NAME as regards controversial names strongly supports leaving it as the most common name- most current neutral parties seem to use Dorje Shugden, and that remains the most likely search term for a reader. --Clay Collier (talk) 10:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

'religious freedom' vs. 'sectarianism' or 'fundamentalism'

I see someone started to use the existent third party sources for the article. In that context I wish to add the following quote from Bluck 2006 : 132 (British Buddhism)

"The real issue may not have been religious freedom but, as Williams (1996: 130-1) suggested, a conflict between a sectarian Gelug conservatism and the Dalai Lama's modernizing and inclusive approach. This would explain why Geshe Kelsang's monastery in India formally expelled him for his opposition to the Dalai Lama (Lopez, 1998: 195)."

The problem I see is, that NKT members, who are very active at this article, seem to be confused with cross cultural issues and a lack of knowledge about Tibetan community. As Sparham, lecturer at the University of Michigan, in Tibetan Review, June 1996 correctly stated, the criticism on fundamentalism or sectarianism is a problem within the gelug school among Tibetans and it is strongly rooted in Tibetan society. NKT via SSC or WSS have taken these issues personally and without knowing the cultural, spiritual and political background exported these problems, strongly intertwining their own cross-cultural confusion into it, and feel personally accused, although they claim to be 'completely independent' from Tibetan Buddhism, the Dalai Lama and Ganden Tripa. This confusion was correctly pointed out by John Makransky when he stated:

"A stunning recent example of this: some Tibetan monks who now introduce Westerners to practices centred on a native Tibetan deity, without informing them that one of its primary functions has been to assert hegemony over rival sects! The current Dalai Lama, seeking to combat the ancient, virulent sectarianisms operative in such quarters, has strongly discouraged the worship of the "protector" deity known as Dorje Shugden, because one of its functions has been to force conformity to the dGe lugs pa sect (with which the Dalai Lama himself is most closely associated) and to assert power over competing sects. Western followers of a few dGe lugs pa monks who worship that deity, lacking any critical awareness of its sectarian functions in Tibet, have recently followed the Dalai Lama to his speaking engagements to protest his strong stance (for non-sectarianism) in the name of their "religious freedom" to promulgate, now in the West, an embodiment of Tibetan sectarianism. If it were not so harmful to persons and traditions, this would surely be one of the funniest examples of the cross-cultural confusion that lack of critical reflection continues to create." (Makransky, John (2000). Buddhist Theology: Critical Reflections by Contemporary Buddhist Scholars, John J. Makransky, Roger Reid Jackson, p. 20, in Introduction to Contemporary Academic Buddhist Theology; Its emergence and rationale)

Although NKT members were of course not involved in the murder crimes in India, there are enough independent sources, like Interpol or the Indian police, who confirm that Tibetan radicals were. I would like to remind the NKT editors not to mix NKT issues in issues strongly related to Tibetans and their nation, because this involves too much confusion, much more as most of NKT members lack proper understanding of Tibetan history and Tibetan society and their weaknesses and strengths.

With respect to Prof. Williams, who wrote an own essay on Shugden in The Middle Way, Buddhist Society (London, England), Williams, Paul (1996) 'Dorje Shugden'. The Middle Way, vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 130-2, he stated in Buntings article:

The Dalai Lama is trying to modernize the Tibetans’ political vision and trying to undermine the factionalism. He has the dilemma of the liberal: do you tolerate the intolerant? http://www.tibet.com/dholgyal/CTA-book/chapter-5-4.html

As the NKT has completely separated from Tibetan Buddhism, claims not to be involved in 'politics' and claims to be 'completely independent' I wonder why they are so offended with issues strongly related to inner-Tibetan controversies and history.

I lack time to engage in the article but its nice to see that some picked up the criticism on the article and tried to improve it by using WP:RS. To start with Mills' quote is excellent, I think. Good luck. --Kt66 (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The points I have stated here I made more clear in the Fundamentalism section on Buddhism in the Fundamentalism article. Probably the points can be used also for this article or a internal WP link can be added. Here the actual section with respect to Shugden: Fundamentalism#Tibetan_Buddhism.

If you read Sparhams article in Tibetan Review, 1999, as mentioned above, it becomes clear that the 'fundamentalism' is something related to inner-Tibetan groups and factions. --Kt66 (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

summery in brief is following theory finding and has no 3rd party source

I added the template because the section is written from the pov of the theories expressed by Shugden followers, has no 3rd party source although they exist and spins the facts, eg. Shugden as a worldly spirit is not only the view by the TGIE. --Kt66 (talk) 13:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Removing Copyvio template?

Is there some way to move the process forward for removing the Copyvio template? As I've stated above, this appears to be entirely redundant here and its inclusion seems to be little more than an attempt to sabotage the article. However, my view may not be generally acceptable, and I'd therefore welcome other editors/Admins input - I'll abide by any consensus we can reach, with Admins' input if necessary. Any thoughts? Atisha's cook (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Less is More

Hopefully, the editors will feel more satisfied with this new and improved version of the article than before. I hope that my edits are perceived as being fair and honest to "both sides" and to WP. I cut out a lot of what I call "battleground" content (i.e., a series of refutations and/or counter-refutations, often unencyclopedic in nature and without reliable sources), which results in a long, unwieldy article that nobody wants to read.

Of course, if there are things I removed which you feel are vital to the article, please feel free to re-add it. However, please put it back in your own words to avoid copyright infringement and unintentional plagiarism. The last version before my edits was 07:00, 27 November 2008.

I will probably go through the article again soon, with a fine-toothed comb. This was just a once-over with my machete! <L> Emptymountains (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Emptymountains - you're a brave person, and this is a good sttempt at reaching an acceptable balance!
Atisha's cook (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, AC. I'm still dissatisfied with the "political dimension" sub-section. Actually, I haven't quite figured out what it's trying to say! Emptymountains (talk) 12:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to propose this again:

I think these are the best links to include, 4 links for supporters and 4 links for critics:

Neutral Academic Papers

Supporters of Dorje Shugden

Critics of Dorje Shugden

I chose those sites which seem to have a wealth of information to offer Wiki readers. I also think that the various speeches, academic papers and essays, and news articles should be referenced in the article itself, rather than bogging down the external links section. In general, I would make the external link list identical on both the Dorje Shugden article and the Controversy article. Emptymountains (talk) 12:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
What's a "neutral academic" paper?
Hi, Emptymountains. Can I suggest we lose "Neutral academic x" as a catchphrase in these articles. What does it mean? What's "academic", for example? Just because an article has been published? That still leaves questions about its accuracy - has it been effectively peer-reviewed, for example? And "neutral" - I don't know about this either. That kind of implies that the article/book/opinion or whatever is somehow without pov - which individual can write an article without a pov?
This phrase lends a weight to the opinions/articles/books etc that is fallacious and misleading and shouldn't be used in WP articles. They're akin to weasel words, imho. I know that Kt66 will disagree - after all, from his edits it seems this is one of his favourite phrases.
I should mention that I have no particular beef with the two articles currently under the heading "Neutral academic papers". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atisha's cook (talk • contribs) 17:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
If anything, citing those 'academic' sources should be worked into the article itself such that there is no need to list them in the external links section. Emptymountains (talk) 18:49, 29 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):

Essays by Scholars

Paul Williams has been described by others (not Shugden practitioners) on the Rick Ross forum as a somewhat dubious source for neutral information. e.g his language from the outset reveals his bias: "Dalai Lama—who has always been astonishingly broadminded in matters of religion" etc etc. That broad-mindedness is a matter of opinion, of course! His article shows that Williams has not researched the subject thoroughly and has only consulted sources favorable to the anti-Shugden brigade. It is astonishingly replete with inaccuracies!! So full of them, in fact, that it would all day to refute them all. This article is also out of date, written in 1996. (Interestingly, though not necessarily relevant to this, since that time Paul Williams eschewed Tibetan Buddhism and moved onto becoming a Catholic.) Williams may be a scholar at Bristol University but he is not scholarly on the matter of the Dorje Shugden controversy. Williams never read Tibetan nor researched original documents on Dorje Shugden; he simply repeats a lot of TGIE propaganda. Look at his sources below his essay if you are in any doubt about that -- there is no reflection in this essay of any Shugden practitioner's viewpoint! Not one. His article now only appears on Tenzin Peljor's anti-Shugden website. For all these reasons, his essay is not scholarly at all (the word "scholarly" is insulted by this essay!). If it belongs anywhere, belongs only in the critics section. (Truthbody (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC))

Actually, the whole section can come out, as it did in the article Dorje Shugden, for the same Wiki rulebook reasoning on external links WP:EL. I repeat the discussions from there here:

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)

Thanks (Truthbody (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC))

WP is not a "truth machine" and does not make truthfinding, but portrays a certain subject as portrayed by authoritative WP:RS 3rd party sources. If there are differences there is the WP:NPOV policy. It is clear to me that some of the NKT editors prefer a fansite, but then they should go elsewhere. Truthbody your presumptions on Paul Williams sum well your own being caught up in pro Shugden propaganda by NKT. The article is well used by other academics, e.g. Prof. Bluck's 'British Buddhism'. Of course most NKT members can only accept sources which state either something against the Dalai Lama or something in favour for NKT... Paul Williams is also the author of the section on the Dalai Lama in Clarke's Encyclopaedia of New Religious Movements', this is a standard text and includes the essays of prime scholars. Just for the record. --Kt66 (talk) 13:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I re-added the links. --Kt66 (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Archived prior to November 2008

Hello everyone, I just archived a big section of the talk pages to keep it a bit more manageable. I left everything where there had been active discussion in the past couple of weeks. Peaceful5 (talk) 00:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

disputed: factual accuracy of the article

  • With respect to the claim that Trijang Rinpoche is "the root Guru" of HHDL this is correct taken from this specific text but misinterpreted in the context of this issue in Tibetan Buddhism and HHDL's own situation. A discussions has been already made: Who is the Dalai Lama's root Guru? Everybody outside of NKT knows that one can have different root gurus, and that most masters have. Because HHDL has many masters who transmitted him complete teachings on certain tantric topics, and Trijnag Rinpoche as just one (!) of these masters, his 'junior tutor' (HHDL had also another 'junior tutor' before Trijang Rinpoche, it is clear, that he has many root gurus, but in the specific context of The Path to Bliss, (this lineage and teaching) it is Trijang Rinpoche. NKT is ill-informed about that subject and mixes the wrong understanding of their own approach (to rely exclusive on one root Guru) in this interpretation. But this is politics. WP doesn't aim for such politics which spin the facts.
  • then there is an abuse of sources of bad investigated articles or TV/videos like Al Jazeera, France 24, Swiss TV documentary or Chamberline (rather a blog) which favour a version contradicting well investigated papers by academics and prefer rather to ride on the wing of blowoff than proper information. Their claims e.g. about 4 millions Shugden followers is stated by different academics as being an exaggeration and wrong. Three sources state that not more than 100.000 would practice Shugden. Also Pico Iyer is used to favour a certain view on the oracles which is taken out of context and additional supported by a quote from a pro shugden blog. This spins the fatcs. I removed this passage but guess truthbody will re-include this spin again. The idea of pro shugden followers is to picture HHDL as a somewhat superstitious person who relies on oracles and can't be taken serious. This policy mustn't be exported to WP. With respect to the Swiss Documentary the docu has created itself a "heavy controversy" and the director was forced by the public pressure in Swiss to produce some neutral after-docus which were boradcasted in different parts, and only for that specialists were consulted. The documentary on the controversy with respect to the Swiss TV documentary can be read here: http://www.tibetfocus.com/shugden/index.html, please use google translation to get an idea. To use such one-sided and partisan sources which are contradicted by researcher and other sources, is clearly to favour a pov as expressed by the NKT and their front organisation Western Shugden Society. Of course the neutral BBC docu on the conflict and NKT is not quoted at all. Nor are the after-docus from SWISS TV quoted for which specialists have been interviewed... It would be good in that context to remind the reasoning by User:20040302 for the deletion of this and the related articles:
In my experience, as an editor of Wikipedia for over four years, the entire NKT-related articles - all the way through from Dorje Shugden Dorje Shugden controversy and beyond have been subject to massive edit wars and biased views. External publications and references often do not help here, as there are no unbiased opinions available. Why not? A primary issue here is whether or not DS is a Buddha. Of course, the majority of the planet, if it mattered (which under WP guidelines it doesn't) would say 'no'. The majority of primary literature, outside of a very few (if somewhat influential) authors says 'no', but that isn't relevant, because the yay-sayers are vocal, numerous, and have a vast amount of karma (and samaya) risked on that one key fact. WP is not designed to be a soapbox for views - and yet again and again, we find that it is being used for just that purpose. The NKT-focussed pages have caused considerable upset and the vocal minority (who persistently use temporary accounts, unregistered accounts, and sock puppets to mask their identities) have managed to drive off other editors, some of them being pushed into retirement. Not only that, the same minority has made no significant contribution to Wikipedia, in that their sole focus are these controversial, NKT-focussed articles. Religious advocacy pieces have no place on Wikipedia.

With respect to Nechung and the section on oracles in the article, the Dalai Lama states himself:

"For hundreds of years now, it has been traditional for the Dalai Lama, and the Government, to consult Nechung during the New Year festivals. In addition, he might well be called upon at other times if either have specific queries. I myself have dealings with him several times a year. This may sound far-fetched to twentieth-century western readers. Even some Tibetans, mostly those who consider themselves 'progressive', have misgivings about my continued use of this ancient method of intelligence gathering. But I do so for the simple reason that as I look back over the many occasions when I have asked questions of the oracle, on each one of them time has proved that his answer was correct. This is not to say that I rely solely on the oracle's advice. I do not. I seek his opinion in the same way as I seek the opinion of my Cabinet and just as I seek the opinion of my own conscience. I consider the gods to be my 'upper house'. The Kashag constitutes my lower house. Like any other leader, I consult both before making a decision on affairs of state. And sometimes, in addition to Nechung's counsel, I also take into consideration certain prophecies."
"In one respect, the responsibility of Nechung and the responsibility of the Dalai Lama towards Tibet are the same, though we act in different ways. My task, that of leadership, is peaceful. His, in his capacity as protector and defender, is wrathful. However, although our functions are similar, my relationship with Nechung is that of commander to lieutenant: I never bow down to him. It is for Nechung to bow to the Dalai Lama. Yet we are very close, friends almost. When I was small, it was touching. Nechung liked me a lot and always took great care of me. For example, if he noticed that I had dressed carelessly or improperly, he would come over and rearrange my shirt, adjust my robe and so on."

--Kt66 (talk) 13:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

katie - you said: "The idea of pro shugden followers is to picture HHDL as a somewhat superstitious person who relies on oracles and can't be taken serious."
Um, the Dalai Lama happily admits that he *does* rely on oracles:
"I consult both before making a decision on affairs of state. And sometimes, in addition to Nechung's counsel, I also take into consideration certain prophecies."
Are you trying to tell us that's *not* superstitious? It's certainly an unusual style of modern government, to say the least.
Atisha's cook (talk) 16:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Moved some material over to this article from the Dorje Shugden article

Please see talk page for Dorje Shugden for reasons and agreement amongst editors to make the two articles more distinct, as they were originally intended to be. No material has been deleted. (Truthbody (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

Actually both articles should probably be merged. It is pretty clear the entity Dorje Shugden has been controversial in one way or another since it's inception, and so IMO it is not reasonable to separate the "controversy" from it's subject.
Chris Fynn (talk) 06:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


Ref needs fixing

Currently footnote 31: look in the footnotes list and you'll see that it's a ref called "Dreyfus", which doesn't seem to exist! 86.132.142.153 (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

I tagged this article for POV problems following my perusal of the sourcing for the first few sections (see below). I have two concerns: first, the arguments from the anti-Shugden side (generally associated with the Dalai Lama) are often not being presented completely, or are being presented with added editorial comments or qualifications that are not present with the pro-Shugen segments. In Donald Lopez's Prisoners of Shangri-La, there is a very concise overview of the DL's reasoning for the ban; this information is missing from the introduction to the subject, and has been pushed down into the 'Yellow Book' section and surrounded with numerous qualifications and rebuttals. Secondly, the sourcing of this article is extremely lopsided, as far as I can tell. Numerous pro-Shugden cites are being cited, including blogs, which are not appropriate Wikipedia sources. There are a lot of snippets from NKT and Shugen-related web pages, but a real lack of third party overview sources. That signals to me that the article is drifting into synthesis territory- making arguments instead of reporting them- and that the argument is being tilted heavily towards the pro-Shugden side. --Clay Collier (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

As so much work has been done on this article in the last few weeks, can we now remove the tag? It would seem to be fairly representative of both sides. What do people think? (Truthbody (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC))
There is still too much debate going on within the article, and too much use of self-published non-neutral sources. --Clay Collier (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Reference Issues

There seem to be a number of cases where positions are cited from a variety of blogs and blog-like entities. These are not acceptable as reliable sources for Wikipedia. In general, it appears that this article has gone quite far in the direction of presenting primary information- statements from involved parties about their positions on the Dorje Shugden issue. I'm worried that this is slipping too far into original synthesis- making an argument, rather than presenting what third parties have written about the state of the argument. I've also already found cases in the section where the position of the Dalai Lama is presented where additional unreferenced qualifications and editorial comments have been added to what is presented in the ostensibly cited source. --Clay Collier (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, listing some specific source problems here:

  • Section 'Overview of the Controversy':
    • There is an extensive quote from Stephen Schettini regarding the state of the Tibetan community. Schettini appears to be an ex-monk writing a memoir containing his views on Buddhism and monastic life, rather than an expert in this area. Why is this person being used to frame the issue, rather than an academic specialist in the field?
    • www.dorjeshugdenhistory.org appears to be a blog for a book in progress. Blogs are not reliable sources, and neither are pre-publication works.
    • Canonicity and Divine Interference: The Tulkus and the Shugden-Controversy, MICHAEL VON BRÜCK: Is this a book, or something else? There is a section for a page number in the reference, but it is missing. Who is the author, and what is his relationship to the controversy?
    • Quote from Kelsang Gyatso is attributed to "Summer Festival, 23.07.06". Is this a transcription from a talk? Is the transcript published? Again, need additional information so the source can be identified and verified.
  • Section 'The Current Controversy'
    • Removed YouTube link claiming a riot in New York. If there was a riot in New York, the NY Times and other sources will have reported it.
    • This link: http://web.archive.org/web/20070929124754/http://www.tibet-internal.com/ is an archived link to something calling itself the Tibetan Studies Press Office, but which is currently not active, and which identifies itself as being dedicated to reporting information about the Dorje Shugden ban. Again, we need to know who this is and what their connection to the controversy is in order to assess the neutrality of the source.
    • Dead link to a newsday article flagged.
    • dorjeshugdenblog.wordpress.com: Blog, dedicated to covering Dorje Shugden issues. Neutrality problems, blog as source.
  • Section "The Political Dimension"
    • The Sarah Chamberlain article attributes certain statements to the GIE, but does not state who made them, or where they were made. Sloppy sourcing like that makes me wonder about the reliability of the source.
    • Claim that 'Younger Tibetans who view the Dalai Lama, not as an omnipotent god but simply as the Tibetan leader, are concerned with how the ban has entered the political sphere' is sourced to 1) a blog, that 2) doesn't say anything of the sort. It's a general musing about Tibetan identity and attitudes towards the DL, that doesn't touch on the Shugden issue at all. There is a posting about the issue that is cited later on that does relate to the topic, but again, this is a blog and not really an appropriate source.
  • Section 'Nature and Function'
    • Schettini again; see comments above
    • David Kay reference- just says 'Kay 2004'; there appear to be two Kay 2004's, one of which is a book, and one is an interview with Stephen Batchelor. Or is the interview part of the book?
    • Reference for Nebesky-Wojkowit (1956) with no accompanying citation.
    • Shugden history blog. See above.
    • The quote from this PDF was wrong. I corrected it; doesn't appear to have changed the meaning. The PDF is from dorjeshugden.com and lacks some publication information (like a copyright date, mention of who the publisher is, etc.)- can't really confirm whether or not it is self-published information. It is properly being attributed to Trijang Rinpoche within the article.
    • Quote from an address given by the Dalai Lama in in 1996; no transcript linked or mentioned. What is the source for this exact quote?
    • History of Shugden according to the TGIE: tibet.com is flagged as a malware site by Google right now; not sure what's going on. Can't verify the ref at the moment.
    • '13th Dalai Lama's biography, 1921'. Need an author, publisher, proper title, link, page numbers- something to establish what this book is, and who wrote it.
    • Citation of FPMT web site to establish notability of the position of Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche; I believe that the FPMT, formerly a sponsor of Kelsang Gyatso, has fallen out with the NKT since then. Not sure how this affects neutrality here.
    • wisdombuddhadorjeshugden.blogspot.com: Blog posting, cited in article as attributed to 'Dorje Shugden practitioners' generally. Don't know who the author is, or who they might or might not speak for.
  • Section 'Protector of Gelugpa School'
    • Broken reference to 'Dreyfus'; couple books and articles listed for Dreyfus, can't tell which is intended here.
    • 'Lobsang Tamdin Volume of Rituals'. No publication information. Can't verify source.
    • Need publication information for 'Heart jewel, Tharpa Publications'.
    • More ambiguous Nebesky-Wojkowit references, this time for 1998.
    • www.wisdombuddhadorjeshugden.org: Again appears to be a blog posting, possibly a copy of the blogspot source in the section above.
  • Section 'Origin Story'
    • 'According to some Gelug Lamas'- all sources are from specifically pro-Shugden web sites. It would be more neutral to state that.
    • Several missing citations for Van Bruck- not sure which text this is being pulled from.
    • 'Tales of Intrigue from Tibet's Holy City, the Historical Underpinnings of a Modern Buddhist Crisis by Lindsay G. McCune, Florida State University College of Arts and Sciences' - Unclear what this is. A published PhD thesis? A paper by an undergrad? A published book?
  • Section 'Eclecticism vs. Orthodoxy'
    • Claims about why the Dalai Lama encouraged the worship of Padmasambhava or aim to bring all four schools under his rule: cited source is from Shugdensociety, but does not have information regarding either claim. Neutrality would have to be suspect for the second, given the tense relations between the factions.
    • 'Cincinnati City Beat - Tibet Fest supports endangered tradition By Gregory Flannery' - This was hosted on a Dorje Shugden blog. I found the link to the original article from Cincinnati City Beat and restored it.
    • http://www.wisdombuddhadorjeshugden.org/ Blog site again.
  • Section 'The Yellow Book'
    • Claim that no DJ practitioner believes the Yellow Book is quite broad, and is sourced from a blog.
    • Usenet posting attributed to Kelsang Gyatso. Not sure about the status of Usenet as a reliable source generally, and then there's the particular issue of how to verify that the person writing is really Kelsang Gyatso. Both issues make me a bit nervous about this as a source.
  • Section 'China'
    • There's a somewhat ambiguous quote involving the Dalai Lama reminding people that he has not changed his views on the ban and that people are claiming not to have heard of it. There's a (possibly metaphorical) reference to 'knocking on doors'; the quotation is incomplete. This quote is cited as evidence that the Dalai Lama has sanctioned harassment of Shugden supporters, wanted posters, and house to house searches.
      • Update: I deleted this statement- given the ambiguity of the source and the seriousness of the claim, I felt that it had BLP implications. --Clay Collier (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
hang on. the majority of your edits so far have been thoughtful and valuable in bringing article up to standard. this, however, is not acceptable. Bernis is a published authority on the controversy and a perfectly valid RS. the editorial comment: "The Dalai Lama himself sanctioned such behavior by saying" *might* be seen to be a value judgement (though it's a perfectly reasonable reading of the DL's words) and might conceivably be removed, but the quote is valid and must stand.Atisha's cook (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm quite sure there's a problem here; see WP:GRAPEVINE. The quote from the Dalai Lama is fragmentary and lacks context; it sounds to me like he is making a metaphorical statement along the lines of "are you waiting for an invitation?" to people who claim not to have understood his teaching regarding the status of Dorje Shugden. To go from that to saying that he is condoning house-to-house searches and the posting of wanted posters, or other acts of harassment, is not clear from the text. The source text doesn't say that the Dalai Lama's words were meant to condone this sort of harassment, which means using the quote to say that is original synthesis. Sourcing standards are higher where biographies of living persons are concerned. When in doubt with a BLP reference, the statement has to go in the absence of unambiguous evidence. --Clay Collier (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, regarding Ursula Bernis as a source: I can't find anything published by Ursula Bernis on this topic that is not published by the Shugden Society- I looked on Google Books and Scholar, as well as on Amazon. That enhances my unease about that quotation and the way it is being used, given the ongoing dispute here. --Clay Collier (talk) 13:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Another use of the wisdombuddhadorjeshugden blog. Appears to be a copy of another blog from new statesman.
  • Section 'Nyingma'
    • 'Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche, Provocations of the Gyalpo, Dzogchen Community Italy: 2005': Unclear what this is. Lacks publication information that would be needed to source claims.
    • A documentary hosted by the Dalai Lama's website is being used for evidence that the Nyingma school opposes the practice of worshipping shugden. Could be a neutrality issue, though if the person being quoted is interviewed in the film, it could be verified. Probably best to ascertain if this is an independent film being mirrored there, or something created by affiliates of the Dalai Lama and note that.
    • www.rigpawiki.org: Appears to be a Wiki site; probably not an acceptable source.
  • Section 'Kagyu'
    • Same issue with the documentary above for Tai Situpa's views.
    • Broad unreferenced claims about pro-Shugden response to Situpa's views.
  • Section 'Sakya'
    • Documentary issue again- as above
    • Same issue with the response from unnamed pro-Shugden sources.

As a general note, there is too much reliance on block quotes throughout; it affects the readability of the article, and, at times, the quotes are not being adequately explained. One of the quotes from Trijang Rinpoche, for instance, makes no sense to the reader unless they already understand the claim that Dragpa Gyaltsen was an enlightened Tulku, and thus could not karmically backslide into rebirth as an ordinary spirit.

--Clay Collier (talk) 06:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I broadly agree with your description of the sources. They appear generally to be involved partisans; doesn't mean they're wrong, but it does mean that they shouldn't be used for anything but a description of what certain involved parties think, and even then their use should be sparing. <eleland/talkedits> 01:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm slowly going through this article to make sure that we use secondary sources wherever possible and, when citing sources from involved parties on both sides of the controversy, making it clear that this is a description of what they think and say. Thanks for taking the trouble to itemize these things in detail so we can make the article as qualified as possible. (Truthbody (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC))

Being Misquoted

As someone who gets regularly cited by both sides of this debate, I am used to being slightly misused. However, I fear I must draw the line at dramatic misrepresentation. The present version has the following:

"For this reason, Martin Mills argues that the TGIE is a theocracy which restricts religious freedom in order to establish a "national homogeneity of belief."[41]."

My original article actually clearly and precisely criticises this view, rather than supporting it. Here is the passage in full: note the sentence at the end!

"In a recent article on religious freedom (Durham 1996), Durham argues that religious freedom is best maintained in ‘accomodationist’ regimes, in which the state maintains a studied indifference to religious groups, neither in favour of any particular tradition (as in the case of theocracies and established churches), nor opposed to religion (as in avowedly atheist states such as certain communist regimes). In the case of theocracy - which Durham (rather revealingly) sees as the most primitive form of the religion/politics interface - religious freedom is restricted because state power is marshalled in favour of a particular set of religious beliefs - and, by extension, against others - the intention being to eradicate alternative beliefs and pursue national homogeneity of belief. State action divest of positive or negative religious preference (assuming that such a thing is truly possible) is thus an ideal for the human rights situation generally, and for religious rights in particular. Whilst this is an issue which requires a much deeper treatment, it’s worth looking briefly at the problems with this perspective."

So, could this entire sentence therefore be removed as basically wrong and deeply misrespresentative of my published views? Thank you.

Martin Mills

Hi Martin- I've deleted the line in question. There were earlier cases I fixed as well where partial quotes had been used to modify the meaning of quotes taken from that article. Please let us know if you see other places where your work is being used in a way that alters the original meaning. --Clay Collier (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Contentious edits by anonymous User:94.192.139.167

94.192.139.167 - please discuss the changes you would like to make here and provide reasons so that a consensus can be reached. so far, much that you've changed has been contentious and is likely to turn into an edit war! thank you.Atisha's cook (talk) 08:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Some of these edits were appropriate and should be kept; the removal of unreferenced rebuttals in the section on the views of different schools, for instance, and the use of the term 'dictatorial ban' without qualification in the intro. Constant debates within the article are a source of a lot of the neutrality problems in this particular article; cutting them down, particularly when they aren't sourced, shouldn't be controversial. Remember that reverts should be used as a last resort for good faith edits, and good faith edits should not be identified as 'vandalism' in edit summaries. If there is a problem with part of an edit, revert that and discuss rather than removing the whole contribution. --Clay Collier (talk) 08:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Mr Cook I am familiar with your editing style and your discussion technique. I have no wish to engage with you having examined your record of sock puppetry and unjustifiable reverting. I shall simply continue to work on the article taking the position of a neutral observer, eradicating inflammatory political comments wherever they appear and removing unjustified claims. While you may call this vandalism, it compares rather favourably with your own record here and elsewhere. I see you have already been blocked from editing previously because of your actions. I hope for the sake of truth that you are again if you continue to attempt to manipulate Wikipedia for your own purposes. Your political shennanigans undermine the very basis of this encyclopedia and I for one am considering requesting that this article, along with a number of others to which you contribute in various guises, be removed from Wikipedia. You are already responsible for seriously undermining the credibility of Wikipedia worldwide and, were I you, I would be ashamed (unless I was thoroughly dishonest) Please, we work very hard to maintain a position of neutrality at Wiki; people like you ruin the resource through what appears to be a fanatical gang war.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.139.167 (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Please avoid these kinds of ad hominem attacks, they really do not go down well on Wikipedia. Moreover, they are entirely unjustified in any situation as Atisha's cook has added a great deal of helpful material to this and other articles. Please desist from talking to him or her or other editors like this based on your own bias. As far as I can see, he or she has never been found guilty of sockpuppetry or unjustified reverting. It is you who in this instance is not playing by Wiki rules (and undermining its credibility) with your anonymous and unsigned invective against another editor and your undiscussed reverts. From what I can see from his/her history, Atisha's cook has always done his/her best to play by the Wiki rules and engaged in fair, honest edits, and he/she is open to discussion. If you continue with ad hominem attacks I will have to report you to the mods. (Truthbody (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC))

Go for it truthbody. but before you do so, take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eyesofcompassion&oldid=225884855 where you will see that Cook was blocked indefinitely for violating wiki sockpuppetry rules. I have also checked a number of your edits/posts on the web and find them to appear alongside Cook. For all I know, you could be the same person. Should you choose to report me, I will happily point these instances out to the mods.PS These are not ad hominem attacks-they are attacks against the abuse of wikipedia by individuals determined to use the medium for the furtherance of their own political cause. I would include both yourself and Cook in that category from what I have read. You are clearly bedfellows involved in the same campaign assuming various pseudonyms. as for 'unjustified reverting', I think you will find that allegation was recurrent and widespread before my contributions. Anyway, please feel free to bring all of this to the attention of the mods and i will happily provide them with evidence of widespread wrongdoing, in various guises. Goodbye Emptymountains/truthsayer/Atisha's cook/Truthbody/DSpak/Eyes of compassion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.139.167 (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, guys! Let's go back to "Argue facts, not personalities." Emptymountains (talk) 10:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, another pragmatically employed 'voice of reason'. Sory Emptymountains but you too are in this up to your neck.You too are a member of the NKT (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Emptymountains&action=history) and are deeply involved in propounding their particular perapective via the different websites you maintain on the web, a fact you admit to on your talk page. I particularly like the way you employ a quote from the 14th Dalai Lama on your user page to throw people of the scent. (which stinks by the way) Your purported reasonableness, in my opinion, is exhibited simply to convince independent observers that your opponents are unreasonable. As for 'facts, not personalities', how about asking your colleagues/alter egos to remove all the inflammatory comments against the personality of the Dalai Lama which are regularly inserted on Wikpedia; phrase like 'dictatorial ban' for instance.Once again, and as with the the appeal for 'relgious freedom', a voice conforming to present social mores is employed to curry favour with those who have no knowledge of the background to this conflict or the devious lengths to which you will go to assert your own perspective —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.139.167 (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The quote on my talk page is purely consequentialist. Emptymountains (talk) 12:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Dear '94'...
There is no need to be aggressive, Emptymountains was correctly saying that we should not attack each other but rather address ourselves to the various points of the controversy. I'd like to suggest that if you want to be a contributing editor to these articles that you get yourself a proper registered account on Wikipedia. A confrontational approach doesn't really work on this forum, neither does having and expressing strong feelings. This is an encyclopedia and we need to address ourselves to the facts. It's not war!
Actually, I'd be happy for this whole article to be re-written because it's too long and too unstructured at present. I've got no problem with presenting both sides of the argument, but it has to be clear and coherent, which it isn't at the moment. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Truthsayer I see you were also named in the sockpputing controversy mentioned above, along with Cook-you are cited in the ban as being one of the alternative epithets. You can be forgiven for perceiving my tone as angry. I would suggest re-reading it and trying to imagine it is someone that is simply tired of hypocrisy. Emptymountains, who portrays a reasonable tone, was outed only a few days ago for deleting comments unjustifiably. <additional info meeting suppression redacted> tells us; 'As an example of how difficult it is to practice freedom of speech over this relgious issue, I note that within less than one hour of banners questioning neutrality and authenticity appearing on Wikipedia on the pages on the NKT and Dorje Shugden, the banners were removed by user Emptymountains <additional info meeting suppression redacted>'

So what we have is someone preaching tolerance on the wiki page while practicing vandalism across the net in the name of the NKT. Double standards. This is what I am attacking, not the person. Hypocrisy, vandalism and deception have no place on wikipedia and if anyone wishes to refer this issue to the moderators, it is not difficult to find mountains of information as well as numerous former editors who have abandoned their wiki work because of the relentless cyber-bullying that goes on on wiki pages related to the NKT and Dorje Shugden. Wikipedia should be a neutral encyclopedia, not a political tool. I will fight such attitudes wherever they manifest-nothing personal. I wish you well —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.139.167 (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If you go back and look at my edit summary when you added the neutrality banner, all I asked is that you specify what the issues were on the talk page. (If nobody knows what the complaint is, how can it be addressed?) That is hardly cyber bulling. Emptymountains (talk) 13:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Dear '94'
Thanks for your reply, I need to clarify some things as there is obviously some misunderstanding. There is no sockpuppeting going on. The incident you are refering to happened at the Summer Festival at Manjushri Centre last year where there were a number of us who contribute to the Wikipedia articles at the same physical location and sharing the same internet connection. It was noticed that our individual edits were from the same ip address, and not surprisingly, they assumed that were were one person with multiple accounts. I explained to the Mods and they accepted the explanation and unblocked us all. That's the end of the story.
I'd like to say sincerely - you won't succeed in any of your aims if you continue to view people as enemies and yourself as involved in a war. Although we have differing views, we can work together. There is no cyberbullying, which is a common accusation these days when you simply disagree with someone. You have reasons for what you believe as I have reasons for what I believe and both views can be represented with valid citations. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Well thats all very nice, but if you look at the edit history of most of the pages to which you and your 'gang members' contribute, as well as the page from which the quote about empty mountains is taken, you will see that one of your tsctics is to repeatedly delete properly sourced material and replace it with unsupported propaganda, to the point that contributors outside the NKT have stopped bothering to work on the articles. I tend to judge people on what they do rather than who they say they are and what you and your colleagues have been doing for sometime is cyber bullying. It is not surpirising that it is perceived by some as a war.PS thank you for admitting that your gang got together and compared notes at last years summer festival-it is very interesting to note that you are working together as a team to impose your shared values on a neutral canvas-as has been suggested by those who have given up editing these pages. What funny things NKT followers get up to at 'religious events'I do hope you manged to do some meditation.At least you wont make the same mistake of using the same IP address again. I guess we all learn from experience (bit like those NKT metatags on the early 'unrelated' WSS page eh? They disappeared rather quickly didnt they? Thank goodness for the facility to photograph webpages.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.139.167 (talk) 14:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC) You also deleted http://www.info-buddhism.com from the controversy page, despite the fact it contains numerous academic sources, by pointing to the quantity of wik stuff on it-this is just plain rule bending to serve your own purposes-stop pretending to be something your not-you bend wiki rules to serve WSS purposes and then claim to be reasonable=fanticism in the guise of reaonableness —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.139.167 (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel you have to throw unjustified accusations to justify your own lack of acceptance of others. How did I know you were going to accuse us of working together last summer? That's why I said 'individual edits'. We have not, and do not, work together.
Your rudeness and paranoid imposition of bad faith is a good indication why there has to be a 'Dorje Shugden Controversy' article in the first place. It's a shame it has to be like this but I can see there is no point in trying to reason with you because you just want to argue. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Im sorry but you seem to be interpreting my outing of your deceptive behaviour as an argument. If you are not working as a team, how come you are all suddnely posting here at the same time/ All I am saying is your activities amount to gang bullying others on this page. You delete what you dont like, even whem it is sourced and put in inflamatory comments. This must stop. Please, if you are going to tell others to play by the rules, rule number one is follow them yourself. If you cant do that and you tell others to do so, you should expect such hypocrisy to be confronted94.192.139.167 (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, take your complains to administrators or make an official article deletion proposal, rather than blabbering on and on about it here. Emptymountains (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Funny, if you check back you will see it was your colleague who threatened to take this article to the moderators!Pick up your toys and put them back in your pram. If you wish to report me, please feel free to do so;)94.192.139.167 (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Cease Fire

I may be a lone voice on this one, but I think it may be time to re-merge these two articles, condensing this one down to a short "Controversy" section in the main article, one that isn't "sprawling" like this one because of argument, counter-argument, and counter-counter-argument ad infinitum. All of this edit warring might just stop if there wasn't so many "details" to quibble back-and-forth over. Then, the article could be protected for an indefinite as-yet-undetermined period of time, and we can all get on with our lives (or, at least, go fight our little religious war on our blogs). Otherwise, it is neverending... Emptymountains (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite protection won't happen. I agree this article needs a major overhaul- please take a look at my proposal above. I think that given that the controversy is the main way that Dorje Shugden is notable to the wider world, there needs to be a clear explanation of both sides of the argument, which, when I've attempted to propose and implement it at Dorje Shugden has been regarded as giving too much attention to the views of the Dalai Lama, etc. --Clay Collier (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I think all the current material needs to be in the article one way or another, as it enables the reader to get a sense of the complexity of this situation from both sides, rather than the simplistic "the Dalai Lama is wrong and the Dorje Shugden practitioners are right" or the other way round. Wikipedia is not a court of law, it is an encylopedia, and as such it needs to present all the available information as clearly and neutrally as possible without coming to a judgment. This article could perhaps be structured a bit more clearly in places, I haven't time right now to see if Clay Collier's proposal is a fair one, but if all the information remains and the neutrality remains I personally have no objection to trying to make the article clearer.
Re-merging the two articles is not the answer for all the good reasons editors have come up with since the time there have been two articles. I am also quite sure that the controversy section would never remain "short" in any article mentioning the Dalai Lama/Dorje Shugden controversy, as feelings run so high on both sides -- everyone will jump on it until it becomes very long and complex again and swamp any article on the Deity himself. The information is out there with reliable sources -- you can't protect an article such that people are not able to put out the information that exists.
I am wondering whether this article should be renamed to "Dalai Lama/Dorje Shugden controversy"? What do people think? It is more accurate. (Truthbody (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC))

Why not 'Kelsang Gyatsu/DS controversy (because google will not pick up the article as readily?)IMO the whole thing should be deleted. The aggressive propaganda based re-edits of Shugden supporters on all the related pages mean that the content is not worthy of wikipedia. The content is not neutral and is deceptive. The content therefore devalues wikipedia. It is exactly because of activities like these that wikipedias critics views of wiki as a fault ridden medium gain creedence94.192.139.167 (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Actually, the reason for the suggested title 'Dalai Lama/Dorje Shugden Controversy' is so that whenever anyone searches the term 'Dalai Lama' on wikipedia, the alternative wikipedia pages mentioning the Dalai Lama which appear underneath the search box will show the word'controversy'. The suggestion is basically a tactic to ensure that people will view the Dalai Lama as a controversial figure. Once again, wikipedia becomes a pawn in the NKTs political campaign. This is not what wikipedia is for and I therefore suggest that this and all related articles are deleted for the sake of the encyclopedias credibility94.192.139.167 (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Dalai Lama/Dorje Shugden Controversy would be perfectly accurate, yes. clearly, this controversy as it exists now concerns these two in equal measure, although it was the Dalai Lama who created it. this is true, whatever your personal religious belief. i agree that it would be a more suitable title because it would more accurately reflect the nature and origin of the controversy as it exists now.Atisha's cook (talk) 22:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Looking through other controversy articles, the only one I see named somewhat similarly is Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy. 'Dalai Lama/Dorje Shugden Controversy' is how we would usually name a controversy in which the two disputing parties were the Dalai Lama and Dorje Shugden, which isn't the case here. Quick Google fighting says that the current title is the most common one 'Dorje Shugden Controversy' - ~ 170 hits not counting duplicates (~1400 with dupes), 'Dalai Lama Dorje Shugden Controversy' - ~14 hits not counting duplicates (~140 with dupes). Reversing that name gives about 40 hits, results are not changed by changing the space to a '/'. 'Dalai Lama Controversy' won't work because it isn't specific enough- controversies over remarks he has made to the Chinese, visa disputes when he visits countries that trade with China, and controversy over his involvement in conferences in neuroscience all use that phrasing. Swapping controversy with: issue, affair, conflict, etc. all results in less common phrases. Both the current name and the proposed one are potentially controversial; Shugden supporters tend to depict the controversy as being about the position of the Dalai Lama, whereas opponents tend to focus on the status of Shugden. WP:NAME suggests we should leave it as the most popular term, and not exchange one controversial name for another. --Clay Collier (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Dalai Lama/Dorje Shugden Controversy ~ Letter (from an NKT practitoner) to a journalist

I saw this letter to a well known journalist today from a Professor of International Relations, and repeat it here as it seems to get to the point of why the controversy has arisen and what, basically, it is about (as opposed to the Dorje Shugden article, which is about the Deity himself).

Dear Sir,

I understand you will be interviewing the Dalai Lama. I would like to suggest that you ask him about the Dorje Shugden controversy.

The Dalai Lama himself says that this is one of the biggest threats to the Tibetan cause and to Tibetan unity. This issue is considered by many commentators to be the largest controversy within Tibetan Buddhism.

As a brief background: Dorje Shugden is a protector deity in Tibetan Buddhism. The dispute revolves around his nature. Supporters of Dorje Shugden practice believe he is an enlightened being (a Buddha), and opponents believe he is a worldly deity. It is similar to how Jewish people consider Christ to be a worldly being and Christians consider Christ to be the Son of God. Ultimately, it is a question of belief, therefore religious freedom dictates mutual tolerance and respect.

The Dalai Lama has effectively banned the practice. While he says people are free to practice as they choose, if they do so they lose their jobs, are denied access to many shops and basic government services, and are labeled as traitors working for the Chinese. Human rights law says that being given a choice is not enough, you need to be able to exercise that choice freely. Dorje Shugden practitioners face severe penalties for continuing with their practice.

What is difficult to understand is the Dalai Lama is known as the champion of religious freedom around the world, yet in his own backyard he is restricting the religious freedom of his own people. He will say he does this because he needs unity within the Tibetan people, but ask whether it is in fact his ban that is creating division. He will say Dorje Shugden practice undermines the Tibetan cause, but ask him whether it is actually his ban of the practice that is being used by the Chinese authorities as a pretext for discrediting the Dalai Lama and showing him to be a hypocrite (much in the same way countries that torture used US torture as an excuse and pretext for their own actions). He will say Dorje Shugden practitioners are violent sectarian murderers who need to be stopped, but ask him whether all of Islam should be banned because there are a few violent extremists (in fact Dorje Shugden practitioners have been exonerated by the Indian police of any wrongdoing in the tragic murders in 1996, but this doesn't stop the Dalai Lama from repeating this claim again and again)?

Therefore, I encourage you to ask him about this issue during your interview. When he gives his predictable answers, I encourage you to ask him the follow up questions indicated above.

Respectfully yours,

(Truthbody (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC))

Please cite the origin of this letter, both where it can be found and the religious affiliation of the person from whom it comes (though this second point is pretty obvious)94.192.139.167 (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, of what relevance is this-this is just using the page to post anti Dalai lama propaganda (citing it as third party source is similarly devious94.192.139.167 (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, i ll do it myself see
http://knol.google.com/k/ryan-engen/ryan-engen-phd-kadam/36mijgwtwrctp/1# 94.192.139.167 (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC) 6 May 2009
Professor Ryan Engen, whose field is economics and international relations, is the resident teacher at Atisha centre in geneva. He somewhat childishly signs himself as Ryan Engels (PhD Kadam 'Kadam' since when was that a proper title?)He is therefore hardly a relaible third party source, nor is he speaking as a neutral academic. He is simply another Westerner who has been duped by Kelsang Gyatso into using his intellectual status to support Gyatso's mind games. Intelligent?Intellectually perhaps, but from a worldy wise perspective??Looks like not94.192.139.167 (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The below was edited out. It refers to the claim in the letter above from a supposed independent 3rd party (actually an NKT teacher)which states; 'Dorje Shugden practitioners have been exonerated by the Indian police of any wrongdoing in the tragic murders in 1996' The article from the Times proves that, while the NKt claim there is no relationship between Shugden followers and the murders, Interpol, the Indian police and probably the worlds most reputable newspaper say there is-these are reliable 3rd party sources-not Prof Ryan Engen PhD Kadam INTERPOL ON TRAIL OF BUDDHIST KILLERS

Jane Macartney in Beijing The Times (London) June 22, 2007

Interpol has issued wanted notices for two followers of a Tibetan sect accused of the ritualistic killing a decade ago of one of the Dalai Lama’s closest associates.

The attack, in which two students were also killed, was apparently in revenge for the Nobel peace laureate’s decision to ban the group after more than three centuries of mystic controversy.

The Interpol Red Notices for Lobsang Chodak, 36, and Tenzin Chozin, 40, issued at the request of the Indian police, are believed to be among the first demands by another country to arrest Chinese citizens living within their own country’s borders. A Red Notice is not an arrest warrant but is a means by which Interpol notifies member nations that an individual is wanted in another country.

The notice leaves Beijing in a difficult position since China has been an active member of Interpol, frequently turning to the organisation for help to try to capture its citizens who have fled abroad.

Several Communist Party or government officials wanted for corruption have been returned to China in recent years. However, it is far from clear whether China will want to set a precedent by allowing its citizens to be sent abroad for trial. Yesterday China had no immediate response.

The murders provide a rare glimpse into the complex political and religious rivalries and debates within Tibetan Buddhism and around the Dalai Lama, who has been living in exile in northern India since an abortive uprising against Chinese rule in Tibet in 1959.

Indian police have accused Lobsang Chodak and Tenzin Chozin of stabbing Lobsang Gyatso, a close aide of the Dalai Lama and head of the Institute of Buddhist Dialectics, and two of his students on February 4, 1997, in the northern Indian town of Dharmsala.

They were killed in ritualistic murders in which as many as five men are believed to have taken turns to stab the prominent 70-year-old academic, who was an outspoken critic of the Dorje Shugden sect.

The suspects had arrived only days before from China, following a path well worn by Tibetan faithful eager for a glimpse of their exiled god-king at his home in Dharmsala. The murders, only 200 yards from the Dalai Lama’s private residence, prompted an immediate tightening of security around him.

The Dalai Lama banned the Tibetan Buddhist deity Dorje Shugden in 1996 and forbade worship of this angel-demon spirit, saying that the deity was a threat to his personal safety as well as to the future of Tibet. That decision provoked political strife within the Tibetan community and has given birth to factions fiercely opposed to his action, including the British-based Shugden Supporters Community.

The deity has been a source of controversy within Tibet since the 17th century and is a “protective” spirit, or one that is believed to be able to bring down its wrath upon enemies of its followers. Followers have been reported to have issued death threats against the Dalai Lama.

The divisive worship of Shugden has gained momentum in Tibet over the past few decades, leading to some speculation that Chinese authorities have favoured a sect that is highly critical of the authority and methods of the Dalai Lama. China brands the spiritual leader a separatist who seeks to use his religious authority and meetings with international leaders to gain independence for his homeland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.139.167 (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

How to resolve this???

Im sure that many, though not all of us, here, loath the need to keep 'correcting' one another, while both believing we have truth on our side. There is certainly a need to let the world know about all perspectives on this issue. However, Wikpedia is not the place to do it. It is clear that a number of editors have resigned from this medium after cyber bullying, probably on both sides. I would strongly suggest that the best way forward is to delete all the relevant articles since it is quite clear that all parties involved are determined to establish their own subjective perspective as the supposedly 'neutral' one that should characterize any relaible online encyclopedia. If we want to war, we should do so on the blogs; to do so like this blackens everybody's name, not just the Dalai Lama, but also Dorje Shugden, Kelsang Gyatso and the NKT. I am not suggesting we hide the issue, merely that we conduct it 'in house', beyond the scrutiny of the innocent and the ignorant who can only be damaged and turned away from the precious dharma by this conflict. We can still debate, we can still post our views on the WWW but at present, our fighting here is doing nothing to benefit Wikpedia and even less to benefit the Dharma. I am genuinely trying to be reasonable and would ask all parties to consider this. The alternative is endless fighting and bitterness, neither of which is of any benefit to anyone. In the words of Dale Carnegie (!) 'Nobody wins an argument'.Cant we grow up and debate in a more appropriate place and in an adult context (Not in 'Playboy') Peace and happiness to all94.192.139.167 (talk) 09:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggested something similar yesterday in the Cease Fire seciton above. There have been a number of attempts in the past to delete these articles (which I personally support), but they have always been rejected--the point being that we simply need to learn to work together; not being able to work together being an insufficient reason to delete an article on a notable subject. Anyway, the archive of that deletion request is linked to at the very top of this article (and the result is always 'to keep' it).
My impression from both sides is that they want to leave a good/bad first impression in the minds of the reader, hence the endless back-and-forth over the article summary. This needs to stop. We already have enough input from neutral editors like Clay and Mangojuice that the summary in the DS article needs to include some mention of the controversy discussed in detail in this article. So, let's accept this and move forward with the wording of that.
Also, please, please, please keep the polemics out of Wikipedia. The whole "Dalai Lama/Dorje Shugden Controversy ~ Letter (from an NKT practitoner) to a journalist" section above just clutters up this talk page. This is not your blog! Please don't add things in the talk page meant just to leave a good/bad impression; it really doesn't add anything to the discussion. Rather, discuss the article itself and how it can be imprvoed. If what you are sharing with us cannot be cited in the article itself, why bring it up here? Emptymountains (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response EM.To start, it was not me that started the above section 'letter from...' It was our colleague truthbody or truthsomething-I raised the same issue you have, pointing out its polemic nature and its irrelevance. So, for once, we agree!I only added the Tines article to counter this. As to not deleting the article(s), i am afraid that until the issue is resolved in the so called real world, these pages will remain a battle ground for polemic. I see no other way round this disgraceful mess (which i agree the Dalai Lama is partially responsible for) other than putting it to one side and letting the people who want to fight, fight.Wikpedia, by its very nature is open to abuse, and these pages in particular have clearly been repeatedly abused by both camps. We need to put a stop to this. Neutrality is not going to be achieved because there are so many hotheads (I include myself) who cannot bear to sit by and tolerate the intolerance and hypocrisy of others in each camp. So again, I suggest we close the whole thing. NKT followers could set up a Dorje Shugden Controversy page elsewhere, as could pro Dalai people, but for either group to try and force their subjective vision on Joe Public and overshadow the other camp in the name of Wikpedia is to debase the medium and engage in tactics more akin to those of Joe Stalin than the Buddha-Cant we agree to disagree and BOTH leave the arena???Otherwise, this will carry on for years and, while the Tibetans might like to play politics, I would prefer it if we in the West left that shitty aspect of Tibetan Buddhism behind. Best wishes and with respect94.192.139.167 (talk) 12:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There are several problems with this as a solution- first of all, these articles are never going to be culled in an AfD on the grounds that they are non-neutral or a battle ground- Wikipedia has many articles on much more contentious issues (like the Arab-Israeli conflict, Holocaust denial, and the Armenian Genocide, for instance), and none of them are going anywhere, either, thought some of them are marked by much higher degrees of dispute then this cluster of articles. Second, even if we who are currently involved in editing these articles agreed to such a solution, it is inevitable that as long as this issue is in the media and in the academic press that articles will be re-created; even if Dorje Shugden and Dorje Shugden Controversy were salted to prevent the article from being re-created under those titles, the most extreme POV-pushers would just recreate the most objectionable content other under titles. Having these articles is a lightening rod for conflict, but it also tends to draw the conflict towards these titles and leave a lot of other articles in peace, and in that respect they're useful. In terms of the reader, I don't think shielding readers from the conflict does anyone a service; as the saying goes, a clay Buddha can't go through water, and a wood Buddha can't go through a furnace. If someone's respect for Buddhism hinges on the belief that these sorts of disputes don't exist in Buddhism, or are carried out in some inhumanly peaceful way, their faith is not long for the world, one way or another. Attempting to present neutrally a contentious issue, even if we fail at it, certainly does less to harm Wikipedia's credibility than the numerous hoaxes, promotional pieces, attack articles, and articles sourced entirely from the fringe that exist here (an aside since it's that time of year: this is still my favorite hoax of all time. For a solid week, the creator attempted to argue that the Frito Bandito is part of an ancient Mexican religious tradition).
That being said, I've abandoned articles in the past that I didn't think could be saved. I remain of the view that these still can be. For one, I fear that efforts at making the articles 'neutral' in the past have been over-focused on showing that the Dalai Lama's side is correct as an over-correction to abuses by pro-Shugden editors. That tendency needs to be corrected, just as the in-text debating and weak sourcing of material in support of the Shugden position needs to be corrected, as well as the tendency to elide or bury critical points of the anti-Shugden position. Overall, my take is that while neither article might ever be perfect or perfectly neutral, their signal-to-noise ratios can be improved significantly for the neutral reader by removing weakly sourced material and the extended debates, and adding material from a small number of neutral sources (some of which are already present in the articles, but are being misused- the Martin Mills piece, for instance, which is making a much more nuanced argument about the conflict than its use in the article reflects, from what I've seen). The bottom line, though, is that these articles aren't going away by PROD, CSD, or AfD. We can either fix them, or we can cleanup tag the Shinola out of them and abandon them in a state that makes it clear to the reader that the Weekly World News is more credible. --Clay Collier (talk) 13:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess we have three alternatives so far-leave it as it is/change it/ bin it. i thought maybe we could divide it up: one half of the article pro and the other anti, both with academic third party supporting refs plus citations from historical texts.Then lock it. What about that? Or we could all agree to only remove stuff in the other sides if it was clearly not in conformity with wiki guidelines. Otherwise, mutltiple clean up banners on everything strikes me as the best but somewhat undesirable alternative-Please, other editors of both sides must contribute so we can resolve this. Everyone has a view (sadly) we can express it here and resolve this. Most people here are Buddhist I think and we are all wasting valuable time (yes, i know motive but come on, this is horrible and damaging for all parties. Must we really behave like Tibetans???) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.139.167 (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Similar question to above... as so much work has been done on this article since the beginning of April 2009 in cleaning up the citations and finding secondary sources etc, can we now remove the reference issue tag? What do people think? (I am also not sure why the "clean up" tag was ever on this article?)(Truthbody (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC))
No- there are still issues throughout with self-published sources being used as information. These have been tagged, but the next step should be to remove that information if they aren't sourced from neutral reliable sources. There have been some improvements, but there are still multiple issues. The cleanup tag is there because there are broken references, and because the article structure is still muddled and confusing. --Clay Collier (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Restructure

I've been of the view for a while that the structure of this article is fundamentally broken. I've proposed a new way of organizing the article here. Feedback? --Clay Collier (talk) 13:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree to your proposal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.139.167 (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Clay, where would the current "Arguments for and against the practice" summary be? I think it would be helpful to still have this short section at the beginning, to help put the historical developments from the 1970s onwards in context. Emptymountains (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

My original intention was to put them in the 'Reasons for abandonment in 20th C.' section and the corresponding rebuttal section. I would like to keep them after the chronology, since we're going to have to introduce the nature of the dispute in any case (we can't really talk about why a decision was made before discussing what decision was made), but perhaps we could put the reasons sections before the 'historical arguments' sections, or pull out this small section to start off the 'Views' section- have this, and then below have more detailed information on each sides position. --Clay Collier (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I tried to get the ball rolling on this here: [2]. It probably should have been in a sandbox or something, but I (accidentally) created a new article from the talk page you had made (which is where your original bullet list still is posted). I can't promise that I copy-pasted everything over, mostly because it didn't seem to have a place anymore, or because of "battle-ground" content. Please let me know if I misinterpreted the proposed sections and misplaced anything. Emptymountains (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

First question; If lamas sinc the time of the Fifth have been placing restictions on the practice, how can you honestly say the controversy only began so recently-this just isnt correct. it could be intepreted as an attempt to deny the controversial history of the deityYGYonteng (talk) 11:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
We Wikipedians say this because that is what the third party sources say (e.g., Dreyfus and Kay, as quoted in the Yellow Book section). Emptymountains (talk) 11:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I get it now. You seem to think that the "controversy" is about Dorje Shugden when it's really about the ban on Dorje Shugden practice. I hope now you understand why Dreyfus and Kay, and also Mills and Ardley, all say that the controversy started in the 1970s. Although a bit cumbersome, perhaps the article should be renamed "Dorje Shugden ban controversy" or simply "Dorje Shugden ban"? Emptymountains (talk) 12:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Simple question when did the controversy over Shugden begin? In the 1970s? Come on now-look at the history-to deny this is just silly=there are so many references to this being a contentious issue before that time —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonteng (talk • contribs) 14:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
These third-party reliable sources are not being misquoted. I wonder, though, if simply being "contentious" amounts to a controversy? Whether Jesus is the Son of God may be contentious, but I doubt it'd be a controversy until, say, some country's Head of State moved to ban the practice. Emptymountains (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
IMO this is sophistry. There has been controversy about this since the early eighteenth century. I suggest renaming the article 'the current DS cotnroversy' if you intend to exclude the history of the situation.Alternatively, we could open the article with, 'While the practice of DS has been contentious since the early 18th c, the present contr began because...' PS You state 'We say this because' above. Who is 'we'???PPS Assume good faith —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonteng (talk • contribs) 14:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Do we also open the Jesus article with "While the belief in Jesus has been contentious since the first century..."? Regarding your PPS, I am delighted you are learning Wikipedia etiquette, as you seemed to have difficulties with it during the past week. Emptymountains (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Come to think of it, can you point me to any religious issue that is not contentious? Emptymountains (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but that is just being silly. The issue at hand is controversial and has been for some time. Your evasive response does nothing to answer this assertion. I suggest reading Kay, as you advise. page 47 onwards, in the section 'background and cross cultural context' to demonstrate that this 'conflict/controversy/contentious issue' ( they all have the same root) arose before the 1970s. So, as I have said, why not rename the article The Current Dorje Shugden Controversy' and allude to the 'other' controversies leading up to it. Otherwise this could easily be interpreted as an attempt to use wiki as a platform for the NKT campaign to attribute this controversy to the present Dalai Lamas actions, whereas we both know these controversies began long before then. PS Please leave out the sarchasm and evasive answers. Your comments on my understanding of wiki etiquette are in themselves a violation of that same etiquette. Discuss reasonably-I think the relevant wiki term i read was 'Dont be a dick'???Look it up! Best wishes and attempting to be reasonableYontenYonteng (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW I saw your thing re Dzok Chen not being a 'school'-I would point you to the Shang Shung tradition of Dzok Chen which was independent of the Buddhist traditions. Moreover, some of Norbu's adherents practice ONLY Dzog Chen, without either a Bon or Buddhist framework-just a thought

Are you saying that Chögyal Namkhai Norbu is non-Buddhist? That supports my removing him from the Kagyu section of the article.
Kay (in agreement with Dreyfus and all the other third-party sources I refereneced) explicitly says on page 49 that before the 1970s, "there was no open conflict or controversy" regarding the Dorje Shugden practice. Again, what I am objecting to is your equivocation of the words contentious, conflict and controversy. Are you saying that any contentious religious issue causes conflict and is controversial?
I'm holding up a mirror to the rest of your comments. Emptymountains (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Well done with the mirror-I always thought they were for lookiing for ones own imperfactions, not those of others. Norbu is both Bon and Buddhist (Nyingma actually, not Kagyu as you suggest-fo one so well read I thought you would have known this). If there was no conflict before the seventies, what was going on in Kham in the 30s and 40s? See Samuel for example, or Beyer. Both refer to these conflicts, highly relevant events. Are you suggesting that the Dorje Shugden worship that led to these sectarian events is a different one from the one the NKT worship? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonteng (talk • contribs) 16:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I did not suggest that he was a Kagyu, User 124.180.12.219 did earlier today. If you are saying that Samuel and Kay/Dreyfus/Ardley/Mills are contradicting each other, that is their problem. Emptymountains (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If they contradict one another and you site only one perspective, that is selective citation to support one particualr view and is therefore non-NPOVYonteng (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Reading this discussion above, I am thinking that to avoid some of the confusion it might well be better to call it the "Dorje Shugden ban controversy". What do other editors think? (Truthbody (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC))

Yet another indication that the "controversy" is over the ban, not the Deity: "Martin Mills looks at the furore over the suppression of the Shugden sectarian movement within Tibetan Buddhism" (Richard Wilson, Human Rights in Global Perspective, p. 10). Emptymountains (talk) 12:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 9
  1. ^ http://www.dorjeshugdenhistory.org/
  2. ^ http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-147442
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dorje_Shugden_controversy/Archive_3&oldid=604854574"