Jump to content

Talk:Dudjom Jigdral Yeshe Dorje/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Reply to Rich Farmbrough (SmackBot)

This was posted on his talk page as he responded there:[1]


Thanks for your reply:

1- Who has raised the NPOV objection that you have dated?

2- What are the basis as they would have to state a reason, otherwise it is illegal? You would have to ask him for his specific reason but

3- The warnings on my page have all been by GlassFet. I maintained from the beginning that he was a sockpuppet of Ekajati who was banned and had many other illegal names too. Finally this was proven and he was banned. Someone, I do not know who, probably a bot or an admin, had set his warnings invisible. They are now again visible after your interaction. I consider them an honor. I will monitor for his presence in any way possible vigilantly in future. Are you in any form in contact with that person or his cult of Aro (in England) which is dismissed by Tibetan lamas and considered anti-Buddhist? [2]

4- If no comment on the objection is forthcoming, please reverse your dating action as it is reinforcing an illegal procedure.

I will post a copy of this reply in the article's talk page for the record as well.

Thanks. User:Thegone 5:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to make this article a bit more NPOV. I'm removing some assertions that cite references that are anonymous, and are quite clearly devotional panegyrics (they may be true, but these sources aren't suitable as encyclopaedia citations). Example: shrunken body.
Dudjom's work on the history of the Nyingma was not written in English.
Wikified "gTerma"
All the Tibetan traditions could be said to be "immensely rich"
Only some people consider Dzogchen to be the "ultimate teaching of Tibetan Buddhism"; others consider it to be plain heresy.
Dudjom's most famous work may indeed be a masterpiece; it's certainly important. But this is an encyclopaedia article not a devotional text.
All periods in the past are "historic".
Removed explanation of "terma", as there are wiki-links in the article for that term.
"All treasure revealers are believed to be reincarnatitions of these 25 disciples." E.g. Nagarjuna? Believed by whom?
I still don't think it's NPOV; but I hope it's better, and I hope I haven't removed stuff that could simply have been improved.
MrDemeanour (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

1:User:OldakQuill added it on 2/9
2: you would have to ask OldakQuill but I would think that some of your wording like "He was an amazing scholar" would do it. GtstrickyTalk or C 15:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

-.-.-.-.-.-

1- You can re-edit the text, 2- Raise any matter in the discussion page on any issue you like prior to taking legal action such as a POV issue.

As it stands, it is an illegal action which has merely been recursed as an excuse to dating it. The original objector is himself as matters stand. And as he declined to name who had raised the objection that he claims to have dated. It is like one of your back propagation methods or a parapraxis, but it is also against Wiki rules. He declined to answer my questions on his links on a notorious sockpuppet and digging up that renegade's comments. The list goes on and on.

Lastly the bias seems to be with the lodges of the English Aro cult, prophesied long before in Dudjom Tersar by name (Aro) to appear. Also high lamas the cult leader claims as his teachers, one of whom he tried to sue legally by the way, all conferred the cult leader of GlassFet & Co. as a demon who will take his followers to hell. Now it may be a coincidence that Dudjom Rinpoche predicted the name of this cult long before they were born, but if I were his followers, I would think twice. You know what I mean?

Finally, I would say the bias in the network would be weighted obviously if the group of people seemingly unrelated were in fact all based in England and some of them in the same department of the same college? That would be another coincidence? I think not. Better be careful who you follow to where and try being honest and if not so, don't break Wiki's rules. Illegal actions, co-ordinated stealth action by a cult and finally perverse bias disguised as unrelated emergent 'unbiased points of views' and then blaming others for the exact same actions. I will monitor for the notorious sockpuppet and his network. [3]

User:Thegone 22:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Illegal NPOV behavior by Rich Farmbrough (SmackBot)

Rich Farmbrough[4] acting as SmackBot[5] has disputed the neutrality of the article but has not provided an explanation as required by the rules [6]. As a result the initiation of this NPOV is not proper and has commenced on an illegal footing. (User:Thegone) 1:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Founder of the International Nyingma Society

Dudjom Rinpoche has been the founder of the International Nyingma Society, donating the title of Lopon Chenpo, sort of Geshe. I've found this information on the german website of Ringu Tulku, but until now I have not found any other information about that society.

Austerlitz -- 88.72.14.2 (talk) 11:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Austerlitz -- 88.72.14.2 (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV removed

Over 2 months was given for the person who initiated the NPOV dispute to step forward. He/she didn't. In fact this illegal act should have been reversed back then.

According to Wiki rules:

1- If you dispute a POV's neutrality you MUST identify your login name/IP. It can not be done anonymously.

2- You MUST present your case prior in the discussion page so that any potential dispute can be resolved.

3- You are free to edit the page prior to the above measures anyway.

Please do not break the Wiki rules again.

Thank you.

(User:Thegone) 18:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Illegal? I don't think you're getting what the tag meant. If you look at the article history it's clear who added the POV tag, OldakQuill (talk · contribs). I'm happy to discuss this. I also think the current language is POV. I suspect the issue was that some of the language is written in a factual way, but some content would be considered more opinion than fact. That can be fine if the opinions are attributed. So instead of saying that he was born "with many amazing signs" add who claimed that or who reported that. Stating it as fact is writing from a non-neutral point of view. When we attribute the claims the article reads more like an encyclopedia article and less like something promotional written by a follower or devotee of the subject of the article. Does that make sense? - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I made a series of copy edits to the lead section of the article, to demonstrate what I mean by attribution. I have high regard for Dudjom Rinpoche, I've read some of his translated talks, and I'm quite happy to honor his memory by contributing to an article about him. But I think the best way to honor him here in an encyclopedia will be if we make sure the article reads encyclopedic and is up to the highest standards of attribution and footnotes. I don't have time today to edit further sections. But do those changes make sense with respect to POV issues, user Thegone (talk · contribs)? - Owlmonkey (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. It's news to me he is the one who raised the issue. He commented above but didn't step forward when asked who had done it. Secondly you are wrong in ignoring the Wiki rule requiring the objections be quoted at the time of raising NPOV issue or prior on this page. Thirdly you are wrong that the protocol is for changing the article and then if disputes arise NPOV can be called into question. Further it seems there was a concerted effort as pointed out above. Fifthly if you had time to monitor the article and type the above paragraphs, you would have had time to edit/delete the four words that you mentioned as not appropriate. Sixthly regarding your point on using 'attributed' and alike, if you check my original version it is full of 'it is written' (all references are available) and similar to it is believed, claimed etc. However a user who did the last major re-edit removed most of these ironically in the pursuit of NPOV! Check the versions for yourself.

Also when we say the Dalai Lama for example is 'believed' to be the reincarnation of so and so, then it is correct by any standard regarding the 4 TB school heads. This is true for Dudjom too and in fact omitting these pieces of knowledge would be laughable. Furthermore these were written down prior to his birth too and regardless of their objective veracity they are indispensable to the article similar to Dalai Lamas, Karmapas and Khyentses as long as predicated with 'it is believed' etc. which I did. The rest is factual.

None of these points especially the legal codes of conduct for owning up and explaining the reasons and trying normal routes prior to action on raising NPOV which are musts were observed and you didn't address them.

Change the article. Others can too. If someone objects, highly unlikely, resolve it. If it doesn't get resolved, introduce yourself here and state reasons prior or at time of NPOV action. These are facts and rules broken and the rest is mere mumbo-jumbo and diversions justifying illegal behavior.

In a few years time, like most articles this one will be totally different too. Thegone (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well "it is written" isn't attribution in my opinion. To my ear, it makes it sound even more factual and less an attributed opinion. Perhaps it's because of being raised in a Christian culture, when I hear "it is written" that phrase sounds like divine providence and not something that is uncertain. It doesn't sound like sutra's that being "Thus have I heard" as a qualification of uncertainty. So when I hear "it is written" I wonder it is written by whom? where? who wrote it? That's what I mean by attribution.
But I agree it is a matter of judgement as to what needs to be attributed and what can stand as reasonably uncontroversial: for example the identification of tulkus. One aspect of writing about Tibetan Rinpoche's that is tricky I find, is that within the Tibetan canon it is quite common to refer to what bodhisattvas they are an emanation of but in an encyclopedia we must assume a readership that is of other religions, beliefs, etc. who may not find such things tenable in the least. So they may well call that POV. But as you suggest, reincarnation though from a Buddhist point of view is such a common feature of the tulku system I don't think we need to over qualify it. For example, we don't need to qualify a tulku recognition with "According to so and so they are the third reincarnation of..." unless there is a controversy (like with Karmapa) since it's such a common feature of tulku's, it's just fine to say "Was recognized" or "Was enthroned as". In response to your point of changing the article myself, instead of commenting here, thank you for the encouragement to change the article. I was worried that you would deter any collaboration. I don't always edit every article I come across, I sometimes comment in discussion pages instead to engage those who have been more invested in editing. But if you'd like me to spend more time here I can try to find the time. I appreciate the invitation. - Owlmonkey (talk) 02:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
One more thing, I think it is common for editors to tag articles as problematic even if they don't spend time to correct them - in spite of your point that it's not the guideline to do so - because editors can detect a bias but aren't domain experts or are sufficiently versed to attempt or might not have the time to invest to correct a problem. Yet it still may be well meaning to tag an article so it's clear that something must be done. I'm a Nyingmapa however so I felt comfortable joining the effort. Another guideline to be wary off: wikilawyering. - Owlmonkey (talk) 02:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


In essence I agree with everyone on this page regarding staying rational and I extend this to following the rules and protocols too. This includes the strict rule regarding stating objections at the time or prior to raising NPOV as I referenced above in this page. However there is a difference of perceptions or rather misunderstanding.

First of all there is a history to this page and there is a notorious banned SP lurking around that has had more names than most of those banned and is probably in the top 50. After he was finally identified due to my raising questions on his new identity, the page was basically non-existent. So I made the current version to a large extent. However I don't edit Wiki generally and really don't want to do this page anymore either. It was just intended to kick it off.

On your point regarding predicates of 'beleived' 'claimed' 'written' as I said I completely agree. If you do a version difference check of mine and MrDemeanour's, you see he basically removed most of these I had put in place. I don't doubt his sincerity regarding the intention. And I didn't undo his edit which he reinstated. Although I think the chunk on gTerma classes deleted should have at least been inserted to it's own article. And he is wrong regarding acceptability in all schools re. practice of Dzogchen including most Dalai Lamas that were 'allowed' to reach over 20 by the corrupt aristos (18th & 19th C.s were basically not allowed by the powers that be) and his regents (Retings) and others. The likes of Shabkars and Khyentses and Kongtruls are from other schools than Nying and are very important to re. them & their present shape. The note on the medieval personal most secret Dzogchen temple of Dalai Lamas in the lake island behind Potala built by the most important DL (5th) was also removed. Gelugs also believe in tertons too. And I didn't say the Nying School book was written in English either but the most authoritative source on the subject available in English. Only Snellgrove's similar work on Indo-Tibetan buddhism is in the same league as far as use by academics and scope. Anyway I digress but I was happy with his edits since he was sincere.

On the 'written' there are more notes on this page than on an average article page of similar size and the references are there. Of course it doesn't mean if it is written it is to be believed similar to quoting the bible regarding the belief of Christians on Jesus being the son of god. And I agree with you on the written. Particularly historians agree that in pre-modern times where the literate were always in a minority in all societies, the written by itself had an authority for the masses. There are long discourses on the subject. That is also why the power elites of any period guarded and deleted what was not to their liking by any means possible. This extended into print history and is really a huge subject. However the couple of times I mentioned it was merely to point that there are textual references for the points. It does not mean they are correct no more than saying the texts in the bible or Torah or Gilgamesh or Ramanayanah are correct. There are fake termas according to all TB schools' beliefs and even on the valid ones there are contradictory ones. So no biased POV was intended at all, merely showing textual references exist for those beliefs.

On the tulkus I basically agree with you too. Frankly I think that system regarding most recognitions is corrupt. But on the point of the few tulkus at the level of lineage heads, DLs Karamaps Khyentses Dudjoms etc., their believed previous incarnations has to be stated since it forms the basis of those schools' leaderships. It is like deleting the claim by the Catholic popes of having a succession lineage going back in history and their claims of being regents for Christ and god. It doesn't mean one agrees with it. My personal views are actually way more complex than what others might prejudge and is totally different but it does not matter at all and is completely irrelevant.

Anyway I don't doubt the sincerity of those who posted in this page and the gist of disagreements seems to be the tone in a few sentences. I genuinely wish people re-edit those as they see fit, however I do not agree with the wholesale removal of whole sections as we see prevalent in Wiki these days in all categories. Not if they are sourced and merely stating the beliefs of various cultures and their adherents as empirical observations.

In short if the tone is wrong in a sentence: click that edit button and fix it as a mere observation. Thegone (talk) 15:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like it has been quite frustrating working on this article so far. I'll try to spend time on it too. I'd like to move some of the content from the lead section into subsections, so the lead is more of a quick summary and the biographical content is fit in with the current biography section. And I'll do some more reading about him so I'm more up to date. - Owlmonkey (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a new book by one of the 2 famous khenpo (means 20+ years of post-gradish research) brothers (padmasambhava.org) that used to be close to him. I haven't read it though: http://www.snowlionpub.com/search.php?in_item_id=10301 It might be useful. Anyway I leave the whole thing to you guys now. Thegone (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Here it is again A video clip of His Holiness Dudjom Rinpoche in India from the 1960's on Youtube.

Austerlitz -- 88.72.12.20 (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

PS: is Youtube non citable?

List Of My Edits:

  • In the section "Dudjom Yangsis" following linked wrong: "...and Kathok Situ Rinpoche. He has expressed..." Kathok Situ name is linked to Tai Situ page. Linking undone untill some one builds a page for Kathok Situ Rinpoche (who is grandson of Second Dudjom Rinpoche)

Sherabgyatso (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

  • With publication of a major biorgaphy of Kyabje Dudjom Rinpoche in 2008 by Snow Lion it is now possible to use it as a source. Also added in bibliogrphy section: Light of Fearless Indestructable Wisdom: The Life and legacy of H.H. Dudjom Rinpoche by Khenpo Tsewang Dongyal Rinpoche, Snow Lion Publications, ISBN 978-1-55939-304-1

Sherabgyatso (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Picture of Dudjom Rinpoche Jikdral Yeshe Dorje.jpg
  • Located image of Kyabje Dudjom Rinpoche in public domain, uploaded it to the wiki, linked it to the page.

Sherabgyatso (talk) 01:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

  • In order to remove wiki policy heading that reads: "This article's introduction may be too long for its overall length. Please help by moving some material from it into the body of the article. For more information please read the layout guide and Wikipedia's lead section guidelines. (December 2010)"

- I am shifting part of the introduction down into the body of the biography. Within the body of thext that is biography there needs to be organized a system of sub titles.

Sherabgyatso (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

  • A very strong need to make title of the page and start of the page reflect common knowledge of the biographies, facts. All in order to make it more understandable to the public that may come to the wiki page. As some one that read a few books connected to the Kyabje Dudjom Rinpoche and has met members of his family it does not matter to me what is the title of the page, But to some one looking for information it is confusing.The now famous use as "Dudjom Rinpoche" started with the Lama about who the article is, as only time will tell how prominent known incarnations will become, they may adopt different names like "Sungtrul" or any other. The name of this page must be Dudjom Rinpoche because it does point to a particular Lama very directly. Then there should be an explanation of other names used like Jigdral Yeshe Dorje and Jnana.

Looking into changing current title: Jigdral Yeshe Dorje (2nd Dudjom Rinpoche) to Dudjom Rinpoche.

Sherabgyatso (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Opening few lines: "Dudjom Rinpoche (Tibetan: བདུད་འཇོམས་, Wylie: Bdud-'joms) is the title of a prominent line of tulkus of the Nyingmapa order of Tibetan Buddhism. Dudjom Rinpoche was born in 1904 on the tenth day of the sixth month in the year of the wood dragon in Southern Tibet in a region called the "hidden land" (Tibetan: beyul) of Pema Ko. He died on January 17, 1987 at his residence in Dordogne, France. He was the head of the Nyingma school in exile." - Should be rewritten to reflect that Dudjom Rinpoche was a direct rebirth of Dudjom Lingpa. Rather then presentation of: "prominent line of tulkus of the Nyingmapa order of Tibetan Buddhism."

Sherabgyatso (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Proposed text for the opener:

Dudjom Rinpoche, (Tibetan: བདུད་འཇོམས་, Wylie: Bdud-'joms) Jigdral Yeshe Dorje was born in 1904 according to the Western Callendar, in the year 2444 after Buddha's passing into parinirvana, in the year 2440 after the birth of Padmasambhava and in the year 2031 counted from the inception of the Tibetan Monarchy. According to the astrologycal sixty year cycle it was year of the wooden dragon, 6th month, 10th day. The month and day also correspond to the birthdate of Padmasambhava. And was recognized as direct rebirth of the Dudjom Lingpa(1835–1904). He was the supreme head of the Nyingma lineage of Tibetan Buddhism. Rinpoche was born in Southern Tibet in a region called Pemako / Bomê County which is known in Tibetan as Beyul a "hidden land" and passed away on January 17, 1987 at his residence in Dordogne, France.

Sherabgyatso (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

In a year's time, not much comments made, update is going live, original opening statement made available below this signature. Thank you Sherabgyatso (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Dudjom Rinpoche or Dudjom Jikdral Yeshe Dorje (Tib. བདུད་འཇོམས་འཇིགས་བྲལ་ཡེ་ཤེས་རྡོ་རྗེ་, Wyl. bdud 'joms 'jigs bral ye shes rdo rje) is the title of a prominent line of tulkus of the Nyingmapa order of Tibetan Buddhism. Dudjom Rinpoche was born in 1904 on the tenth day of the sixth month in the year of the wood dragon in Southern Tibet in a region called the "hidden land" (Tibetan: beyul) of Pemako. He died on January 17, 1987 at his residence in Dordogne, France. He was the head of the Nyingma school in exile.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Dudjom Jigdral Yeshe Dorje. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dudjom Jigdral Yeshe Dorje. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

His body

"After his death Dudjom Rinpoche's physical body was moved a year later from France and placed in a stupa in one of his main monasteries near Boudhanath, Nepal in 1988. Pilgrims may view his body through a glass window in the stupa." Has it been mummified?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.89.158 (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
deleted sentence. Pasdecomplot (talk) 02:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Revert by MarkH21

Peacock is cited as reason for revert. Policy states the text should either be rewritten or tagged, not reverted: Articles suffering from such language should be rewritten to correct the problem or may be tagged with an appropriate template[2] if an editor is unsure how best to correct them.. Revert undone; multiple sources cited for BIO and can be reviewed. Pasdecomplot (talk) 09:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I really don't know what you mean by Reverts not condoned for "peacock". You added a lot of text violating MOS:PEACOCK and added assessments and descriptions sourced to non-RS, such as the Rigpa Wiki or Rangjung Yeshe Wiki (which are evidently used throughout the article). Violations of WP:V, WP:NPOV, and the MOS are always subject to reverting, particularly when the previous versions are less problematic. You may also want to review WP:ONUS, since you are reverting to add disputed content and there is no consensus for inclusion. — MarkH21talk 20:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm afraid I have to agree with Mark that saying the guy "is" a revealed master or incarnation of is problematic, we don't do that in Wikivoice, and many of the sources appear to be affiliated, like the Dudjomba Buddhist Association. A book by a religious author can be used with a quote and attribution as to what that religious tradition believes, but a book by an independent scholar would be better; I'm sure there is ample scholarship on this prominent religious leader. I'm also not sure about policy on honorifics...hm. I think that may be what happened at the Khenchen Palden Sherab Rinpoche move? I wonder if that needs an RfC at WikiProject Buddhism? —valereee (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

MarkH21 The quotation above on peacock is clear. The refs and issues have been addressed. Rangjung Yeshe is used in this topic area on many pages by editors, making it a defacto accepted source. Rigpa is also used when necessary, but I've modified the ref in good faith. Please also read the talk discussion on Buddhism, if you are going to continue editing in the topic area. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

A note on Rigpa: for Dudjom Rinpoche, the source is especially good since he visited centers and taught at Rigpa London, as the source states. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Just because other editors make the same mistake of citing wikis doesn't make them RSes. Wikis are not reliable sources, this is explicitly stated in the SPS section of the Verifiability policy as largely not acceptable as sources.
You've been informed about this policy countless times by dozens of experienced editors and admins at this point. It is your responsibility to read and follow it, even if you disagree with Valereee, myself, or anyone else.
It's not clear by what talk discussion on Buddhism you are referring to. I don't see any relevant discussion at Talk:Buddhism or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism. Do you mean the next section named "Buddhism" on this talk page? — MarkH21talk 00:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
MarkH21 is correct. The fact a writer is familiar with the subject doesn't make that writer a reliable source. We need published sources, at minimum with editorial oversight and preferably with peer review. For a historical figure, which this person is, scholarly work in academic press is what we're defaulting to wanting to see. —valereee (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dudjom_Jigdral_Yeshe_Dorje/Archive_1&oldid=1142366547"