Talk:Western Shugden Society

The article has been reverted to before the edits made by Kelsang Peljor, and a '64.251.25.150'

Why? First of all, neither author has any right to judge the relevancy of sources. Read the WP rules before deleting original work. Secondly, there is quite clearly an organisation called the WSS - it has a website. If we follow the money, it leads us directly to the doors of the NKT. It's not rocket science.

Moreover, there is literal evidence that Kelsang Gyatso authorised the instantiation of the organisation by one or more of his students. His email is in the public domain.

There is a gigantic difference between identity of two organisations - something which no-one has brought into dispute, and I am tired of straw man arguments being used to dissemble the foundations of these things.

There are plenty of eye-witnesses who talked with the demonstrators across the UK this year - including media representatives. BY all accounts, every demonstrator was a member of the NKT. So, we see clearly that there is a strong tie between the WSS and the NKT - there is no point in us denying this.

What is also clear is that the DSS wishes to anonymise itself. How can I say this? There is a well presented, designed website, which must have been funded, constructed, authored, and kept up to date by a team on individuals - not an ad hoc group, but a dedicated team. Websites do not appear in a self-generated manner. Secondly, the organisation and transport arrangements, as well as the placard printing, etc. of the demonstrations across the UK this year was managed centrally - there was nothing random or ad hoc about the demonstrations.

There are possibly some things worth arguing about - but the affiliations between the NKT and the DSS is one that cannot be argued, unless you wish to appear like foolish, bigoted idiots.

Lastly, if there really is any doubt, one only needs to see the relationship that both the WSS and the NKT have with Shugden. The sole bone of contention on this issue is that back in 1998 or so, KG said that he was not going to protest about Shudgen, because it was a Tibetan political affair, and he has decided not to deal with Tibetan politics from Oct 1998. - "However in October 1998 we decided to completely stop being involved in this Shugden issue because we realized that in reality this is a Tibetan political problem and not the problem of Buddhism in general or the NKT." ( OPEN LETTER from Geshe Kelsang Nov 2002.)

I believe you should read the rules on WP reliable sources because eye witnesses, hearsay, and personal emails are not included. Please watch your insulting name calling as this is against wikipedia rules,

WP:RS is very useful here. The difficulty we have is that there is no information about the WSS on their own website. There is no identification of affiliation, or relationship. Indeed, the WSS website is deliberately vague about the organisation. It's not a reliable source itself.

I am not a name caller. It is my conviction that anyone who is unable to see the obvious is either ignorant or bigoted. When there are two organisations that have a public face, and that have common goals, or a common purpose, it is unusual for them not to be affiliated. However, this is case is interesting in that the WSS and the NKT appear to ignore each other on their public faces: there is no public discussion of the relation (or lack of it) on either the WSS or the NKT websites. How strange that two apparently mutually focussed organisations should ignore each other.

In light of my own experience, where I saw many WSS protestors in London, Cambridge, and Nottingham, every person I spoke to was a student of KG. There were no exceptions. There were no Tibetans in any of those groups. So - this is the evidence that we have. The NKT and the WSS certainly have some sort of affiliation - in that the corporal presence of the WSS was made by members of the NKT. There is strong evidence linking WSS to the NKT, in emails, and administrative contacts, as well as the organisational representation.

The real smoking gun, however, is that the NKT and WSS pretend not to know about each other, even though they clearly do.

Lastly, you should register a username. (20040302 (talk))

Cherrypicking

Chryssides says the dispute is between Kelsang Gyatso and the Dalai Lama. And Ardley says the dispute is used by Beijing.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you want the whole quotes instead, as I included on Dorje Shugden Controversy ? Would that make it better here too? Granted, I don't know if those quotes exactly fit on this page or we would need to discuss it a bit to establish the reasoning, but the claim of Cherrypicking is weak at best.. Prasangika37 (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Providing sources for analysis against WP:RS is wise. Montanabw^(talk) 03:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Stubbing

@VictoriaGrayson: Eh I think you are right about this one. I guess it depends on how stringent of the qualifications are for material for an article. If we include everything relating to the SSC and ISC, like news articles, etc, then this could be a sizeable article and would be valuable. But if not, it seems to not fit the qualifications that we need for it to be notable. What I do envision, though, is a new article "Demonstrations at The Dalai Lama's Teachings" similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Ferguson_unrest . But in time... Prasangika37 (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem I see is WP:CFORK, I'd have a hard time seeing these protests as a stand-alone article separate from the articles about the organization. That said, the murder of the monks in Dharamsala would then also be suitable for a stand-alone article, I think. So, I suggest forking with caution. Or better yet, not forking at all... Montanabw^(talk) 03:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Thanks for the insight. I will think about it for a bit instead of making direct moves. The thing is, the demonstrations in detail are not talked about currently in depth in any wikipedia article (Dorje Shugden Controversy is the most in depth, but it still does an extremely cursory job) even though they are dealt with in quite scholarly ways by at least 5-6 RS scholars and in hundreds of news articles. Perhaps this would also be a way to clean up Dorje Shugden Controversy, as what is the controversy itself is very debatable. Many scholarly sources look at it in different ways (strictly political[the controversy is because of simple political arguments], strictly religious[limitations in Tibetan Buddhism or issues with the Buddhist way in general], the controversy is 'the ban', the controversy is because Dorje Shugden incites sectarianism, the controversy has to do with China, the controversy has to do with discrimination, and so on. Anyway, we have time :) Prasangika37 (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert Opinion

Here is an interview with Robert Barnett. I linked it as an external link. I lack time to use it to improve the article. But maybe better we leave it with this external link reference?

• Protests against the Dalai Lama over Dorje Shugden – An interview with Robert Barnett, Dec 12, 2014

Kt66 (talk) 09:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)