Talk:Dorje Shugden

Merger proposal

I propose that the article Dorje Shugden controversy be merged into the article Dorje Shugden. I am making this proposal as there is considerable overlap in the contents of these two articles and because the Dorje Shugden controversy cannot properly be explained or understood without context of the (various) explanations of the origin, history, and nature of this protector deity.

In discussing this merger proposal, please follow proper decorum and standard talk page guidelines, which include staying focused on the content, not on the involved editors, using threaded discussion formatting, not biting newcomers, and being clear and concise.

Chris Fynn (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• Support Academics seem to cover even Shugden's iconography etc. together with controversy, as every aspect of Shugden is controversial.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• As long as the resultant article is objective I see no problem merging. Beeflin (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support It is good to merge both articles this will in my eyes increase the quality because editors can focus on one article and the Dorje Shugden article tended to be a fan article. Kt66 (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose See the previous similar discussions please, which have just happened a few months ago. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Dorje_Shugden_controversy/Archive_6#Article_Deletion_Proposal https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Dorje_Shugden_controversy/Archive_6#Requested_move

The issue with merging them is that they are two different things. The controversy involves peoples criticisms and how the controversy arose, along with aspects regarding the ban. Dorje Shugden is an article about the deity and how he functions. Prasangika37 (talk) 11:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support: Separate article is a WP:FORK. Further comments and reasoning below. Montanabw^(talk) 17:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - As it stands, the controversy is currently twice the size of the article and that it relies on many lengthy quotes references in its incomplete form. Merging would be met with probably 70% or more reduction in the citations and the article would suffer as a result. Keeping them separate is by all means the best result until a comparative inclusion on the Dorje Shugden article can be worked into the article. Then- if the other is found lacking and flawed, merged or redirected. Merges like this tend to result in a great reduction of the points of view and a cutting of extremely contentious material to a bare bones state in the name of balance. This balance doesn't need to exist in such a form on its own dedicated page - which is why it seems it was created in the first place. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
• At present Oppose; It might be bette rfirst to reach a stable concencus on the controversy-page, before considering a merger. Maybe. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. The controversy article is way off topic at the moment. I suggest this article is improved before a merge is considered. Thank you, Jangdom Kjangdom (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

(Please place any discussion on the merger proposal in this section. If you simply want to indicate support or opposition , please use the above section.)

@Beeflin: - Thanks for your comment above. I'm just proposing merging the content of the two articles. This should result in an article about as objective as the contents of the current articles are now. If possible, I will try to get an experienced neutral editor to make the merger. After the merger, anyone can then edit the combined article to improve its objectivity if they feel that is lacking. (I hope it will prove easier for editors to come up with one objective article that everyone concerned can live with, than it has been with two.)

I've notified everyone who has edited these articles over the last 6 months or so (with the exception of blocked users and those editing with only an IP address) of this merger proposal - so hopefully we can get enough feedback within a couple of weeks or so to decide whether or not this merger proposal should go ahead.

Chris Fynn (talk) 08:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Prasangika37: One of the previous discussions you link to was a proposal to delete the article, the other was a proposal to move it to a new name. Neither was a merger proposal and neither came from me. As to whether Dorje Shugden and Dorje Shugden controversy are separable or not - earlier I did suggest that this article be limited to the recent controversy and go back only to the time or the publication of Zeme Rinpoche's book or to the time of the Dalai Lama first speaking out against this practice and subsequent events. But when I suggested that others said it needs to cover things back to the time of the 13th Dalai Lama and Phabongkha Dechen Nyingpo - or even to the time of the 5th Dalai Lama because there is good evidence that there has always been some controversy surrounding Dorje Shugden. That being the case, how do you leave out anything about controversy out of this article and how do you leave discussion of the nature and function of Shugden out of the other? At least one side argues that the nature of Shugden is at the basis of the argument for the ban or continued worship of Shugden. The prohibition and subsequent protests are hard to understand without historical context. It seems to me most people think the two things (the deity and the controversy) are completely intertwined. If that is the case, they can't really be separated and when there are two articles there will always be a lot of overlap. Chris Fynn (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Support merge. At present, both articles are actually not very long, though they have ridiculously long TOCs that are not MOS compliant. This is a prime candidate for a merge. There was no need for the split and to have an article only on the present controversy when it is a longstanding historical dispute is actually a WP:FORK. Montanabw^(talk) 16:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri:Noone suggested the controversy part be trimmed, other than the overlapping content.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 01:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

No one need suggest it, because that's exactly what happens. If the article was able to be entirely merged over with truly redundant text removed, the article would immediately qualify under WP:SPLIT for size or balance issues. Because the whole would be WP:UNDUE. Its a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation when it comes to resolving merges where the "fork" is larger than the target. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:21, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

If you remove the ridiculous overkill of headings in the TOC and look at the actual prose, these articles are both relatively short, this one only 4.3Kb, the other 15 kb of readable prose, based on the dr. pda tool. Yes, the controversy article is almost 4x longer than this one, but the truth is that a lot of the material in the other article is history that is equally relevant here. I find the point that this has been "controversial" from the outset to be a compelling argument. Montanabw^(talk) 07:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: Montanabw is correct. The actual body of the DSC article is quite small. Much of the article is lengthy footnotes. Secondly, a lot of material in that article equally belongs here.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 04:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: Also consider that we are having problems because the pages are unmerged. See the full protection at the other page.VictoriaGrayson^Talk

@Joshua Jonathan: Of course a stable consensus would be nice — but that has never really happened with either article - and I suspect one could wait a very long time for that eventuality. Possibly it might be easier to reach a stable consensus for a single article, rather than two? — But I'm probably dreaming. Chris Fynn (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, for many people who rely on Dorje Shugden, there is nothing controversial. It is just a deity that these people relate to. There are many well cited explanations for the different aspects of Dorje Shugden. If someone wants to come learn about Dorje Shugden, they aren't coming to learn about the controversy.. These things are not synonymous. The Controversy is also very political and involves the ban of Dorje Shugden, while there are things about Dorje Shugden himself that do not include these aspects and are more strictly religious. For a similar precdent, there is 'evolution-creationism controversy' and then an article about creationism and an article about evolution.Prasangika37 (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

You could say the same of Scientology, Prasangika. But to cleanse one article of all controversy is inappropriate whitewashing. It is a false equivalency to compare this to the evolution/creation debate, as no Christian denomination has banned creationism beliefs from its ranks, even if it's complete nonsense. Montanabw^(talk) 00:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@Prasangika37: All academic articles on the subject of Dorje Shugden say that there has been controversy surrounding this entity from its beginnings in the 17th Century - so you can't have a proper encyclopaedia article about Dorje Shugden without talking about controversy. The articles refer to each other and have a lot of overlap (needed for context). However, since both articles are frequently edited, more often than not they have divergent text. I proposed the merger because I feel a single coherent article would be better than this. BTW, I suspect people who "rely on Dorje Shugden" don't look to Wikipedia for their information on this entity. Chris Fynn (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Sorry, I wasn't trying to say that we need to cleanse it of controversy..Sorry I wasn't clear. We should definitely have a link to the controversy here and maybe a small summary paragraph. Re: equivalency, the comparison is on the fact that there is a controversy between two opposing parties that is documented on wikipedia, while there is a separate article for each. The comparison to Scientology doesn't make much sense, as there is a completely peaceful, well-documented reliance on Dorje Shugden that is free of controversy. I don't know if you know the issue well, but two of the most prominent spiritual teachers in Tibetan Buddhism of the last 100 years, Trijang Rinpoche and Pabongka Rinpoche, were Dorje Shugden practitioners and major proponents. Most important Gelugpa teachers are direct or indirect disciples of both of these people. Its not a 'fringe' 'cultish' or strange thing. This shows it was completely a mainline Gelugpa practice at least for the last 100 years, and for longer before that, but isn't as well documented then. Its actually a new view that this it is something extremely problematic. The fact that the Dalai Lama himself practiced it is pretty clear evidence. The fact that it is disallowed is seriously controversial, as it goes strongly against precedent and brings to question the qualifications/wisdom of these two previous masters. The practice/who the protector Dorje Shugden is is something separate and should be a separate page. Prasangika37 (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not debating the issue with you because you clearly are merely parroting the party line of the NKT and I have no interest in either deprogramming you or becoming a convert myself. Scientologists say the same thing about Scientology that you are saying here about the NKT. I support the merge. End of story. Montanabw^(talk) 20:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused.. I don't get the animosity from you as I didn't think I did something to deserve that? Sorry if I offended you in some way. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/The_Satanic_Verses and https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/The_Satanic_Verses_Controversy is an example of two separate articles. The Verses one has a controversy section but primarily pertains to the verses themselves and not the controversial aspects. Prasangika37 (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Your point about the Rushdie book as a more cogent argument. What irritated me was the tl;dr tone of some of the above posts (including yours) that is just the same sort of tendentious arguments I used to hear from the Moonies and Hare Krishnas back when I was in college. Been there, done that. I have no interest in entering into debates with people who have no sincere interest in creating a balanced article, simply view WP as a platform for their own POV pushing and encourage sanitizing/whitewashing the less-then-savory aspects of their organization. Montanabw^(talk) 19:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay.. I see your point and I can see how that is irritating/annoying. I am trying to make things as balanced as possible. I am sorry for not doing a better job at that. I really am trying though. Hopefully over time I can prove that. I find its very hard though because I find that the other point of view, particularly from a few editors, is so extreme that its tough to come to a middle ground. When I have made edits that I find to be extremely balanced or reasonable, they have been reverted. I appreciate the criticism though and I'll also try not to ramble as much! Prasangika37 (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Prasangika37: If you see instances of what you call extreme POV pushing from the "other" side - point them out on this page. If you have a real case, then others will back you up. However you know that you potentially have a conflict of interest with Dorje Shugden / NKT articles. There has also been a long history of POV pushing by other NKT editors on these articles and a number have been blocked or banned - so people are always on the lookout for this happening again. So, if you make edits without any real endeavour to get a consensus first, other editors are likely to subject them to particular scrutiny. Please don't look upon this as a battle between Dorje Shugden believers and opponents - or as a place to spread the "truth" about Dorje Shugden and the NKT. I think most people want a good quality article based on reliable sources - and if everybody is reasonable and works in a cooperative manner this can be achieved. When editing articles sometimes you just need to put the goals of Wikipedia ahead of your own beliefs and opinions. Chris Fynn (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Cfynn: Don't you think its concerning when anything remotely favorable or positive about Dorje Shugden or practitioners of Dorje Shugden is removed? I would cite this constant reversion to be one example. Another example is using language like "Members of the cult... ", talking like it is some authoritative fact. This edit has been constantly put it in for the last 5-6 months.. And I don't see this as a battle between two groups.. There is hope that these pages will be balanced and neutral at some point and there are many different points of view present. I think it is clear, though, that there is some editing that is completely intransigent and unrelenting in its desire to promote Dorje Shugden and his followers in a negative light. That is what I am pointing out. Unfortunately there are people doing that in favor of Dorje Shugden too, and hopefully we can reach a point where theses articles don't have such issues. Prasangika37 (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's focus on content, people. NPOV is a pillar and it is a waste of time and bandwidth to endlessly debate the general concept or past edits. The applicable action here is simple WP:BRD. If an addition is especially likely to be controversial, then "D" (discuss) first. If we aren't proposing a specific edit or set of edits, then drop the stick. Montanabw^(talk) 01:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Merging would bring stability.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

37s keep changing the lead

Prasangika37 and Essence 37 keep changing the lead, introducing several errors:

• A minor protector is not a gyalpo. These are not synonymous.
• Dharmapalas are not necessarily Buddhas.
• Also all the usual POV and self-published sourcing issues.

Lastly, the lead was already very favorable to the NKT POV resulting in objections from CFynn.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

May have to shut down this article too. The other version of the lead is not that great either, but I see the problems with the sourcing and language issues. Montanabw^(talk) 22:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Follow up: I basically merged the two versions and tossed the selfpub sources. Let's see if that sticks. Montanabw^(talk) 22:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw:There is something funny going on with the lead.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: @Montanabw: What did VG just change after Montana's synthesis and lead change? Montana,a do you have an issue with the change VG has made or not? I am actually pretty comfortable with the lead as it is. I could see slight improvements from my POV but I think it would cause more editing madness or annoyance, so its not worth it. In the end, thanks a lot VG for crafting this style of the lead and Montana thanks for adjusting it slightly to make it more suitable. Prasangika37 (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I actually screwed up slightly because I copied and pasted in both versions, then edited one into the other, but forgot to delete the extra one. I've restored what I think I had intended to do, and then I will look at VG's last edit and her comments here to see if further tweaks are needed. I agree that the self-pub problems with the sourcing was a problem; generally you do not source things in the lead because it is supposed to summarize sourced material elsewhere in the article. Montanabw^(talk) 20:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for attention to this article and helpful feedback. I appreciate the lead version that you are presenting here. Prasangika37 (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The use of Ursula Bernis

Someone included again the unpublished paper by Ursula Bernis. Her paper was rejected by an academic publisher for publication after the expertise by two researchers were sought. Therefore her unpublished work should not be used for Wikipedia and especially not for such a controversial topic. See WP:RS . I deleted therefore the text and the quote by her. Waschi (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Worth noting

A series of articles on the topic, including an interview with the late brother of the Dalai Lama: http://www.tricycle.com/blog/dorje-shugden-deity-or-demon?page=24 For future research. Montanabw^(talk) 19:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dorje Shugden. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.nktworld.org/The%20New%20Kadampa%20Tradition%20and%20the%20Continuity%20of%20Tibetan%20Buddhism%20in%20Transition%20-%20compressed.pdf

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dorje Shugden. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120214190452/http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-04092007-003235/unrestricted/lgm_thesis.pdf to http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-04092007-003235/unrestricted/lgm_thesis.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130116143448/http://dalailama.com/messages/dolgyal-shugden/ganden-tripa/the-shugden-affair-i to http://dalailama.com/messages/dolgyal-shugden/ganden-tripa/the-shugden-affair-i

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) 03:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dorje Shugden. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131505122900/http://www.dalailama.com/messages/dolgyal-shugden/ganden-tripa/the-shugden-affair-i to http://www.dalailama.com/messages/dolgyal-shugden/ganden-tripa/the-shugden-affair-i
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131505122900/http://www.dalailama.com/messages/dolgyal-shugden/ganden-tripa/the-shugden-affair-i to http://www.dalailama.com/messages/dolgyal-shugden/ganden-tripa/the-shugden-affair-i
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131505122900/http://www.dalailama.com/messages/dolgyal-shugden/ganden-tripa/the-shugden-affair-i to http://www.dalailama.com/messages/dolgyal-shugden/ganden-tripa/the-shugden-affair-i
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150622002637/http://www.dalailama.com/messages/dolgyal-shugden/speeches-by-his-holiness/dharamsala-teaching to http://www.dalailama.com/messages/dolgyal-shugden/speeches-by-his-holiness/dharamsala-teaching

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) 14:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

But what do most Buddhists believe about Dorje Shugden?

I (an atheist, raised as a Christian) find this article odd. My (quite likely mistaken) view of Buddhism was that it is concerned with freeing people from attachment, and helping them to attain enlightenment, and that it is not concerned with beliefs in imaginary beings, angels, devils, evil spirits, bogeymen, and suchlike. But this article is about what appears to me to be an imaginary being. Do most Buddhists believe in the existence of Dorje Shugden? If they do, it needs to be stated in the article. Maybe it's only Tibetan Buddhists, or some of them, who believe in its existence – it still needs to be explained in the article. As it stands, the article is written as if Dorje Shugden is accepted by all Buddhists are a real being, without any evidence for this belief. Maproom (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Well Secular Buddhism as in the reference to not accepting the Supernaturalist parts of Buddhism like Devas, Rebirth and more! Is a recent phenomena. This has always been apart of Buddhism. Theravada Buddhists accept a world of Supernatural beings like Beings in the 6 Realms, Arahants, And in Myammar some accept the existence of Weizzas. And within Mahayana they accept the first two and they expect a multitude of more supernatural beings. Same with Vajrayana. But Buddhism since its inception has accepted the existence of supernatural beings. But this doesn't negate the main idea which is the cessation of suffering. Though Buddhists may accept a world of spiritual beings Cessation of suffering is still the main idea. Mooncrystal900 (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)