Talk:Dorje Shugden controversy/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Intro

Ok @CFynn: how about this:

The Dorje Shugden controversy is a controversy over the protector Dorje Shugden of the Gelug school, the newest of the schools of Tibetan Buddhism headed by the Dalai Lamas. It comprises Shugden's status of enlightenment, replacement of traditional Gelug protectors, sectarian functions and promotion by western adherents.

VictoriaGrayson (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Except for "promotion by western adherents", the sentence won't be understandable for most people. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson:I really appreciate the fact your suggestion is short, but I'd probably change it a bit to something more like:

The Dorje Shugden controversy is a controversy over the Tibetan Buddhist protector deity Dorje Shugden, mainly within Gelug school. Aspects of this controversy include whether Shugden is an enlightend being or a worldly spirit, replacement of traditional Gelug practices, sectarian functions, and protests against the Dalai Lama for restricting the practice — including by western adherents.

In the intro I'd avoid anything about the Gelugpa tradition being "headed by the Dalai Lamas" as some people will claim the DL is not the head. And since the DL has said he doesn't mind if the NKT practice DS, we can't really say "promotion by western adherents" is part of the issue - though obviously the protests, including those by western adherents, are.

I know it may be a difficult thing to achieve, but I'd suggest at least trying to get a consensus amongst the different people who have been editing this article recently. Otherwise we are likely to get into another interminable edit war and that just means a lot of time and effort simply gets wasted. Chris Fynn (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The protests against the Dalai Lama are to bring publicity to Shugden. See Robert Barnett of Columbia university. So I don't think your intro is factually accurate. I would rather keep JJ's introduction currently in use in the article. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Well I don't know what the motives of NKT / WSS leaders are, as I can't read their minds, and what Barnett says is an educated opinion (which might be used further down the article as one view of their motivation), not a fact in itself. I suspect many of the NKT / WSS footsoldiers actually sincerely believe what they say - so their motives may be different - though of course, even if their motives are pure and sincere, that doesn't mean they might not be deluded.

If you prefer to keep the intro the way it is for now - that's OK too. Chris Fynn (talk)

"Aspects" is much better than "it comprises"! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a relevant quote from Kay (p.43):

"As with his predecessors, the current Dalai Lama’s open and ecumenical approach to religious practice and his policy of representing the interests of all Tibetans equally, irrespective of their particular traditional affiliation, has been

opposed by disgruntled Gelugadherents of a more exclusive orientation. This classical inclusive/exclusive division has largely been articulated within the exiled Tibetan Buddhist community through a dispute concerning the status and nature of the protective deity Dorje Shugden."
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

"

The Dorje Shugden controversy is a controversy over the Tibetan Buddhist protector deity Dorje Shugden, mainly within Gelug school. Aspects of this controversy include whether Shugden is an enlightend being or a worldly spirit, replacement of traditional Gelug practices, sectarian functions, and protests against the Dalai Lama for restricting the practice — including by western adherents.

" is a suitable introductory paragraph from my point of view. I am thankful for this. We definitely should not include that the Dalai Lama is the head of the Gelugpa tradition, because he never has been. Its a political title. The Ganden Tripa is the head of the Gelugpas. See: Powers, John. "Gelukpa Tibetan Buddhism" entry in Melton, J. Gordon, and Martin Baumann. 2002. Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO. p. 533 and other sources. Prasangika37 (talk) 10:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, please, can someone remove the points that Dorje Shugden harms Gelugpa's and so on. This is just one view. That can be included later on as a 'criticism' of the practice, but not a reliable explanation that is a 'fact' about the practice. It is not a fact, as there are millions of Dorje Shugden practitioners across the world who would never assert that Dorje Shugden's function is to harm other traditions or to harm other practitioners. If this is included, it should say 'a criticism of Dorje Shugden is..' and 'Practitioners reply.. ' with the view that Dorje Shugden is an Enlightened being and has a function to help people with their Dharma practice, not to harm others (like is said in the Tricycle interview) Prasangika37 (talk) 12:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Trijang Rinpoche held that Shugden harms Gelugpas. See Kay or the Yellow Book. So this is a view of Shugden practitioners. Also there is no such thing as millions of Shugden practitioners.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson:As I pointed out above, the "Yellow Book" was written by Zeme Rinpoche and though it purports to be Trijang Rinpoche's words - there is no actual proof that it is. Incidentally Trijang Rinpoche gave some Nyingma initiations - including some from the terma of Chokgyur Lingpa - so it seems unlikely he really believed Shugden harmed Gelugpa's who practised Nyingma teachings. Chris Fynn (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

In addition, if someone views someone as a Buddha, they understand they can never do harm. Buddha's don't harm. If something appears in someone's life, it is just to benefit. So even if there was assertions of potential 'harm', in reality its like the story of Buddha himself killing a man who was going to kill 500 people in order to protect him. Geshe Kelsang explains very clearly "Some people believe that if Gelugpa practitioners practice Nyingma teachings, Dorje Shugden will harm them, but this is completely wrong. We never believe this. Impossible. Besides Dorje Shugden, there are many Tibetan stories of other dharmapalas killing people. There is even a lama called Ra Lotsawa who killed thirteen tantric masters including Tarma Dode, Marpa’s son. This is not just superstition. Many monasteries, maybe including Namgyal Dratsang (His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s private monastery), engage in the practice of Yamantaka that comes from Ra Lotsawa’s instructions. So shouldn’t they stop this practice because Lama Ra Lotsawa was a murderer? This would be meaningless. It is similar with Dorje Shugden, but there is no evidence of Dorje Shugden harming anyone. It is just superstition. For example, if a Gelugpa lama who practices Nyingma teachings has an accident, then some people think, “Oh, this is Dorje Shugden’s fault.” This is stupid. Then they write a book about these things, but this is not real evidence. However, Ra Lotsawa himself admitted that he killed other lamas who were tantric masters, but his teachings on Yamantaka are still being practiced in many monasteries." Prasangika37 (talk) 13:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC) http://www.tricycle.com/special-section/an-interview-with-geshe-kelsang-gyatso

At the very least, the intro should include that this view is not held by many Dorje Shugden practitioners, if not all, honestly. To just include one small angle is not NPOV and an inappropriate representation of the controversy.

Lastly, there are millions of Dorje Shugden practitioners. http://www.dorjeshugden.com/all-articles/news/400000-in-chatreng-sampheling-monastery/ There are 400,000 there alone. In Kham, there are many many more. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zACHCcyrfYs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasangika37 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no such thing as millions of Shugden practitioners. Resorting to Shugden material is proof of that.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 15:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantum62 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC) Hello, I'm Quantum 62! I'm new to this Wikipeadia game-I work as a Psychiatrist in the UK, and have an interest in Mindfulness. I've had contact with Theravadan Buddhism, the FPMT and the NKT. I'm also a bad speller-apologies in advance! I'm interested in politics in general, and this controversy is indeed a nexus of politics and Buddhism-piquing my curiosity! I must say the current version of this article seems very one-sided. I recall reading a previous version many months ago and it was far more balanced-what's changed?

I think its important to be balanced, for Wikipedia's credibility, for those who are interested in the topic, and also for relatives of people who are in the NKT, who may become very alarmed that their loved ones seem to have joined a cult! This page is about a controversy-which by definition means there must be at least broadly, two competing versions of events. As this page mainly gives one side, this page should more accurately be called, 'The Dorje Shugdan Controversy from the point of view of the Dalai Lama and his supporters'!!! Because its a controversy, a simple approach seems to be- a very nutral introduction-C. Flynn's one sounds ok, if a bit wordy, followed by a presentation of both POV's under each heading. It sounds like Prasangika 37 and Audrey 37 are in one camp, and Victoria Grayson and Joshua Jonathan are in the other one, with Chris Flynn a very knowledgable neutral. You all seem to know lots. So why dont both write a paragraph each, under each heading. People dont need to agree-thats why its a controversy, but both can feel that the view of their respective camp has been accurately portrayed.Quantum62 (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Quantum 62

Um, Quantum62, go read WP:MEATPUPPET, WP:TAGTEAM and WP:CANVASS. Whoever you are, it's clear you are not here as any kind of neutral observer, you are clearly here to tag-team with others. Montanabw^(talk) 03:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Pinging @Cullen328, Joshua Jonathan, CFynn, and Montanabw: Why always the '62' like Truthsayer62? Or the 37 like Essence37?VictoriaGrayson (talk) 04:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Same peergroup, I guess? Or even the same user, you're suggesting? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow-welcome to Wikipedia-like I said i'm new, and dont know all the rules and regulations-but i looked up those areas- i.e. meatpuppet, and tagteam-thank you Montanabw-its good to know, and I totally understand those policies-they seem eminently sensible-I had wondered how Wikipedia polices itself-it shows me they've ways to counter common problems. I'm not trying to affect concensus-you can lump me in whatever group u like! But your response does seem a little hostile-i read the WK:civility bit, it says:

editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. In order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates.

So, I think its fair that I can voice an opinion. Note I have made no attempt to edit the actual page, and hadn't planned to. I made a pretty obvious observation- i think i saw that C Flynn somewhere says the page is a mess-and I agree-and my suggestion was to have a neutral intro-a la C Flynn, and than have both sides tell their respective tales-i'm hardly lobbying for a tendentious version. I think we can all agree C Flynn seems fairly neutral and knowledgable about this issue, and Wiki-matters.

It sounds like the problem with meatpuppetry(that's a new word for my vocabulary-i thought they were that band that played with Nirvana on unplugged), is if many editors try to crowd out another voice-as they coallese to form an artifical majority. My suggestion was clearly that both sides have their say-so its obvious that i'm not trying to deny one side its say. I think Joshua, you may have somewhere said you were neutral, so apologies if i incorrectly ascribed you to the anti-shugdan group-but my point was that even if there is only one pro-DL voice, as this is a two sided controversy, both sides should have their say, to give rise to a balanced article. Can anyone honestly say that at present it is even-handed? So I'm clearly not trying to load the dice in one way. why do any of us get involved in such things? I suppose we all wanna effect our world in some way. I'm a WK:amature, (and a bad speller), and, as a pround Irishman-yes I do tend to side with the underdog, which at least in the present day, the shugdenpa's certainly seem to be, but can I not contribute if I have a certain reading of the situation? And I can pick 62 if I want to!!!!

So less heat, more forward-movement.

So to suggest something more constructive-can we use C. Flynn's intro? That matter seems to have stalled, and it seems everyone who offered an opinion was in favour of it, though i dont think Victoria offered an opinion-so can that one go up? OK, ideally u do the intro last, and maybe the sentences are a bit long, but thats also the most important bit- so does anyone object to it?Quantum62 (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Quantum62

Fixing Views of Shugden practitioners section and general issue with NPOV

I made some efforts to fix this section to actually explain the views of Shugden practitioners. When discussing this controversy, we should actually include the views of practitioners directly, not just someone like David Kay's opinions about practitioners. The article almost completely lacks the second side of the controversy, which is 1. the view of those who are protesting the ban 2. why they are protesting the ban in general 3. their defense. Therefore, I included some of this, but almost every section is going to need to be re-done to include this. It might be look like lots of editing, but remember that as of February this year, the page was 100% different for about 5 years. The current version is the new version, so the editing being done isn't doing something new. It is going back to what was consensus for 5 years. Finally, just to pre-empt any assertions, Heart Jewel is also >>not<< self-published, as it is published by Motilal Banarsidass, a major publisher in India. Prasangika37 (talk) 11:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The original publisher was Tharpa Publications - it seems the Motilal Banarsidass edition is a re-print for the Indian market. Not just Heart Jewel - they re-print most of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's books in editions for the Indian market without exercising any editorial control, presumably they have an agreement with Tharpa Publications to do this. I don't know what the arrangement is in this case, but if you want to publish a book on an Indology related subject, you can pay Motilal Banarsidass to publish it for you and they won't change a word. In this respect they are also sometimes a vanity publisher. BTW Motilal Banarsidass are also well known for publishing an Indian edition of Hitler's Mein Kampf[1] - so I wouldn't want to say that being published by them is an endorsement of a book's contents. Chris Fynn (talk) 10:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

To achieve NPOV try to use significant coverage in reliable sources originally published by a publisher that is independent of the subject - and has a reputation for fact checking. All claims should be underpinned by good quality independent sources. Non-independent reliable sources can be used for verifiability. Chris Fynn (talk) 05:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I can try to find other sources that say this in the same way, but if we can't find them then there is no problem in using what we have available. It is crucial to use these more primary sources here, as it explains a side of the controversy that is barely represented in the article. Publishing Mein Kampf is not a valid reason to establish that Publisher has problems. Prasangika37 (talk) 12:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Despite the comments of CFynn, myself etc. (see archives) Prasangika37 keeps replacing RS sources with nonRS sources.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi VictoriaGrayson. I am having trouble understanding your criticism, which seems to constantly be lobbied at me, while at the same time not responding to or discussing issues I have found with your behavior here. Could you cite some specific examples of your criticism instead of just pointing fingers at me? If its regarding Heart Jewel or the Tricycle article, both have been established by neutral editors Joshua Jonathan and Cullen328 that they are RS for this page. If there is an issue about removing things like Dodin, then you are free to discuss why its appropriate, but I think I pretty clearly explained why his point on Kadampa practitioners being a members of a cult is completely inappropriate for this article. Its really challenging for us to make efforts in improving this article if there are just accusations, but lack of discussion! Prasangika37 (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Merger Proposal — (Dorje Shugden controversy → Dorje Shugden)

I've proposed that this 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 it is evident that the Dorje Shugden controversy cannot properly be explained or understood without the context of the (various) explanations of the origin, history, and nature of this protector deity. The discussion for this merger proposal is at Talk:Dorje Shugden#Merger proposal.

This is just a notification. Any discussion of the the merger proposal should take place on the Talk:Dorje Shugden page. Chris Fynn (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Dorje Shugden Contoversy section

The first two sentences: "This conflict has led to criticism of the NKT-IKBU by many people loyal to the Dalai Lama. For example, Tibetologist Thierry Dodin claimed "The NKT can be described typologically as a cult on the basis of its organisational form, its excessive group pressure and blind obedience to its founder." seems to imply that Dondin is "loyal to the Dalai Lama". Is there any good verifiable evidence for this? And do any people or groups not loyal to the Dalai Lama criticise the NKT-IKBU over this? Chris Fynn (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Vivas

It's interesting to read a critical source on the Dalai Lama (it's also interesting that the pdf has been shared by a Chinese organisation [2]), but the way quotations from this soutce have been used is unacceptable. First mention is made of several talks by the Dalai Lama in 2009, 2008 and 2005. The France 24 is cited:

"France 24 explained the procedure behind the exiled sage’s decision to “firmly condemn the Shugden movement and its followers.”"

Where-after Vivas comments:

"This blacklisting had concrete effects: accomplices of His Holiness spoke out in the street to condemn their brothers and sisters, who began to suffer serious discrimination in their daily lives. Public notices informed them that they were no longer welcome in certain places. According to one Tibetan living in a village in South India, every door was closed to him and the other members of his community. In just a few months, these deviants had been banished by a community that is generally assumed to be welcoming because it is Buddhist. France 24 drove home the point: “The Shugden monks can no longer enter stores, public spaces or even hospitals. In the streets, you can see portraits of their leaders posted on walls, like outlaws.”"

When did accomplishes speak out? How often? With how much impact? "Public notices": where, when? 1970's? 2000's? This "information" is very vague, and unverifiable; as it is, it's rhetorics, not information. What's more, the way it's being interpolated in the Wiki-article suggests that this blacklisting happened after the request of the Dalai Lama to Dorje Shugden practitioners not to participate in nhis initiations; apparently this is not what Vivas writes.
I think it's good also to give the opinions of Dorje Shugden-practitioners, but please, try better thatn this. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a nonreliable, self-published source I think.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

If you have problems with source, then we must look into Bultrini's essentially self-published text (as its a book supported by Robert Thurman and his own publishing company). He is also a journalist who makes claims of these sorts. Is there anything you can use to say that this information that is being passed on is false? Vagueness doesn't make something false? Prasangika37 (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

No, its not the same thing. See CFynn here and also here.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Prasangika37:If you have read Bultrini's book you'd know that he devotes quite a number of pages to an interview with Kundeling Rinpoche, there is an interview with Gangchen Rinpoche, and quite a long one with a person who was the personal secretary of the late Trijang Rinpoche for 30 years. There is also a very detailed account of the occasion when the Dalai Lama invoked the oracle of Shugden when he was fleeing Tibet. It is not all one sided as you seem to imagine. Chris Fynn (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@CFynn: I am curious why that makes the source qualitatively different than Vivas? Is there a rule that says one journalist is more valuable than others? What makes Vivas an unacceptable source? And even more so, how are his claims any less vague or unsubstantiated as the claims you and others support in this article that Dorje Shugden practitioners are part of a cult of some sort? Or that there is a secret Chinese conspiracy? I don't see @Joshua Jonathan:'s as valid in establishing that this source doesn't work at all. Where on Wikipedia does it say vague = not credible? Prasangika37 (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Prasangika37:Just having a read over this and no conclusive reasons have been given that Vivas is an inappropriate source, so I'll be quoting from him again, and would suggest it is fine for other editors to use this book. Audrey37 (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Audrey37:A difference between Bultrini and Vivas is that Bultrini has worked for decades as a journalist for a major mainstream newspaper - the French writer and novelist Vivas hasn't. Bultrini spent several years researching his book which is focused on the Dorje Shugden controversy - the topic if this article so it id directly relevant. Vivas' book appears to be hastily put together - there is no evidence of careful research or balance - it is focused on criticising the Dalai Lama's politics and conditions in pre-Communist Tibet - and seems to mirror the official Chinese party line. In Vivas the Shugden controversy is mentioned only in passing, so very little is relevant to this article. He does talk about the situation of Tibetan Shugden worshippers in South India but is there any evidence he ever went there or conducted interviews? Did Vivas conduct any interviews or talk to the Dalai Lama, his representatives or those of the CTA who he criticizes. Bultrini conducted extensive interviews with people on both sides of the Shugden controversy as well as with the Indian police and other neutral sources.

Most things in Bultrini's book can be backed up by other independent good quality sources - and he has published a lot of the interview material in the mainstream Italian press (though of course in Italian). It would certainly be useful to back up quotes or citations from Bultrini with citations from other good quality sources.

IMO there is a big difference between the Bultrini and Vivas books in quality, depth of research, relevance and balance.

Bultrini's book was published by Tibet House which, as has been pointed out is associated with the Dalai Lama, Thurman and the CTA - I've talked to Bultrini about his book and in no way it seems did they pay him to write the book or for the research etc. - though obviously Tibet House approve of the contents overall otherwise they wouldn't have published it.

In 2010 Vivas went to Tibet on a trip paid for by the Chinese TAR government and afterwards wrote a glowing report rather different from the reports written by professional journalists writing for mainstream newspapers. The PDF of Vivas' book is available on http://en.showchina.org/ which appears to be a state controlled site (propaganda organisation?). His publisher Long River Press / Sinomedia International is owned by International Publishing Group, Beijing a state owned organisation. The Chinese seem to have had the Vivas book translated into several languages including Tibetan and Chinese. Anyway the PRC Government obviously approve of the Vivas book too.

Chris Fynn (talk) 07:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanations. They are helpful in understanding that Bultrini's work seems to be of a superior quality. BUT, Where in Wikipedia policy do these aspects make Vivas's work categorically unacceptable to be used? It does seem that Bultrini's is better overall as you have explained, but is there a line that divides both works? Where Vivas is on one side and Bultrini is on the other? Also, being associated with Chinese things or having some Chinese support should not be a reason to make something inaccurate or invalid. As you said very clearly, Bultrini's book is published by Tibet House and we allow Robert Thurman quotes here. If we are worried about bias, then we would need to look at all of those aspects. Finally, Its not like his accusations are unique. There are thousands of people across the world with very similar accusations, and interviews with people directly saying the same thing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1R_Fjn-zZc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZrCY9SQJx8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaxXinP57uI&list=UU3yxNL8S1mBBmLPsTJGqhAA for a view examples. Prasangika37 (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Um, let's start with WP:FRINGE, also WP:RS and WP:V. The modern NKT has most of the earmarks of a cult. Vivas is clearly not a RS by any objective criteria. Compare this to things like creation science, very similar examples of poor quality sources that do not pass the RS test. Montanabw^(talk) 19:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Hi, @VictoriaGrayson: checked on the RS board to see if Long River Press was a reliable publishing company and it was found it was from their academic wing. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia/Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Long_River_Press Any comments on that ?? Looks like Vivas is fine, then. Especially in comparison with Dodin and Bultrini. And WP:FRINGE is not an appropriate assertion here. See WP:WEIGHT . The issue is about a controversy and it would be undue weight to not include both sides. Establish the source is unreliable and we can not include it, but until then I think its quite obvious it works. Also it seems you are quite focused on this cult issue...I didn't even mention it there and it got brought up. Lets try to focus on the issues at hand, please. This isn't about fighting one side or the other and the Dorje Shugden Controversy isn't just about the NKT, as CFynn has pointed out in many areas. There are far more Dorje Shugden practitioners outside the NKT than inside. Prasangika37 (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

See the lengthy comments of CFynn, Joshua Jonathan and Montanabw above. Vivas is not fine. Vivas is not reliable.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi. Why did you delete my edits on discriminatin that Dorje Shugden worshippers are experiencing? The sources are the Dalai Lama's website, the website for the CTA, and a television company. Are these unacceptable sources? Where in Wkipedia should this discrimination be explained if not in this entry? Thanks March22nd (talk) 08:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Reply by JJ: Lead:

"Tibetans who worship Dorje Shugden have experienced discrimination including being banned from entering shops in Tibetan settlements in India , being banned from joining the Tibetan Youth Congress , and having their photograph and details put on the website for the Central Tibetan Administration ."

The lead is supposed to summarize the article; the actual text you added to the article is as follows:

"Discrimination Against People Who Worpship Dorje Shugden

Religious discrimination has been described as 'Religious discrimination occurs when you are treated less favourably than someone else because of your religion, your philosophical belief or lack of religion or belief.'

The Tibetan Youth Congress said in 1997-

8. If anyone in the youth congress membership is found as still worshipping Dholgyal that member will be immediately expelled from Tibetan Youth Congress membership;

9. This congress will also urge all other Tibetan organizations not to enroll anyone into their membership who venerates and worships (this native Tibetan Buddhist deity) Dholgyal.'

A 2009 documentary on Al Jazeera shows a Buddhist monk not being allowed to enter a shop in a Tibetan community in India because he is a Shugden worshiper. The shop has a sign in the window saying 'No Shugden worshippers allowed'. The owner said she has taken an oath not to have anything to do with Shugden people.

In 2014 The Central Tibetan Administration put on it's website pictures and details of Tibetans who attended protests outside talks given by the Dalai Lama.

• The text you've added to the lead repeats the text you added to the article; that's not a summary;
• Your point is "Tibetans who worship Dorje Shugden have experienced discrimination", where-after you give a definition of what discrimination is, followed by three "instances" you've picked; that's WP:OR

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi.

How should we summarise in the introduction the discrimination that people who worship Dorje Shugden experience?

It's not original research, it's information taken from the website for the Dalai Lama, the website for the Central Tibetan Authority, and an international television company.

Does any editor of this page think we should have a separate article on Wikipedia called 'Discrimination Against People Who Worship Dorje Shugden'? How do you set up a new page?

Thanks March22nd (talk) 11:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page for the Dalai Lama uses the Dalai Lama's website as a source of information. Is it Original Research when this website is used for this article but not for the Dalai Lama article? ThanksMarch22nd (talk) 11:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Response by JJ: I took a look at the webpage of the CTA; it gave me a very unpleasant feeling to see this list. I think we can add a link to these pages in the article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@March22nd:The lead should be a brief overview of the subject. IMO this would best limited to a few short sentences which everyone can live with. All the particulars and details can be put further down in the article. There is no need to try and cram a summary of every thing into the lead. As it is the lead is already far too long.

Things like the alleged discrimination against Shugden worshipers and alleged violence by some Shugden worshippers against others can be included in the body of the article - but we need to use very good sources for things like this - such as news reports from reputable newspapers and news agencies with a solid reputation for fact checking. There are a lot of unsubstantiated claims and counter claims flying. YouTube videos which can easily be edited and manipulated and partisan websites are generally not reliable sources.

We also need to include something about the separation of the sections of Sera Mey and Drepung monasteries in India that continue to worship Shugden and are now functioning (and apparently flourishing) as independent monasteries. Chris Fynn (talk) 04:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: I think the lead section needs to be short and concise. It currently isn't. Yes the list with "mug shots" on the CTA site is creepy. If the Dalai Lama's people are trying to maintain the high moral ground — they lost it there. Stuff like this is pretty troubling too - and there are things like that all over the web. The POV pushing related to this controversy on Wikipedia, and it sometimes comes from both sides, is pretty tame by comparison. Chris Fynn (talk) 04:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Robert Barnett (director of the Modern Tibetan Studies program at Columbia University) says: "Shugden practitioners in the Tibetan exile community have faced persecution". And he says the Dalai Lama’s administration hasn’t dealt with that very well. — Source: quoted by Matthew Bell Breakaway Buddhists take aim at the Dalai Lama PRI (Public Radio International) 2014-10-31. But Barnett has also said "the Western Shugden group's allegations are problematic: they are akin to attacking the Pope because some lay Catholics somewhere abuse non-believers or heretics. The Western Shugden Group is severely lacking in credibility, since its form of spirit-worship is heterodox, provocative and highly sectarian in Buddhist terms and so more than likely to be banned from mainstream monasteries – while its claimed concerns about cases of discrimination in India should be addressed by working within the Tibetan community instead of opportunistically attacking the Dalai Lama in order to provoke misinformed publicity for their sect."[3] — Chris Fynn (talk) 08:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Cleaned up Yellow Book section

This section is noncontroversial, and I deleted much primary material from the Dalai Lama. So noone should have no problem with it.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

You also removed my reworking of the lead, wothout mentioning this. I'm getting fed-up with these mass-revertions; why am I working on this article if only one person's version seems to be acceptable? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Not only incorrect, but ironic as well.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know to which version, but with this edit you reverted back to an older version of the article, where-after you continued with your own edits. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Another lead suggestion

How about something like this:

The Dorje Shugden contoversy is a contoversy surrounding the Tibetan Buddhist protector deity Dorje (or Dolgyal) Shugden, about which there have been differing views since the 17th century and which became prominent and expanded during the lifetime of the 13th Dalai Lama and his contemporary Phabongkha Dechen Nyingpo.

The controversy re-surfaced again within the Tibetan exile community in India following the publication of a provocative Tibetan language book about this deity in the 1970's and the subsequent reactions to that book. In 1976 the Dalai Lama became involved when he started advising Tibetans against the worship of this entity - statements which have become increasingly stronger over subsequent years, and which the minority who continue to worship Shugden regard as a virtual ban on the practice. They also allege that these statements by the Dalai Lama have led to discrimination by religious authorities, agencies of the Central Tibetan Administration and to their ostracism by some followers of the Dalai Lama.

In 19__ this controversy first came to wider attention following demonstrations held against the Dalai Lama by mostly western followers of lamas promoting the worship of Shugden which were widely reported in the western media.

There are various views about the underlying reasons for this ongoing controversy which some academics regard as part of a long standing power struggle between conservative and liberal factions within the Gelug tradition to which the Dalai Lama belongs, or as an attempt by the Dalai Lama to encourage unity amongst the various Tibetan religious traditions - but opponents claim is an attempt to control them. There are also allegations that this controversy is being stirred up or manipulated by agencies of the Government of China in order to discredit the Dalai Lama and divide opposition to Chinese rule in Tibet.

Chris Fynn (talk) 06:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Also very long - the whole text, but also the sentences. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes it could certainly do with some copy editing both to trim down the size and to make it more readable. But how about the content? I tried to gove the different POV's - without getting into too much specific detail. Actually bending over backwards to make sure that the pro-Shugden views are mentioned and they are not offended - Otherwise the lead will never remain stable. Chris Fynn (talk) 07:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I prefer Joshua Jonathan's introduction to CFynn's.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 17:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I find this to be the best one offered thus far between yourself and VictoriaGrayson. Thank you for spending your time with it CFynn..It shows a very reasonable side to you. I would be largely happy with it. There are a few points of contention, particularly it becoming prominent with Phabongka, but I would much rather work with that than the current one. Can we see this instituted for now? This would save us all a lot of time with editing and re-editing the lead, as that seems like it won't be ending any time soon if the leads keep being so extreme in either direction. Hopefully other editors could get behind it. You have my support. Prasangika37 (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Prasangika37:There is certainly evidence of the practice before the 20th Century - but afaik none for it being widespread or prominent before Phabongka. Chris Fynn (talk) 09:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Prasangika37, CFynn, and Joshua Jonathan: Hi there Chris et al. Just been having a read through this intro Chris has written and I really think this is something we can work with now. Thank you Chris for taking the time to work on this. Any objections to me inserting this and we work on this new lead (with 1996 as the missing date)? It is much better than the current lead, which is obscure and sounds a bit weird to be honest. Cheers Audrey37 (talk) 23:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi all, I'm still trying to understand how all this works - anyway, I've been following for some time and tho I don't fully agree, I think this lead is the best so far and may bring an end to the constant total re-edits. I'd be happy to go with this (sorry I don't know how to sign off correctly and add 'talk' - I hope this is sufficient). (Essence37) 11:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Good to see some mutual agreement. Nevertheless, the sentences are still much too long. Most readers of Wikipedia won't be academics, right? (Unless "most readers of Wikipedia" are actually Wikipedia-editors...). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not too long, though my position is that what's there now also has some merit, though some of the phrasing above might enhance the lead. I like the first sentence, and maybe it could be added prior to the existing lead. Personally I like to get the body of the article squared away and redo the "lede" last so that you don't find yourself rewriting it a half-dozen times. A proper lede should summarize the rest of the article and thus it ideally doesn't need any footnotes because all facts stated are cited elsewhere in the article. That said, I agree the article is in abysmal style and the lead exemplifies this. One other thing I am seeing here is an implication that the Dorgje Shugden stuff is part and parcel of the Gelug tradition, when it is merely a spinoff from Gelug or, put differently, a dissident (maybe "exclusivist" or even "fundamentalist" - for lack of a better word) branch of Gelug. Montanabw^(talk) 07:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Monbanabw Isn't that part of the route of the controversy - that some people believe it to be a 'spinoff' when others consider it part of mainstream Gelug practice? Is that not why Chris Fynn has said in this new intro that there are 'differing views'? (Essence37) 18:53, 21 August 2014 (EST)

@Monbanabw Dorje Shugden practice has been mainstream for years. The Dalai Lama's own representative even explains this in this short video from May this year. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=E_1GiguRq1A

Since the Dalai Lama also engaged in the practice of Shugden until he was in his forties, before breaking away from this practice, in my opinion it would be much more accurate to describe the Dalai Lama as creating a spinoff from the traditional Gelug practice - especially since he now mixes his teachings with science, secular ethics and even Marxism (I kid you not). If this is not a spin off from traditional Gelug practice I honestly do not know what is. But most people don't view it in this way simply because he is an well known political leader, so he can get away with it.

In reality all Dorje Shugden practitioners have done is continue with their age-old practices (without mixing them with other traditions as the Dalai Lama now advocates) for which they are accused of all sorts of bizarre things. Audrey37 (talk) 09:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I like Joshua Jonathan's introduction which is the currently used introduction in the article.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 07:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson I'm sorry - I don't think the current intro is neutral, and so not acceptable (Essence37) 18:54, 21 August 2014 (EST)

OK. I have added CFynn's lead as there seems to be consensus that this is a good start. Hope we can go forward with this article in a constructive way now. Audrey37 (talk) 09:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

You've got a funny understanding of "concensus". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you... I think! Joshua - What support is there for the lead you are reverting to? It is clear from the above that CFynn's lead is a good starting point, so please, let's concentrate on improving this for now. I honestly think it is worth giving this approach a shot. Otherwise we'll spend all our time on the talk page. Audrey37 (talk) 09:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I strongly prefer this intro that CFynn has concocted as opposed to the previous one. I think its a fair explanation and includes the desired elements of the controversy. Prasangika37 (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

OK - can we go ahead and add CFynn's new intro now? Essence37 (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

No, we can't, as is clear from the administrator-intervention. And we've got a month to reach concencus, so, where's the bar (to get us some non-alcoholic beaverages.
Basically Chris and I are communicating the same summary. My points are:

1. His sentences are too long (and that's nothing personally against you, Chris; I remember a paper I wrote; the prof had to read it two times to get through it). Imagine (here they comes again) a 17-year old High School kid, who's been seeing some news-item, and wondered why Buddhists are protesting against this friendly old man. They find the Wiki-article, and start to read "The Dorje Shugden contoversy is a contoversy surrounding the Tibetan Buddhist protector deity Dorje (or Dolgyal) Shugden, about which there have been differing views since the 17th century and which became prominent and expanded during the lifetime of the 13th Dalai Lama and his contemporary Phabongkha Dechen Nyingpo." Duh? Can you summarize that, and make your point in a tweet? Kid thinks "Now what is the controversy about? What's a protector deity? What..." - the kid's off, leaving the article for what it is.

• Start with a definition! What is the controversy about?!? Mills

"Dorje Shugden was evoked especially as a protector of the purity of the Gelug order and the monastic discipline of its founder Tsongkhapa.[4]"

• Sources: I've tried to construct all (most) sentences based on souces, which are being used in the article. Not that Chris' approasal doesn't reflect reliable sources (it does, I guess), but I've done so explicitly.
• Montana may be right: if the lead is to summarize the article, then we first have to agree about the article. And for that, it may be wise to make a clear distinction between the basic facts, and the opinions - and maybe remove a lot of the opinions.

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Joshua JonathanThank you for this clarity, I see your points... I will put on my thinking cap and sip on my non-alcoholic beverage. Thanks for the guidance, any ideas Chris?. Essence37 (talk) 09:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Ban

For the pro-Shugden party: according to the Dalai Lama c.s., there is no ban. Are there WP:RS which do state that there is a "ban"? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Ultimately all their "sources" for a ban boil down to:

1. A self-published book "Buddha's Not Smiling" written by a random guy

2. Misrepresenting reference - Martin Mills says "suppression of the Shugden sectarian movement". Not practice.

3. Misrespresenting reference - Man, Monk, Mystic actually quotes the Dalai Lama as saying "However, everyone is completely free to say....we have religious freedom....we will not change our tradition of propitiating Dolgyal". pg. 194.

4. A 1996 newspaper article that is referenced by Helen Waterhouse in 2001.

5. Shugdenist made translations of the Dalai Lama's Tibetan speech.

6. etc.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 07:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

That they allege there is a ban is certainly verifiable. Also it is evident the western pro-Shugden camp believe (or have been told) there is a ban - or what effectively amounts to a ban. There is a prohibition within the major Gelug religious institutions in India - put in place by the leaders of those institutions after a vote. And then there is the whole semantic argument about which Tibetan words the Dalai Lama has actually used and whether or not those terms are properly translated into English as "ban". Chris Fynn (talk) 07:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

They should explain how the Dalai Lama controls the government of India.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 07:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Well we can say that some Shugden supporters claim there is a ban and some of the Dalai Lama supporters claim there isn't. There are plenty of verifiable sources that both these claims have been made. Wikipedia is not here to adjudicate the "truth" of either of those claims. Chris Fynn (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

No ban? Really? Thousands of people protesting againgst a non-existent ban? Check out this for starters http://tptusa.org/documented-evidence-of-the-ban Cheers Kjangdom (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kjangdom: Please give secondary sourcing on how the Dalai Lama controls the government of India.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 22:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The word 'ban' is used to describe the... ban... on the DL's own website: Check it out, point 7. http://www.dalailama.com/.../dolgyal-shugden/tyc-resolution Kjangdom (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you claim the Dalai Lama controls the Indian government or not?VictoriaGrayson (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Check out Martin Mills (2009), 'Charting the Shugden interdiction in the Western Himalaya' p261, where the ban is mentioned Kjangdom (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Not really. And it does not say the Dalai Lama controls the Indian government. Also it says specifically that Dolgyal was viewed as a Nonenlightened protector by the Gelugpas. Do you have any reliable secondary sources which explain how the Dalai Lama controls the Indian government?VictoriaGrayson (talk)

Let me put it like this, if it was commonly known and accepted that eating sweets was banned at a particular school, and that those who ate sweets were looked down upon, ridiculed or were suitable targets for bullying, violence etc would you insist on obtaining evdience that the Headteacher at this school controlled the government where this school was located? Of course not.

Regardless of what word you use to describe the ban (edict, prohibition etc), the truth is that the Dalai Lama's forceful opposition to this peaceful practice (I know it is peaceful because I've done it for the past 11 years) results in great suffering. Only he has the power to lift the ban, because he is the one who banned the practice and because he is the most powerful person in the Tibetan government. The Tibetan government and Tibetan people strive to fulfil the wishes of the Dalai Lama. If they believe that he wants them to ostracize and harm Shugden practitioners, they will do this out of a combination of fear and blind faith. One word from him and the ostracization against Shugden practitioners would stop. Kjangdom (talk) 23:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kjangdom and VictoriaGrayson:Can't something about the "ban" be put in a form of words that both of you can accept? Can you two try to look for a middle way here. VictoriaGrayson is using the legalistic argument Thurman used in an interview. This amounts to: "Even if the Dalai Lama announced a 'ban' on the the practice it would be unenforceable because he holds no legal authority so he can't actually ban it." Most of the prohibitions have actually been put in place by the CTA, TYC, TWA, and the people in charge of various Gelug monasteries, not directly by the Dalai Lama ~ and those people can legally enforce such a prohibition only within institutions they are legally in charge of - and they are not allowed to break any Indian law while doing so. Kjangdom, the Dalai Lama is no longer in the Tibetan government - so you can't say "he is the most powerful person in the Tibetan government" though obviously he has a huge amount of influence. You say "The Tibetan government and Tibetan people strive to fulfil the wishes of the Dalai Lama" and all he has to do is "say one word". I've lived amongst Tibetans for over 40 years - what these groups do is strive to exhibit their devotion and loyalty to the Dalai Lama (and they see ostracising Shugden supporters as one way of doing this) - but they certainly don't listen to everything he says. The Dalai Lama always teaches not to use violence or harm others - but certainly some violent incidents have occurred. The Dalai Lama has said he believes the practice of relying on Shugden is generally bad and harmful - if he believes this, how can he turn around and say it isn't? Ordinary Tibetans can practice whatever they want and now Serpom and Shar Ganden, etc. have re-constituted themselves as separate monasteries Shugden monks have a place to continue with all their rituals and studies too. That is not going to remove the hostility some Tibetans demonstrate towards them - but, left alone, things would likely eventually die down. IMO all the pro Shugden / anti-Dalai Lama sites and demonstrations (mostly led and produced by westerners) do is upset the majority of Tibetans and fan the fires of this dispute.

Getting back to this article, I think it can say the Dalai Lama has said he believes this practice is harmful, advised Tibetans to stop it, and forbidden those who continue the practice to attend initiations he gives. Subsequently the monastic authorities of Sera, Drepung, Ganden etc prohibited the worship of Shugden in those institutions - and the CTA, TYC etc have passed various resolutions (which can be outlined). Some Shugden supporters claim that some of these regulations amount to discrimination against them. The article can also say that following the Dalai Lama's pronouncements Shugden supporters have been ostracised by many in the Tibetan community - at least this much has all been reported in good verifiable sources which can be cited.

Chris Fynn (talk) 06:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

" (I know it is peaceful because I've done it for the past 11 years)". This statement by Kjangdom is indicative of POV pushing by an editor who seems dedicated to portraying his religious faction in the best possible light, instead of making neutral improvement of the encyclopedia the highest priority here. Hint: determination to portraying Shugden worship in the best possible light is appropriate for pro-Shugden websites, but not for a neutral encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Kjangdom Hmmm yes lets please make sure we can be as neutral as possible, not just presenting the controversy as a strictly one-sided negative thing induced by the Dalai Lama's actions regarding this practice. We have to include what makes this a controversy: One side alleging his actions are effectively a ban, harmful, and that the practice of Dorje Shugden is intended to be peaceful and positive. The other side seems to be proposing that there isn't a ban, the practice has issues inherent in it, and that particularly there is harm as a result. I don't see that its a problem that KJangdom has been involved or has a strong opinion, but he needs to make sure that there isn't whitewashing of the issue in either direction. Currently, the article I think is being whitewashed in the opposite direction, making it not very encyclopaedic, so I appreciate some of these edits, personally. Prasangika37 (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: Victoriagrayson - here is some interesting reading for you on this point you raised above from an article I found online (I'd recommend reading the whole thing to get the full picture, it ain't long). Hope you find it helpful.

http://kadamemanation.com/my-words-are-the-law

"Though refugee Tibetans come under the jurisdiction of the democratic laws of India, owing to the peculiar history of Tibet since the 1600’s it is de facto the Dalai Lama’s words which are “The Law” for ordinary Tibetan people. Since the 5th Dalai Lama’s lifetime political power and religious authority have been mixed together in a toxic soup resulting in grotesque distortions of Buddha Shakyamuni’s teachings – the Dharma...

In the modern world there is no equivalent phenomenon to be found; this Dalai Lama has held the same political position for 74 yrs since being enthroned “god-king” at the age of five. Although he nominally resigned as political leader three years ago, not a single resolution is passed by CTA that is against his wishes.

This unique situation allows the Dalai Lama to say on the one hand, “Shugden is a spirit…it is spirit worship not Buddhism”, in full knowledge that his own people will take his words as a matter of law and thereby practise this “law”, taking this “law” into their own hands, and punishing anybody who opposes it.

On the other hand, the Dalai Lama can also say, “But this is just my personal view – people are free to believe and practise what they like, they have religious freedom”, knowing that this apparent liberal attitude makes him appear as simply offering spiritual advice." Kjangdom (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kjangdom: (now Audrey37)You can't blame the Dalai Lama for the position he holds (he was chosen as an infant), nor for the very real reverence and faith in which the Tibetan people have in him - based partly on that position, tradition and history but also on his teachings and leadership during his life - and the fact that he has become the symbol and embodiment of their hopes and cause. If the Dalai Lama believes the practice of Shugden worship to do more harm than good, particularly when practised by ordinary monks and laypeople, do you want him to say nothing? Chris Fynn (talk) 17:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I think the problem is that he has said the Dorje Shugden practice harms his and Tibet but hasn't given any evidence for this. It's also quite an inflammatory thing to say which has had a negative effect on Tibetians. And it's not only what he's said but what the CTA has done, such as encouraging Tibetians to take a vow not to have anything to do with Tibetians who are Dorje Shugden Buddhist. ThanksMarch22nd (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@March22nd: But the article can say that the DL says he believes the practice harms himself and Tibet (or whatever precisely he did say). There is no requirement that Dalai Lama provided evidence for his statement for the article to report that is what he said - so long as we can verify that he said it. Similarly if we report things Shugden worshippers have claimed there is no requirement that they provided proof of those claims as long as we say it is what they claim and we can verify that they said it. Of course a Wikipedia article shouldn't endorse such claims from either side. As for inflammatory statements some Shugden worshippers have also said many inflammatory and provocative things which I'm sure hurt the majority of Tibetans who believe in the Dalai Lama. Chris Fynn (talk) 07:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kjangdom and Audrey37: Since you've come up with a decent source (Mills) I think we might say he mentions a ban, but we'd probably need to say right beside that that Thurman claims there isn't a ban. There are verifiable sources for both of these things. It is not up to this article to judge whether Mills or Thurman is right. Chris Fynn (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Mills doesn't say there is a ban.VictoriaGrayson talk 19:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

VictoriaGrayson - Check out Martin Mills (2009), 'Charting the Shugden interdiction in the Western Himalaya' p261, where the ban is mentioned. Thank you :) Audrey37 (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Please quote it.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Audrey37 and VictoriaGrayson: - Yes, if he did mention it, we should have a proper citation, including page number, if we are going to use it - so that it can be verified and so people can check whether it is not something taken out of context. Chris Fynn (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@CFynn: Chris - I guess you missed it above (it has already been mentioned twice before in this section), but here it is again Martin Mills (2009), 'Charting the Shugden interdiction in the Western Himalaya' p261, Have a look and see if you think this section will improve the article. I can email you the whole article if you like? It's pretty interesting. Audrey37 (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Mills uses the word "interdiction". The word "ban" is being used one time, in a quote:

"However, the overwhelming view at this time was that, if the people of the region were forced to decide between their links to the Dalai Lama and their links to Dorje Shugden, there was little in it: one always chose the lama over the deity, especially when it was the Dalai Lama. This, however, was a decision that Ladakhis did not want to have to make. In this sense, particularly in the period between 1996-7, there was a strong hope by many that ‘the ban would not come here’. A crucial part of this view was the wish not to attract attention on the matter, and I was requested by almost every person I met not to write on the matter until the issue had resolved itself."

See http://info-buddhism.com/Dorje_Shugden_Western_Himalaya_Martin_Mills_2009.html
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. It does not say there is a ban.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 06:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone have a source that says the Dalai Lama controls the Indian government?VictoriaGrayson (talk) 06:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kjangdom: / Audrey37 Panel talk at SOAS on Dorje Shugden - Martin Mills:

1h:47m "The Dalai Lama does not have the power to ban Shugden"

1h:49m "Protector deities are political. They have been in Tibetan history for ever"

1h:52m "The manner in which this dispute has been carried out by both sides has been counter productive to the goals of both."

Chris Fynn (talk) 22:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

McCune and Chandler are reliable?

I don't even think these are PhD level works.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 08:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

McCune is an MA thesis - but it is of a high standard. She was supervised by Bryan Cuevas - and acknowledges help from E. Gene Smith, Kurtis Schaeffer, and Christopher Bell - all of whom are knowledgeable about the subject. She mainly deals with the supposed connection between Shugden and Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen. Chris Fynn (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Too much prominence given to GKG and NKT?

Is too much weight or importance being given in this and the Dorje Shugden article to Geshe Kelsang Gyatso and the NKT? While Kelsang Gyatso may be the most prominent advocate for Shugden in the west, there is no evidence that amongst Tibetan and other Asian Gelugpas he is more than a very minor, though now seemingly quite a notorious, religious figure.

Kelsang Gyatso has virtually no Tibetan followers, and very few read his books. The Tibetans who continue to practice Shugden all follow other lamas, whose views of Shugden may differ substantially from those Geshe Kelsang Gyatso teaches to his western flock. The rituals and prayers to Shugden Tibetan Shugden worshippers use are not the same as those used by the NKT.

Kelsang Gyatso and the NKT may be important to the western aspect of this controversy, but then no one has ever claimed the Dalai Lama has prohibited westerners from worshipping Shugden. Is the western aspect of the controversy what is important? While Kelsang Gyatso may be most prominent living advocate of Shugden in the west, there are certainly other more prominent and higher ranked lamas in India and Tibet who continue to advocate this practice

Some of these other lamas frown on the pro-Shugden / anti Dalai Lama tactics being used in the west as they think these only give them a bad name and cause them more problems. Several have publicly more or less told western Shugden advocates to go away and leave them alone.

We now have this in the lead section:

The controversy was further developed by the breakaway of Kelsang Gyatso and his New Kadampa Tradition from the Gelugpa-school in 1991, considering his own organization as the true continuation of the "pure" teachings of Je Tsongkhapa.

Is the prominence given in the lead justified? The breakaway of Shar Ganden monastery from Ganden and Serapom from Sera Mey along with important lamas connected to those institutions are probably far more significant to the real controversy and constitute far more of a significant schism in the Gelug tradition. (It also seems rather odd that the NKT seems to have little real connection with those Shugden monasteries.) While the NKT may like Wikipedia readers to get the impression that the NKT is the flagship of Shugden worship and 'the true continuation of the "pure" teachings of Je Tsongkhapa' I think there is little evidence that it is particularly representative of Shugden worshippers views outside of their own group. I think we need to be careful of giving the NKT and the particular views of Kelsang Gyatso too much weight or prominence or Wikipedia may end up contributing to their agenda rather than giving a truly balanced account. Perhaps some of the details about their part in the Shugden controversy and their particular views on Shugden should be in the NKT / Western Shugden Society articles rather being over emphasised here. Chris Fynn (talk) 08:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi CFynn, I think its accurate that the NKT isn't the only point of view of worship of Dorje Shugden, but I am curious if you have statistics or facts about there not being a relationship between Dorje Shugden practicing-monasteries and the use of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's texts, or is it just conjecture? I think it probably is accurate to say the controversy was influenced by members of the New Kadampa Tradition protesting it, but also is inaccurate to say that is the sole force of the controversy or that its just members protesting. There are plenty of pictures of Tibetans protesting. I know for a fact Tibetans read Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's texts, especially since he just published a text in Tibetan itself.. http://www.dorjeshugden.com/forum/index.php?topic=5039.0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasangika37 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Prasangika37: Relationship between Dorje Shugden monasteries and the NKT? Are any of the teachers from those monasteries invited to teach at NKT centres? Are NKT members sent for studies at these monasteries? If there were much of a relationship between the NKT and these institutions one would expect that sort of interchange. Use of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's texts? - It should be pretty obvious to anyone that Tibetan monasteries study books in Tibetan - not English. In Gelugpa monasteries they primarily follow a set particular set of commentaries and textbooks (yig-cha) associated with their own college -(often written by a renowned lama of that college) and rarely study other texts Please see: George Dreyfus, Tibetan Monastic Education and his book "The Sound of Two Hands Clapping", and Miranda Adams The Gelugpa Monastic Curriculum for details. Each monastic college has its own yig cha tradition. (You can think of Geshe Kelsang's books as the yig cha of the NKT). Hundreds, if not thousands, of books in Tibetan are published every year and the fact that Geshe Kelsang just published a single book in Tibetan hardly indicates that it has been widely read. (If you want to send me a copy of this book, I will read it and after place it in the National Library of Bhutan where I used to work.) Yes some Tibetans who have been educated in English read dharma books (including sometimes Geshe Kelsang's) in English but most who know their own language read them in Tibetan. Geshe Kelsang's books are available here in Bhutan - but I notice they usually sit on the shelves for many years getting dusty. Yes a few Tibetans participate in NKT/WSS/ISC demos in the west. I notice some of the same faces in demos held in different countries, do they get bused around?. I wonder how you tell from a photo which participants are Tibetans and which are Chinese students or embassy staff? Chris Fynn (talk) 09:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The main point you seemed to previously be making is to establish that the NKT point of view is somehow different than the POV in the Tibetan Monasteries, and therefore shouldn't have prominence? If that's not your point then I have no problem. This seems like a similar point you have made elsewhere that Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's view of Dorje Shugden is somehow different than these different monasteries or amongst these different practitioners (and therefore shouldn't be utilized), which does not seem justifiable. Heart Jewel, for example, is purchased and utilized by Tibetans and Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's texts in the 80s and 90s regularly had aspects translated into Tibetan in the back of the texts out of requests by Tibetans. http://www4.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Buddhists+Protest+Dalai+Lama+Washington+DC+T2eGLB97MU2l.jpg http://tibet.net/2014/05/22/list-of-dolgyal-followers-who-protested-against-his-holiness-the-dalai-lama-in-us-and-europe/ for more evidence re: Tibetans taking part in the Demonstrations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasangika37 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Prasangika37:No a) I'm saying that perhaps views of other (non NKT) Shugden worshippers should be covered too - if there are good sources. There are sources which say that Geshe Glesang's presentation of Shugden is quite different the from the traditional (Tibetan) one. b) Do you have a good source that shows that "Heart Jewel is purchased and utilized by Tibetans"? c) I never said Tibetans aren't taking part in the demonstrations, but their numbers seem to be relatively small. Since it is not possible to identify just from a photo or video if someone is Tibetan you can't claim there are x number of Tibetans taking part solely on the basis of photos, videos or appearance. Are there any reliable figures based on better evidence? Chris Fynn (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@CFynn: Okay, sorry I misunderstood you based on a previous point you had made elsewhere. Bad habit of mine and I shouldn't have 'read into' your statement. Apologies. I can investigate said sources. All I have currently is first hand testimony from trustworthy people who have seen Tibetans buy large bulks of the text to bring back to their areas. In addition, the fact that there are many versions of the text sold in India and from the Indian publisher and I don't really know of any New Kadampa practitioners that are hanging around over there, so I am curious who is purchasing this. Of course this is not RS so its not very useful as a cite-worthy fact:), but at least for me its a start to understand that the text isn't just limited to non-Tibetan Dorje Shugden practitioners. //Re evidence, what sort of thing would you be talking about? Photos seem to be the best evidence for this sort of thing, because anyone can claim "There were 600 Tibetans present!" or something along those lines. I would imagine you would find the number claimed by ISC organizers to be less credible? From what I understand there were about 50 Tibetans in Washington DC at the demonstrations, and about 500 people total. Again I know this is not RS, but hopefully you can see why its confusing when people allege its some extremely small minority. Prasangika37 (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Prasangika37: There are actually many more English speakers and readers in India than in the UK. (According to the BBC: "India now claims to be the world's second-largest English-speaking country. The most reliable estimate is around 10% of its population or 125 million people, second only to the US and expected to quadruple in the next decade." and List of countries by English-speaking population gives a larger figure of 225,226,449 for India and 59,600,000 for the UK.) Many of these people are interested in Buddhism as it is an Indian religion so one would expect sales to be quite good, especially of books available in an affordable Indian edition. I expect the bulk of these books are sold to English speaking Indians, a few to western visitors to India, and a small amount to English speaking Tibetans.

There may be claims that there were 50 Tibetans in Washington DC at the demonstrations but I've also seen claims that some/many of the "Tibetans" were staff from the Chinese Embassy (the one in DC must be pretty large), Chinese students studying in the US, etc. Likely one can't verify either claim and the truth may lie somewhere in the middle. There are many ethnic groups in China and elsewhere that look very much like Tibetans so photos are actually very poor evidence for this sort of thing and can easily give a misleading impression. If it is important and there are verifiable sources, we might say something like the Tibetan government office claim an extremely small minority and give the ISC claim as well - but we could include these only as claims, not as facts. Chris Fynn (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Happy for it be included it in a 'claimed' format considering we don't currently have much more. The Chinese-spy-infiltrator sort of stuff gives me the creeps and am not sure how that can be used as a valid argument, considering there were buses from out of town with lots of Tibetans getting off of them. The Dodin quote about 'almost exclusively western monks and nuns' should be immediately removed though. I have tried to remove it repeatedly, but its just plain false. There were tons of lay practitioners at all the demonstrations and not just 'western' people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasangika37 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

CFynn, that is Joshua Jonathan's lead. He is certainly not a NKT follower. He didn't know much about Tibetan Buddhism at all until recently.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson:Yes I know Joshua Jonathan is neither a follower of the NKT, nor of the Dalai Lama (neither am I) - I understand his primary interest is in Zen. That's good, no one can fairly accuse him of bias. However a lack of familiarity, detailed knowledge and context of a particular subject area can mean that you sometimes miss some things or may fail to recognize their importance. I've been studying Tibetan Buddhism since 1969, mostly amongst Tibetans in India, Nepal and Bhutan, and the more I study Tibetan Buddhism the more I realise there is that I don't know or understand about the subject. Chris Fynn (talk) 09:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I was born in 1969, have been studying Buddhism since 1988, and I definitely agree with Chris that "the more I know, the more I realise that I don't know. And I surely have a lack of knowledge of Tibetan Buddhism. By the way, contributing to Wikipedia is also a way to study, and it's dawning on me that I don't agree with a basic tenet of Zen, namely Buddha nature. Bu t that's a by the way. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

What belongs here and what doesn't

I wonder if we can come to a consensus on what belongs in a page like this and what doesn't. I would say: Origin of the controversy (explaining exactly who Dorje Shugden is and the original appearance 350 years ago) Then 1. Phabongka section 2. Yellowbook section 3. The denouncement by the Dalai Lama and his reasons. 4. Reactions by protestors and criticism of discrimination // Views of the Controversy- 1. Defense of Dorje Shugden practice 2. Criticism of Dorje Shugden practice. If so, I wonder if we can condense this into maybe 2 paragraphs for a lead, and then have the article itself reflect the lead? It seems like these categories would suit most people who are editing this page. Is there anything else people would think is necessary in regards to explaining the controversy? For example, the murder case and the Chinese conspiracy things? I personally don't think this is helpful or necessary in explaining it, but would be interested in what people had to say. Prasangika37 (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I hope you and CFlynn can come to some agreement, you both seem very reasonable. I would suggest not having the article say 'The Dorjs Shugden controversy is...', because that's not one universally agreed definition of what it is. Thanks March22nd (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe try not to say 'there is a ban' or 'no there isn't a ban' just put across the different viewpoints.March22nd (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Prasangika37 - I think that is a good start. However I strongly oppose any mention of the murder case or the Chinese conspiracy theories. This is absurd slander and does not belong on wikipedia. Audrey37 (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Pinging @Cullen328: on the claim of "absurd slander". The murder case is the most famous aspect of Dolgyal and is mentioned in many academic sources such as Kay, Lopez, Dreyfus etc.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

It would be an "absurd slander" if we named the accused and stated that they were guilty. Any coverage must make clear that there has been no trial, and must avoid stating or implying guilt. I oppose mentioning the suspects by name. That being said, I see no reason that the murders can't be described in a NPOV fashion. As for the relationship between Shugden supporters and China, we should avoid speculation and stick to summarizing what high quality reliable sources say about the matter. Though its is clear that Shugden supporters and official Chinese institutions are both harshly critical of the Dalai Lama, we need RS coverage of evidence of cooperation to make that connection. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes we are already "summarizing what high quality reliable sources say about the matter".VictoriaGrayson (talk) 00:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I would agree that the murder and the allegations of collusion between the NKT and the Chinese government are widely enough covered by neutral third party sources (like the BBC) that it would be POV-pushing NOT to note them. But must be phrased carefully and well sourced, with all sides noted. An example of careful phrasing might be found at the Natalie Holloway article where it addresses the speculation as to if she was murdered and if so, who might have murdered her.

Hi. I had a look at the BBC website but couldn't find any mention that the NKT is in collusion with the Chinese Government. It was a quick look though so I might have missed it. Do you have the link? Also, this is an article about the Dorje Shugden Controversy not the NKT. What do you think of my suggestion below? Thanks March22nd (talk) 08:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has claimed the NKT is in collusion with the Chinese government - though some may be trying to imply it. The NKT seem most interested in their own aggenda to get western followers. However there is very good evidence that some other pro-Shugden groups and Lamas have close connections with the Chinese government. The Dali Lama is a big bugbear to China and they seem to use every opportunity they can to denounce him or discredit him for anything they can it would be rather surprising if they didn't make use of this too. Read a little Sino-Tibetan history. The Qing dynasty in China used the conservative side of the Gelugpa tradition and Gelugpa exclusivism both to control the various Mongol and Mongyur tribes, Tibetans and other ethnicites that inhabited an area covering almost two thirds of their empire as well as as a couterweight to the potential power of the Dalai Lamas of which they were wary. The KMT did this too. China has used or tried to use such issues for hundreds of years - it would most surprising if PRC had discontinued this. Chris Fynn (talk) 10:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. In 1997 two monks who were friends of the Dalai Lama were killed. The attack was blamed on 2 people who are Dorje Shugden practitioners, however no-one has been found guilty in court of law. Could we have something like that in? Do we have to be careful about naming the accused and suggesting they are murders in the article?

Also what's that section called 'Attempted Murder' doing in this article? It doesn't mention Dorje Shugden at all. Thanks March22nd (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The murder case is the most famous aspect of Dolgyal and is mentioned in many academic sources such as Kay, Lopez, Dreyfus etc.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

RE: Ban Thanks everyone for the very helpful points. Maybe this is a good start: We can look at (particularly) controversial aspects of the article. 1.Ban 2. Attempted Murder 3. Chinese Connection 4. Murder case. Prasangika37 (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: 1--> March22nd, it does seem like you are right that we can't really say, based on Wikipedia's policies, in the article "There is a ban" or "there is not a ban". I think what we can cite, for a fact, is the 1. denial of a ban and scholars assertions along that matter 2. the public 'denouncements' and the aspects of the CTA charter which state which people cannot practice Dorje Shugden if they want to keep their jobs etc. Then, we can allow people to draw conclusions whether these facts constitute a ban?

2. Attempted Murder 3. Chinese Connection, these are both conspiracy theories at best. e.g. " Robert Thurman notes that Shugden activities are financed by the United Front Work Department of the government of China as part of its strategy against the Dalai Lama.[17][34]" What Shugden activities? Where? Where is the paper trail on this? Is this implying that little Buddhist centers in the United States are somehow supported by the Chinese? Re: Dodin's quote, where is an example of China supporting Dorje Shugden? And the 'there might be a connection' quote from the CTA is pretty silly to include here. 4. The actual murder stuff.. How much of this is inflammatory and how much are actual facts? How much actually helps understand the controversy?Prasangika37 (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Can I also say generally can we try to avoid in this article saying things like 'Dorje Shugden is this...' and 'The history of Dorje Shugden worship is this...', even 'The Dorje Shugden controversy is this...' as for a lot of these issues there are 2 (or more) completely different views and no real agreement of what is the truth. If we have 1 view or the other given too much prominence then the people who hold the other view will come on and change all the edits that have just been made. I think CFlynns edits this morning to the talk page show how difficult it is with this topic to know the truth of a lot of things related to this page. Maybe a lot of the time we can only just state what the major people/institutions say rather than presenting their statements as fact. Cheers March22nd (talk) 11:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, state each sides position fairlyQuantum62 (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Quantume62

Minor errors in intro

@Joshua Jonathan: please correct the following:

• The intro says "Dorje Shugden was introduced as a minor protector of the Gelugpa school by the 5th Dalai Lama". That is not correct. Maybe you meant "during the time of the 5th Dalai Lama."
• Please clarify in the intro that the Dalai Lama is a Gelugpa himself. This is important for readers to understand.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson and Joshua Jonathan: The first point is not correct either way. There is no evidence that the 5th considered the spirit of Drakpa Gyaltsen / Shugden to be any kind of "protector" other than a dubious prayer to Shugden attributed to the 5th which is not found in his collected writings but only in a fairly recent compilation of Shugden texts attributed to earlier lamas. Historically it seems Shugden was first "bound" as a minor worldly protector by a heirarch of the Sakya tradition and propitiated in some parts of Sakya tradition - principally by the family lineage of that lama. Later it seems Shugden was slowly adopted as a protector of some individual Gelug lamas and a few individual Gelug monasteries, rather than by the "Gelugpa school". During this time Shugden was also adopted as a family or ancestral protector of a few families (including by ancestors of Phabongkha). However there really needs to be a lot more research on the history of Shugden between the time of the 5th Dalai Lama and Phabongkha. Until such research is carried out and published, there is not much that can be used in a Wikipedia article.

During this whole period there seems to be nothing indicating Shugden had any more importance overall than a whole host of other protectors. There are also some accounts of a "Dorje Shugden" who was a minor worldly protector in parts of Southern Tibet and Northern Nepal long before the time of the 5th Dalai Lama - which was quite separate from "Dolgyal Shugden" the spirit/incarnation which arose following the death of Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen. Later it seems these two figures (and some of the myths surrounding each) became conflated or merged. Even the account of the later Shugden being the spirit/incarnation of Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen is controversial. Apparently at the time of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen's demise his own students and supporters disagreed with this account, and beleived that this spirit was not that of Drakpa Gyeltsen but rather that of the Fifth Dalai Lama’s minister Desi Sönam Chöpel (sde srid bsod nams chos ’phel; 1595-1658), who was an enemy of Drakpa Gyeltsen who died about the same time. This is also the account given by the famous Gelugpa historian Sumpa Khenpo. Another account says that Shugden was the wrathful spirit of a Karma Kagyu lama (an opponent of the Dalai Lama and the Gelugpas in general) who also died around the same time.

Phabongkha stuck to the story, originally preferred by Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen's opponents, that Shugden was the rebirth of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen. For, if Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen was an enlightened lama, then Shugden must be considered as an enlightened spirit/protector. And if Shugden was the rebirth of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen, then he was also the rebirth of his incarnation lineage which started with Duldzin Dragpa Gyaltsen and included Panchen Sönam Drakpa

The 5th Dalai Lama's party had held that Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen was a "false tulku" - in other words not the real incarnation of Duldzin Dragpa Gyaltsen and Panchen Sönam Drakpa. So Shugden was merely the wrathful worldly spirit of this un enlightened false sectarian tulku.

Chris Fynn (talk) 07:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Chris, add this to the Dorje Shugden page! It's valuable info. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of RS

Prasangika37 deleted quotes from reliable sources about Shugden. Also he is claiming OR, even though they are direct quotes. Pinging @Montanabw:.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: Hi, quotes about Dodin's 'name-calling' that Dorje Shugden practitioners are members of a cult is not appropriate for this article. Please explain how in any sense this could work in this article. Its just sensationalist and he is a terribly biased character. Please stick to >>facts<< about the issue that actually improve the article. In addition, do you understand that not every 'reliable source' is appropriate for a page? Certain 'reliable sources' do not fit in a page. We have talked about this repeatedly. Anyone is welcome to give their input. Prasangika37 (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Reverts by Audrey37

I've reverted Audrey37's recent edits, as has been done before:

• "The Dalai Lama's forceful opposition to the practice of Dorje Shugden has been considered by many to constitute a ban." - not in article; POV; weazle-words ('by many");
• "One view is that Pabongka fashioned Dorje Shugden" - Kay does not say "one view is";
• "Scholars such as Lopez, support the assertion the Dalai Lama's opposition to the practice of Dorje Shugden has caused suffering" - Lopez says: "The Dalai Lama's renunciation of Shugden caused great discord within the Geluk community"; this is a gross distortion of the source;
• Vivas: see Talk:Dorje Shugden controversy#Vivas
• Bernis: self-published
• France24: in combination with "Effectes of the alleged ban" is this WP:OR; the quote does not speak of a "ban";
• "According to the website of the Western Shugden Society" - primary source, personal selection.

Nevertheless, he has re-reverted again, without explaining why he thinks those sources are reliable. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes those are highly problematic edits. Pinging @Montanabw: as he dealt with this too.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

When Audrey37 was editing as Kjangdom, his conflict of interest was pointed out to him here. Chris Fynn (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps one of you would like to improve the wording of this section rather just deleting it? It's prety clear that it is an important section to have. Does no-one else see how biased this article this is? Yet we're getting bogged down over the inclusion of this small section? LOL!! If we want to shorten the article, I suggest we focus our attention on the section entitled "NKT/WSS claims". Have a look :) Audrey37 (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson, CFynn, and Joshua Jonathan: Hello again,

I'll have a look at Joshua's points above before making any more edits. In the meantime I would strongly urge any neutral editor to reflect on what a terrible state this article is in at the moment.

It is blindingly obvious that far too much weight has been given to presenting the controversy in the worst possible light for Dorje Shugden practitioners. Why has this been overlooked? Anyone who is vaguely familar with this subject will know what a joke this article is at the moment. It is the responsible of all the editors to improve it, not just pro-Shugden ones.

Doggedly fighting for an article that ONLY presents the anti-Shugden view benefits no-one, least of all Wikipedia readers. Moreover, this approach will not work in the long run. Personally, I am interested in this article being more balanced, and will be working towards this over the coming months. Including some pro-Shugden sources will improve the credibility of this article. But of course these sources need to be accurately quoted, which is why I suggested ***improving this section, rather than deleting it***.

Part of the section deleted included the section on WSS. Why so? Are the previous Shugden campaigning groups more relevant than WSS? Hardly. However, I am more than happy to produce more 'reliable' sources in the future. To be continued... Audrey37 (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: It is only one view that Kay presents. We can't say that Kay is the sole authority on this issue, no? Fashioning as a violent protector or whatever Kay asserts is just his opinion on the matter, and thus is one view. Prasangika37 (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Prasangika37 and Joshua Jonathan:I'd agree that, in places, this article relies a bit too much on Kay even when other equally good sources are available as well, sometimes giving a different POV. Kay is not the sole authority - but since he is an academic his opinion is regarded as a considered professional opinion made after weighing all the evidence available to him. Chris Fynn (talk) 10:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Audrey37:Yes there should be something on the various Shugden campaigning groups, including the WSS. I wonder is the WSS really the most relevant or representative group? Perhaps from the Western perspective off the controversy - but what about from a Tibetan perspective, an asian perspective, or a worldwide perspective? Is there any source which explains how these groups are interconnected (or not)?

Though the views of both anti and pro Shugden supporters should be included, it is best to use secondary sources that summarize each of those views rather than the primary sources themselves. Chris Fynn (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Cfynn: Are you thinking perhaps a news organization that could summarize the views of both? That is probably the best we have of views that include the anti and pro in a way that is not specifically critical (e.g. Thurman, Dodin, etc) . I agree that in theory it would be nice to not have to rely on the Western Shugden Society explanation, but as is the case with including Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's POV, the WSS is a valuable source in explaining what they themselves believe (esp. if there isn't something better out there). A lot of time secondary sources will give an interpretation, instead of a direct, word-for-word explanation. Primary sources are useful in these cases, right? You know Wikipedia policy better than I do so I trust what you say on that. Prasangika37 (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about Consensus

I have noticed some complaints about lack of consensus before edits have been made. I am having trouble understanding about what we should do about this in order for the best possible results, because the current format of the article appeared July 27th for the first time ever, without general consensus. It was instituted seemingly overnight 100% overall, essentially. It was different for about a month before that, and then was different from that for about 3 months. It was created by a few parties and instituted, and now we have to find consensus to change things that apply to that article. Between 2008 and February 2014 the article was largely stable and very different , yet 'consensus' was not reached to change it from the way it used to be. I understand there are criticisms about that article, but I don't get what makes this current way suddenly superior and the article that needs consensus in order to change. 6 years versus sort-of 3 months.. Also there isn't a controversial tag on it, which I disagree with anyway, so it seems that https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle is applicable. Does anyone have a legitimate reason using Wikipedia policy that would explain otherwise? I could just be ignorant to how Wikipedia works, but to my understanding I don't see this argument for consensus to be applicable here. Thanks! Prasangika37 (talk) 14:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Well put Prasangika37. Audrey37 (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I've been trying to discuss the lead, for a change; Chris followd, and proposed yet another version, which was still under discussion. Wiki-policy is to contribute to this discussion; instead you simply inserted Chris proposal. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

For me there was enough support / consensus to include Chris' lead, for others, there wasn't. Whether or not consensus has been reached at is a subjective matter. However, it is clear that there was greater support for the version I inserted and have reverted to, than the earlier version that two other editors have reverted to. Not only that, the previous lead was a bit obscure to be frank. Personally I think it is fine to edit an article / make reverts whilst discussing on the talk page at the same time. I strongly suggest that other editors work on improving the lead rather than merely reverting to a version that is inferior and has LESS support / consensus. Claiming 'no consensus' in the edit summary, whilst reverting to a version that has even less consensus is a bit ironic and not a good approach to take I would suggest... Happy editing folks!! Audrey37 (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Jonathan's version is better sourced and more accurate, Chris's version is better written. The two should be blended. Montanabw^(talk) 22:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw: I agree JJ's version is better sourced and more accurate. JJ is relying on academic views, not the claims of the NKT.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 00:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

There are good solid sources for what I suggested - however it was only a suggestion on this talk page, so I didn't bother adding all the citations. Anyway now the page has been blocked from editing so maybe people can take a couple of weeks away from this to relax and enjoy what is left of the summer and then come back and discuss this rationally. There never was a need to jump on every edit. Really this issue is not that important. The world will not get taken over by a Dalai Lama devil or by a Dorje Shugden devil if "something is wrong on the internet".

Old/new sandbox blend

Let's not hack up the lead, let's agree to a final version here:

Joshua Jonathan's version:	Chris' proposed revision:
The Dorje Shugden controversy is a conflict within Tibetan Buddhism over the "purity" of the Gelugpa school and the inclusion of non-Gelugpa teachings, especially Nyingma teachings. The worship and status of the deity Dorje Shugden has become the symbolic center-point of this conflict.	The Dorje Shugden contoversy is a contoversy surrounding the Tibetan Buddhist protector deity Dorje (or Dolgyal) Shugden, about which there have been differing views since the 17th century and
In the 1930s Pabongkha, who favoured an "exclusive" stance, started to promote Shugden as a major protector of the Gelug school, who harms any Gelupga practitioner who blends his practice with non-Gelugpa practices.	which became prominent and expanded during the lifetime of the 13th Dalai Lama and his contemporary Phabongkha Dechen Nyingpo.
The conflict re-appeared by the publication of the Yellow Book in 1976, containing stories about wrathful acts of Dorje Shugden against Gelugpas who also practiced Nyingma teachings. In response, the 14th Dalai Lama, a Gelugpa himself and advocate of an "inclusive" approach to the teachings of Tibetan Buddhism, started to speak out against the practice of Dorje Shugden in 1978.	The controversy re-surfaced again within the Tibetan exile community in India following the publication of a provocative Tibetan language book about this deity in the 1970's and the subsequent reactions to that book. In 1976 the Dalai Lama became involved when he started advising Tibetans against the worship of this entity - statements which have become increasingly stronger over subsequent years, and which the minority who continue to worship Shugden regard as a virtual ban on the practice. They also allege that these statements by the Dalai Lama have led to discrimination by religious authorities, agencies of the Central Tibetan Administration and to their ostracism by some followers of the Dalai Lama.
The controversy has attracted attention in the west by demonstrations by Dorje Shugden-practitioners, especially Kelsang Gyatso and his New Kadampa Tradition which broke away from the Gelugpa school in 1991. Other factions supporting Dorje Shugden are Serpom Monastic University and Shar Ganden monastery, which both separated from the Gelugpa mainstream in 2008.	In 19__ this controversy first came to wider attention following demonstrations held against the Dalai Lama by mostly western followers of lamas promoting the worship of Shugden which were widely reported in the western media.
	There are various views about the underlying reasons for this ongoing controversy which some academics regard as part of a long standing power struggle between conservative and liberal factions within the Gelug tradition to which the Dalai Lama belongs, or as an attempt by the Dalai Lama to encourage unity amongst the various Tibetan religious traditions - but opponents claim is an attempt to control them. There are also allegations that this controversy is being stirred up or manipulated by agencies of the Government of China in order to discredit the Dalai Lama and divide opposition to Chinese rule in Tibet.

References

Merge the two at this Sandbox (everyone edit here). I'll start (I am OK with changing this around, but let's keep the above two sections intact as references) Here's a stab at blending the two versions, this is the place to edit and anyone can change it around. I am recommending a three-paragraph structure:

Merged version	Victoria Grayson's Version
The Dorje Shugden controversy is a controversy over Dorje Shugden, also known as Dolgyal, whom some consider to be one of several protectors of the Gelug school, the newest of the schools of Tibetan Buddhism to which the Dalai Lamas belong. It is a conflict over the "purity" of the Gelugpa school and the inclusion of non-Gelugpa teachings, especially Nyingma teachings. The worship and status of the deity Dorje Shugden has become the symbolic center-point of this conflict. (i.e. first paragraph explains what the controversy is and the major current players)	The Dorje Shugden controversy is a controversy over Dorje Shugden, also known as Dolgyal, whom some consider to be one of several protectors of the Gelug school, the newest of the schools of Tibetan Buddhism to which the Dalai Lamas belong. It comprises Shugden's status of enlightenment, replacement of traditional Gelug protectors, sectarian functions and demonstrations by western adherents.
In the 1930s Pabongkha, who favoured an "exclusive" stance, started to promote Shugden as a major protector of the Gelug school, who harms any Gelupga practitioner who blends his practice with non-Gelugpa practices. The conflict re-appeared by the publication of the Yellow Book in 1976, containing stories about wrathful acts of Dorje Shugden against Gelugpas who also practiced Nyingma teachings. In response, the 14th Dalai Lama, a Gelugpa himself and advocate of an "inclusive" approach to the teachings of Tibetan Buddhism, started to speak out against the practice of Dorje Shugden in 1978. (second paragraph is about the history, should parallel the article body text)
The controversy has attracted attention in the west by demonstrations by Dorje Shugden practitioners, especially Kelsang Gyatso's New Kadampa Tradition which broke away from the Gelugpa school in 1991. Other factions supporting Dorje Shugden are Serpom Monastic University and Shar Ganden monastery, which both separated from the Gelugpa mainstream in 2008. There are also indications that this controversy is being stirred up or manipulated by agencies of the Government of China in order to discredit the Dalai Lama and divide opposition to Chinese rule in Tibet. (Third and final paragraph outlines the positions of each side)

Reflist

Discussion of sandbox

Okay I edited the "sandbox".VictoriaGrayson (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree with Chris’ version. Well put, well summed. I disagree with Victoria’s version. It’s too one-sided. The controversy has many layers. The only addition to Chris’ version: The protests started in 1996. This is the year. It would be additional work to include the references to Chris’ version but I think this is not a hard task because there are many WP:RS that can be used. Kt66 (talk) 09:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw and Kt66:CFynn's version = NKT version of the controversy with mentions of discrimination and ban.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

My lead proposal (unrelated to above)

The Dorje Shugden controversy is a controversy over the protector Dorje Shugden of the Gelug school, the newest of the schools of Tibetan Buddhism headed by the Dalai Lamas (although nominally the Ganden Tripas). It comprises Shugden's status of enlightenment, replacement of traditional Gelug protectors, sectarian functions and promotion by western adherents.

.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Love it. That sounds great to me. Lets get some support here for this!!! I am a little nervous though that its going to get fattened up with things that don't work for anyone as a whole, but I have full support for this. Lets stop changing the intro for now until we can agree? Prasangika37 (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Something like:

"The Dorje Shugden controversy is a controversy over Dorje Shugden who some consider to be a protector of the Gelug school, which was the largest school of Tibetan Buddhism, to which the Dalai Lama belongs."

might be better. There are many other Gelug protectors, including the three Je Tsongkhapa told his followers to rely on. Obviously not all Gelugpas believe that Dorje Shugden is even a protector of their school, let alone "the" protector, - or there wouldn't be much of a controversy. Also there is no need to get into the "headed by the Dalai Lamas (although nominally the Ganden Tripas)" stuff in the lead, particularly the first sentence - that is really a whole other argument and maybe distracting to the ordinary reader here. In relation to this issue, I think the fact the Gelug were the largest (and most powerful) sect is probably more relevant than that they were the newest sect.

Chris Fynn (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I accept all your points except one. How about this:

The Dorje Shugden controversy is a controversy over Dorje Shugden, also known as Dolgyal, whom some consider to be one of several protectors of the Gelug school, the newest of the schools of Tibetan Buddhism to which the Dalai Lamas belong. It comprises Shugden's status of enlightenment, replacement of traditional Gelug protectors, sectarian functions and promotion by western adherents.

VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind including "also known as Dolgyal" but maybe the article should be simply named "Shugden controversy" then we wouldn't need to have any arguments on "Dolgyal" vs "Dorje" and it would avoid the need to include this name at the beginning. Though the name has historically been used by some prominent Shugden worshippers Dolgyal seems to be a bit like waving red flag in front of a bull. Just because the Dalai Lama mostly refers to Shugden as Dolgyal some people get worked up by the name.

Personally I think the "protests by western adherents" part is nowhere as central to the issue as it may seem - and may distract from the main issue underlying the whole thing which is about control. Naturally it is the highly visible protests aspect which has most drawn the attention of the Western media and academics like Kay whose main focus is after all on British Buddhism. In India there are of course prominent Shugden lamas. The controversy is supposedly about the alleged repression or ban on Shugden worship amongst Tibetans in India - not in the West. There are also prominent Shugden lamas in Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Vietnam - which actually together have far more followers of Tibetan Buddhism than there are in the west (and they financially contribute far more as well) - Geshe Kelsang and the NKT/WSS hardly make a blip in these places. There are other important factors to be considered as well which I will elaborate on later. Some aspects may not yet have been looked at much by Western academics - though a few are starting to look deeper - anyway perhaps I will try to put together a list of some sources editors may like to look at. Naturally the NKT/WSS want people to think they are the most significant representatives of the "pure" / pro-Shugden Gelugpas - and their demos draw a lot of attention which adds to this perception.

Chris Fynn (talk) 18:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I addressed this on my talk page.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The Dorje Shugden controversy is a controversy over Dorje Shugden, whom some consider to be one of several protectors of the Gelug school, the newest of the schools of Tibetan Buddhism to which the Dalai Lamas belong.

It comprises Shugden's status of enlightenment, replacement of traditional Gelug protectors, sectarian functions and promotion by western adherents. Happy with this sans the Dolgyal as it is here, but am fine either way with the promoted by western adherents or not. If we don't include it in the intro it should get a lot less of space in the article, though. Thanks for both your efforts in crafting it. I find it very suitable and fair. I find two aspects in particular to be superior: the fact that its condensed and the fact that the controversial aspects are clear. Questions over 'purity' is extremely vague and I think people on both sides of the controversy might not even know what this means, let alone the average reader. Prasangika37 (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Other point, I am confused if this is being offered as the lead or the sort of sprawling one above? I find the one above to be a bit messy in comparison, but won't weigh in on it if we aren't actually going to use it. Which one are you two leaning more towards? And what about @Joshua Jonathan: ? Why are we discussing two leads simultaneously?Prasangika37 (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

This is the lead being offered:

The Dorje Shugden controversy is a controversy over Dorje Shugden, also known as Dolgyal, whom some consider to be one of several protectors of the Gelug school, the newest of the schools of Tibetan Buddhism to which the Dalai Lamas belong. It comprises Shugden's status of enlightenment, replacement of traditional Gelug protectors, sectarian functions and demonstrations by western adherents.

VictoriaGrayson (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm relatively supportive. I still don't like the Dolgyal business and I see CFynn's point about the last point re: promotion becoming challenging. That being said, I think its far superior than the JJ version or the Cfynn version above, so I'm happy to compromise. I also think its a mistake to not include the fact that part of the controversy is that there are allegations of discrimination or at least the public denouncement of the practice. Maybe we can institute this new one and then see how we can fit this last point in. Otherwise, perhaps we can just have it say

It comprises Dorje Shugden's status of enlightenment, replacement of traditional Gelug protectors, sectarian functions, promotion by western adherents, and complaints over the Dalai Lama's denouncement of the practice

. To not include this last point seems to be severely missing a major component, no? If there wasn't a denouncement, there would be no protests and a lot less overall unrest regarding the 'controversy'. Prasangika37 (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

JJ's version is still the best because it is based on academic views.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused, why are you offering the other version then? Not trying to be critical or anything, I'm just unclear. So we have Chris's, JJ's, and the one you are offering above. Are you not in support of yours then? Prasangika37 (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I prefer Joshua Jonathan's lead. Mine is just second best.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Hey, @CFynn: @Joshua Jonathan: , do you all have opinions so we can attempt some consensus? I'd vote 1. VictoriaGrayson's proposed intro 2. CFynn's intro 3. Joshua_Jonathan's intro. Seems like VG's vote is 1. JJ's 2. Hers 3. CFynn's. Hooray for some civility in discussion ! I think the editing block was definitely the right call for now..thanks for that VG. :) Prasangika37 (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I prefer mine, naturally. But I'm opposed to voting; it's a matter of argumentation. Chris is definitely more knowledgeable on the topic, as is Vic. But my version is indeed based directly on the sources in the article. And it's got shorter sentences, and a proper definition c.q. "topic-targeting". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I prefer your version too.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry..not trying to propose voting as a solution, but to just get clear everyone's positions so we can move forward. JJ I see a few issues with yours. The discussion of purity is something I find very confusing. I don't know where this is within the controversy. It doesn't seem like purity is the main point from either point of view? I am not necessarily against it vehemently, I just find it vague for the average reader, and even for those who know a bit about it. Prasangika37 (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

oh, so this is where you all discuss this-ignore my above comments on the lead-still learning the ropes!!! Well, as regards argumentation, the reason this issue has flared up, is because some people believe that DL is encouraging and/or enforcing religious discrimination. I dont think people would be taking to the streets because DL doesnt believe DS is enlightened. The main issue for the various different groups of Shugdenpas is this perceived discrimination. If not for this, any controversry would be limited prehaps to debates within Tibetan monestaries, or amoung Tibetologists-and it wouldn't be a widely-reported controversy at all. So surely the main point is this perceived discrimination-thats the heart of the controversry. For around 20 years before 1996, DL advised against the practise, deemed DS to be worldly, or evil, and encouraged others not to practise it. There were no protests, not much of a controversy, and this issue would never made it to a Wikipedia page. So at the very least this perceived discrimination has to be part of the intro. How about: This conroversy comprises many issues, namely: Dorje Shugden's status of enlightenment, replacement of traditional Gelug protectors and promotion by western adherents. The Dalai Lama says he has merely advised against the practice as he sees it as spirit-worship, which promotes scetarianism within Tibetan Buddhism. Also he feels this practise threatens the cause of Tibetan freedom, and even his own life. Practioneers of Dorje Shugden deny this, and believe he is an enlightened being, who helps them increase their wisdom and compassion. Furthermore, they believe that the Dalai Lama has enforced a ban on this practise, denying some of them their religious freedom.

This seems to get to the heart of the issue, the above intro seemed a little vague. I think it simply deliniates both sides of the argument, in a way the average man on the street would understand(except the bit on Gelug protectors-but hey ho!). What do people think?Quantum62 (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Quantum62

Yes another user Kjangdom was equally passionate about the protests. There were protests just recently in Hamburg, Germany right?VictoriaGrayson (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Victoria. I hope you are well. How do you (or anybody else) feel about the following: a) the idea that one way to achieve NPOV is to have a neutral lead, followed by a concise explanation of each side of the controversy under each heading. b) My above proposed intro, i.e.: This conroversy comprises many issues, namely: Dorje Shugden's status of enlightenment, replacement of traditional Gelug protectors and promotion by western adherents. The Dalai Lama says he has merely advised against the practice as he sees it as spirit-worship, which promotes scetarianism within Tibetan Buddhism. Also he feels this practise threatens the cause of Tibetan freedom, and even his own life. Practioneers of Dorje Shugden deny this, and believe he is an enlightened being, who helps them increase their wisdom and compassion. Furthermore, they believe that the Dalai Lama has enforced a ban on this practise, denying some of them their religious freedom. Thank you!Quantum62 (talk) 09:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Quantum62

The foremost claim of the protesters is that the Dalai Lama is a Muslim.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone else have a response to my post above?Quantum62 (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Quantum 62

Hi @Quantum62:, I do like the lead as it is simple and seems to convey the points of the controversy clearly. I don't like a few parts. Having just 'deny'- this seems to be a bit strong as it seems to be like it is negating his point of view. I think it would be better as 'explains'--> 'On the other hand, practitioners of Dorje Shugden explain they... compassion. They also have accused the Dalai Lama of enforcing a ban on the practice, which has then led to discrimination. This accusation has been denied by the Dalai Lama and criticized by different scholars. 'Prasangika37 (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Cool, Take your point-how about this: This controversy comprises many issues, namely: Dorje Shugden's status of enlightenment, replacement of traditional Gelug protectors and promotion by western adherents. The Dalai Lama says he has merely advised against the practice as he sees it as spirit-worship, which promotes sectarianism within Tibetan Buddhism. Also he feels this practice threatens the cause of Tibetan freedom, and even his own life. On the other hand, practioners of Dorje Shugden believe he is an enlightened being, who helps them increase their wisdom and compassion. Furthermore, they believe that the Dalai Lama has enforced a ban on this practice, which has lead to widespread discrimination against them within Tibetan communities throughout the world. I just left out the last sentence-This accusation...scholars' as it kinda gives him the first and last word on it. What do you think-maybe saying 'The Dalai Lama denies these claims' at the end?, or The DL and some scholars deny these claims?

How do other people feel about this-any suggestions/amendments? Quantum62 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantum62 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 August 2014

Hi, can you please remove three aspects of the page. Cullen328 has given a bit of support above and Wikipedia's policies are extremely clear on the matter regarding WP:Label . Primarily it is removing derogatory and vague usage of the word "Cult" in general, but particularly by people that are part of a 'heated dispute', which has to do with WP:IMPARTIAL . It would be great if all three could be deleted and only #2 can be replaced with other language. I have seen these points made even on the scientology page by John_Carter (see bottom), which has a far more terrible record and fits these definitions of cult etc. far more closely and can actually be supported by facts.

1. "Dodin also states that The NKT can be described typologically as a cult on the basis of its organisational form, its excessive group pressure and blind obedience to its founder. The organisation’s extreme fanaticism and aggressive missionary drive are typical cult features too.[web 1] " (Just delete this entirely) 2. " Thurman explains that members of the cult want: " to just "Thurman explains that members want". Issue: Using 'members of the cult' is trying to imply something as a fact that is not a fact when there are better words to use, like "members of the tradition" or "Thurman explains that Dorje Shugden practitioners want". Its primarily inflammatory and manipulative language. 3. " Robert Thurman for example states "The cult and agency attack campaign is futile since its main claims are so easy to refute."[17] " Again Impartial and Label apply here quite clearly. These are WP:W2W and this can just be deleted completely.

"There are basically three reasons, so far as I know. One is our guideline WP:W2W. The word "cult" in this context is both somewhat vague, as there is so far as I can tell no specific clearly agreed upon definition of the term, and because, at least in this content, the use of the term tends to prompt more heat than light. Poorly defined language is at best dubiously encyclopedic, and so is rather unnecessarily inflammatory language. Lastly, the academic community has stopped using the word lately, replacing it with new religious movement, so we use the currently used academic language instead. John Carter (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)" Prasangika37 (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Prasangika37, there is still much disagreement about this. Joshua Jonathan pointed out atleast 3 editors reverted your deletion. This includes @Montanabw:. And then CFynn in the archives also talked about the word "cult" numerous times. Thurman is not even labeling any particular organization as a cult. So WP:Label doesn't apply there. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Montanabw pointed out we should be more careful about the usage but the point could be made in a different way. CFynn I am not sure where you are talking about. JJ was talking about reverting, not about the edit. No one has responded to my point on this with a valid reason so that seems pretty clear. Also, if Thurman isn't labeling any organization as a cult then the point is completely irrelevant for the page anyway and should be removed. The "cult and agency attack campaign" clearly refers to those who are criticizing the alleged ban on Dorje Shugden. In addition, it is in the WSS/NKT claims section as you have repeatedly put it there. If it doesn't implicate the NKT/WSS then it shouldn't be there, because that is the implication by being in the section. To me it seems just 100% in line with Wikipedia policy to at least remove these sections and then we can revisit this some time in the future. Prasangika37 (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Prasangika37: Here - at the bottom of that section (17:15, 4 July 2014)

Chris Fynn (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Prasangika37:You can say "a Marian cult in the Roman Catholic Church" - the Catholic Church itself uses the term e.g. Marialis Cultus. To speak of the "cult of Shugden" is correct too - as was the title of Stephan Beyer's book "the Cult of Tara". This usage fits the primary definition of the term. Now cult may also mean "a religion or religious practice regarded as unorthodox". Clearly many Buddhists regard Shugden worship and the NKT as unorthodox. Another meaning is "A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or as imposing excessive control over members" There has been quite a bit written about the control or amount of influence the NKT or Geshe Kelsang allegedly exercises over followers. Chris Fynn (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

this goes directly to John carters point. The term is too vague and emotionally charged. Sometimes its harmless and sometimes it means abuse, and illegal behavior. If you're going to cite bad behavior or influence of a spiritual guide, cite it directly. Not hidden in the word, which is a word to watch. Aka avoided at all costs unless it is the only possible word to convey a specific point. If you mean it in the non-offensive way, like in its technical sense, use new religious movement. Here its clearly in a critical sense. I'm concerned by the intense need by other editors to keep the phrases honestly and it seems to be pushing a p.o.v. That is contrary to policy.Prasangika37 (talk) 00:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you see the irony here? Some people claim the Dalai Lama bans Shugden because the practice offends other sects - now you seem to want a word prohibited because it offends the NKT. Perhaps you think Wikipedia would be as justified in prohibiting the use of the word cult as the Dali Lama is in prohibiting Shugden? If words were banned or prohibited every time they took on additional meanings, the wouldn't the English language be poorer? If the word cult is being used in a quote do you want to change the words of a source? You need to argue whether the quote is justified or adds anything to the article or not. Does the harm or offence certain connotations of the word might cause outweigh everything else?

If an editor uses the word outside of a quote try to come up with a better word and change it. "New Religious Movement" actually doesn't cover traditional technical sense of the word cult. NRM is basically a polite way of naming organisations that don't like to be called cults because of the modern associations of the word. Someone said all religions start out as cults and those that eventually gain acceptance get called religions.

Chris Fynn (talk) 03:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't want a word prohibited. I am following Wikipedia's rules. This may be painful, but I'll list the variety of them that appear to be being broken here: 1. WP:Label // WP:W2W , and in these cases also 2. WP:IMPARTIAL (These two have already been established, but to reiterate on Label: It says the word should be avoided unless it is used widely in publications. It is not used widely in RS, so therefore, we can deduce, its not appropriate in this sense. As John Carter pointed out clearly, the word is too vague: it functions when it is a technical, scholarly term, but the general reader isn't using a scholarly understanding. They are using Branch Davidian/Jonestown understanding. 3. The "members of the cult.." line, is asserting opinion as fact See: WP:ASSERT. In addition, it doesn't add anything except defame people , as it is not backed up with real evidence. 4. "Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided." (WP:QUOTE) 5. More so, there is no context for the inclusions and the section is a list of critical quotes. See: WP:QUOTEFARM. 6. "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia."WP:INDISCRIMINATE // And after all of that, the onus is on those who want the quotes anyway, even if it didn't break the policy: what do they bring to the table anyway that is completely necessary for the article? What is the point of inclusion? What does it have to do with the controversy? Are they specifically attributed or supported by facts that actually add to the article in any way? I don't see how these answers can outweigh 6 valid points. I am also delighted to go through WP:IMPARTIAL re Thurman if anyone would like me to with his own quotes, but will save the time for now as this has become TLDR. Prasangika37 (talk) 04:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Prasangika37:Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules there are policies and guidelines. I don't think anyone thinks of the NKT like the Branch Davidian / Jonestown - give Wikipedia readers credit for better understanding than that. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), Christian Science, Unitarian Universalism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Seventh Day Adventists, some ultra-Orthodox and Hassidic Jewish groups, Sufi groups, and many other Buddhist groups all get labelled cults. Chris Fynn (talk) 08:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

But not on Wikipedia..Just checked UU.. and no reference to cult there. Hasidic Judaism: no. Mormons: No. In their criticism section: no. Christian Science: No, except a historical reference of how they were formerly accused as cultists (but that it was a regular agreement, which fits with the M.O.S.(from 1898). Jehovah's witnesses, no. Seventh Day Adventists: One reference:"this, along with the movement's other theological views, led to a consensus among conservative evangelical Protestants to regard it as a cult." This contains reasoning though and explains its a specific view held by specific people for a certain reason, not that it is, for a fact, one. Its to do with the Manual of Style, Chris, because the word is loaded. Another citation, to add to this all, from WP:RNPOV : "Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g., fundamentalism, mythology, and (as in the prior paragraph) critical. Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offence or misleading the reader."

Soo.. Anyway, citing hard and fast rules- ""Ignore all rules" is not in itself a valid answer if someone asks you why you broke a rule. Most of the rules are derived from a lot of thoughtful experience and exist for pretty good reasons; they should therefore only be broken for good reasons." The point of the no hard and fast rules is if something is >>truly improving<< Wikipedia we can avoid the rule. ""Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is neither a trump card nor a carte blanche. Rule ignorers must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged." Seems the weight to change outweighs the weight to keep it.Prasangika37 (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me clarify my position on this matter. I have no objections to statements such as "Expert Foo has stated that [organization] has the markings of a cult due to X, Y, and Z." (citation). That's a statement. To not include such remarks is actually POV-pushing in the form of whitewashing a legitimate criticism. On the other hand, I do think we are on thin ice to just throw around "cult" so I think we need to avoid wording such as "For this reason, cult members don't like Expert Foo." That's also POV-pushing. (rather, such a sentence could read "For this reaso, organization members have stated their opposition to Expert Foo by vandalizing his wikipedia page." ) I hope that makes sense. Montanabw^(talk) 22:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your second point, that seems to eliminate both the WP:ASSERT example of 'members of the cult...' and Thurmans quote where he just casually throws around cult as a derogatory term instead of as a technical term or criticism. //Regarding your first point, I think you misunderstand WP:Label. I understand you feel strongly about this, but it is on the onus of those desiring the use of the word to establish it is 'widely used', regardless if there is one person who states it. This hasn't been done yet. Prasangika37 (talk) 12:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

CONTINUED AT NPOV NOTICEBOARD HERE.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like we have made some progress on the "Thurman says member of the cult" https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Usage_of_.22Cult.22_in_Dorje_Shugden_Controversy_article Two neutral editors in a row have confirmed that using Wikipedia's voice for this doesn't work. Prasangika37 (talk) 02:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The term "cult" in that context is correct as Chris Fynn pointed out. It's common academic language. The Cult of Tara by Bayer, the Cult of Maria etc. It’s frequently used in all academic papers on the Shugden issue. Therefore I don’t see a reason to remove the term. --Kt66 (talk) 09:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Not done for now: While the discussion seems to be moving in the right direction, I don't see a consensus for a specific wording yet. Please reactivate this edit request when you have found one. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Nathan Hill quote

Hello, can someone explain how Nathan Hill, a professor of Linguistics, is a reliable source on this topic? Seems quite clear he is unqualified to comment here. He is not formally trained in Buddhism or Tibetan Buddhism. Prasangika37 (talk) 12:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

He is a top expert in Tibetan Buddhism. He organized the recent Shugden academic conference which CFynn linked to above.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you establish he is an expert? Especially a 'top expert'? His research, from his page (http://www.soas.ac.uk/staff/staff46254.php ): Nathan W. Hill's research focuses on Tibetan literature and Tibeto-Burman/Sino-Tibetan historical linguistics. Several of his articles treat issues in Old Tibetan historical and synchronic phonology, including the phonetic interpretation of the Tibetan alphabet, the nature of the phonemic word, the phonemic inventory and phonotactic constraints of Old Tibetan. In addition to phonology, his publications treat the Old Tibetan case, converbial, and pronominal systems, showing how linguistics sheds light on literary structure and style. He has given invited talks at Bern, Cambridge, Columbia, Halifax, Hohhot, Leiden, Lumbini, Munich, Oxford, Paris, and Vienna. The topics of these presentations have ranged from linguistic themes including Mongolian indirect discourse and evidentials in Lhasa Tibetan to historical and cultural themes such as Tibetan mythology and the place of the sku-bla rite in the political ideology of the Old Tibetan empire. // ... ?? I looked at everything he has ever published and its uniformly to do with linguistics, like Tibetan verbs and things along those lines. The closest he has gotten to scholarly work on Buddhism is book reviews or a translation. Prasangika37 (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Please read your own information.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Anyone else please? I don't see a PHD in Buddhism, religious studies, or Tibetan Buddhism. Even if so, making a claim about a ban etc. would still be a bit out of his realm of expertise. Definitely doesn't appear to RS. Prasangika37 (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

He is a Harvard PhD, in some kind of Tibetan field. Noone lists what their PhD is exactly in because every single school has its own unique system, let alone the fact that each person will have a unique course of study, let alone the fact that PhD's will just have something vague like "History" on it. See webpages of David Germano, Matthew Kapstein, Ronald Davidson etc.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Clearly an expert and clearly a reliable source. Now lets move along. Montanabw^(talk) 20:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

So that means I could cite someone who has a PHD in anything from Harvard and use their quotes on this issue? We seem to be quite liberal here on who has a valid opinion on any of these matters.Prasangika37 (talk) 23:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Prasangika37:According to the SOAS website Dr. Nathan Hill is the Convenor, Tibetan Studies Group, a member of the SOAS Centre of Buddhist Studies and teaches courses on Tibetan History as well as Tibetan language - so his relevant expertise quite obviously goes beyond just the Tibetan language. As I'm sure you know, Dr. Hill was also the person who chaired the recent SOAS panel discussion on Dorje Shugden. ("Tibetan mythology" seems particularly relevant as there is no real evidence that Dorje Shugden is anything more than a Tibetan myth.) Chris Fynn (talk) 06:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thats pretty reasonable for now and a helpful explanation. Not going to push this issue for now. Maybe for the future. Granted, History/the Language and being part of studies group doesn't mean someone is qualified to speak about persecution or not, and implies that he has an agenda with his connections to the Tibetan cause..basically like every other person quoted in this article. Prasangika37 (talk) 12:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The NKT thinks every scholar has an agenda. Really you question a Harvard PhD who is a major professor in Tibetan studies? Is there any scholar you do like? Pinging @AndyTheGrump:.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Yup - this is getting ridiculous. Prasangika37, if you really believe that mainstream academia is involved in some sort of conspiracy against Dorje Shugden followers, the NKT or anyone else, you will have to find somewhere else to promote your ideas. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and as such routinely cites academics as the best available sources - we aren't going to stop doing so on the basis of vague and entirely unsubstantiated accusations of 'an agenda'. We really aren't interested in such nonsense, and are liable to block those who persist in promoting it. Your choice... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I definitely don't think academia has issues as a whole on the issue or there is a conspiracy. The use of 'agenda' here was before your correction on the NPOV noticeboard page and I wouldn't have used it again after your helpful points. Anyway, as I said yesterday sorry for being a moron on this sort of thing and its obvious I should back off on points of this nature (e.g. claiming about bias) as its not in line with Wikipedia policy and its not helping the cohesion of the editing here. I should have followed MontanaBW's point originally and dropped it earlier. Prasangika37 (talk) 19:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The use of TV boadcasts such as Switzerland TV (SF1), German Panorama (ARD), Al Jazeera, France 24 TV etc

In the past the Shugden article contained a lot of quotes from TV stations. However, most of those TV contributions were themselves manipulative and reported one-sided about the controversy. They believed the claims of the campaigning Shugden group (e.g. 4 million worshippers) and the TV stations did in generally not ask independent experts and offered a mix of sensationalist information and distortions that aimed to raise emotions against the Dalai Lama and for the Shugden cause. Therefore I would suggest to not use those sources again in the article or if they are used to balance them with WP:RS. One of the few academic experts that were asked by a TV station (Panorama) was Prof. Hartmann, who distanced himself after the documentary was broadcasted due to the manipulative character of the documentary. For details see here:

• The Dalai Lama and the Shugden Cult: What Is at Stake in This Conflict? by Jens-Uwe Hartmann
• Brief overview about the media in the Shugden Conflict (especially Switzerland SF1 TV): Some Media and the Shugden Controversy – How TV Channels and YouTube Can Deceive You (summed up by myself).

Kt66 (talk) 09:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Who translated Hartmann's article? Wheres the proof for 'most of the TV contributions'? Can you get some RS re the criticism of all of these programs? Prasangika37 (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

We should add the BBC documentary from "East" also then. Frankly, if we try to achieve FAC standard, that will probably handle everything. But keep in mind that YouTube isn't generally a reliable source. Montanabw^(talk) 05:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, MontanaBW. Mind giving some insight on what FAC standard counts as? The relationship between RS and television programs is not extremely clear to me on Wikipedia. Prasangika37 (talk) 20:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I have contributed to over 15 featured articles where I was either the lead editor or the 2nd highest contributor. To see what these are like, let me give as an example one not on "my" "list" that User:Wehwalt did (and he has over 100 FAs) that covered a controversial person and topic was [{Thaddeus Stevens]]. Another even more controversial, was Richard Nixon. In both cases, I provided some minor edits to the articles during the FAC process so am familiar with them and the challenges it took to get them to FA status. Television programs can be reliable sources in some situations. So can newspapers, academic journals and a host of other resources, but it all depends on the topic. The BBC will generally be considered a reliable source. Here, the reliability of sources is only part of it, balance and WP:NPOV is equally critical (there are 5 pillars of wiki, they are not ranked). This article should "sharpen the hors of the controversy" and not whitewash one side or the other. Also, keep in mind that both the Dalai Lama and Kelsang Gyatso will fall under WP:BLP. A GA or FA-class article will be balanced and well-sourced. In this article, there is no getting around the reality that there are probably few truly neutral sources; the best that can be done is to take the highest quality sources out there from each side and try to present each position fairly. Montanabw^(talk) 05:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow.. Okay well its really nice to have someone very experienced here and pardon for not taking your input more seriously earlier. I'll look at Nixon and Stevens and try to gain an understanding of the high quality expected. If you have seen discussions re: television program quality in the past or precedents set on them, I'd love to check it out. Feel free to shoot it over to my talk page or post it here. Maybe relying on what others have relied on can make this extremely clear. I see though that the blend of NPOV, RS, and the influence of BLP makes it very dicey. Prasangika37 (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with these sentiments. Also I think its very fair to include direct quotes from major protagonists, e.g. the DL himself, or his erstwhile ministers, the fact that they can be seen to say these things on youtube confirms the veracity of these quotes, rather than bringing them into contention.

btw, have a look at what argubly the worlds greatest intellectual, Noam Chomsky, has to say about the 'not pretty' history of impartiality amoung intellectuals-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qxab6i9Qxyk&list=PLUPB_KWeZWcdipi2DYR7xbABubjNXanAy, around minute 5! Intriguing! This intellectual of great integrity says: 'overwhemlmingly intellectuals have laboured under the service of power'. DL is the epitome of 'the 1%'-we all know Tibet was a brutal Feudal Serdom, the Tibetan goverment-in-exile was a dictatorship and a theocracy(as their ministers happily confirm in these documentaries). In a different way, DL is an extremly powerful media personality in the West, seemingly beyond the reproach of the liberal media. Check out the NY times and The Guardian. He's also very wealthy. So if Noam Chomsky is correct-(as always, his is an extremely well-researched opinion), and as DL is certainly powerful, we would expect that DL would have intellectuals who instinctivly cosy up to him. Robert Thurman and Thierry Dodin indeed seem like egregious examples of this bias.

My personal favourite by Robert Thurman is '“It would not be unfair to call Shugdens the Taliban of Tibetan Buddhism,” says Thurman, referring to the Muslim extremists of Afghanistan, who believe in swift and brutal justice. “Shugden appeals to crazies by offering instant gratification,” says Thurman. “Once you get involved, you’re told you have to devote your lives to the cult, because the god gets very angry if you don’t attend to him every day. It’s really bad stuff, the way they’re draining money out of people.” source: 28 April 1997, Newsweek magazine, article by Tony Clifton called “Cult Mystery – did an obscure Tibetan sect murder three monks close to the Dalai Lama”. Am I right in saying he somewhere said DS only had 10,000 followers worldwide? Cant find the quote. He just released a book-'love your enemies'! Poor wee Rob!!!

Personally I have spent the last 20 years in and around Academia, and I have great repect and personal liking of many. However, especially in contentious issues like this, I think we must not assume that if someone has a pHd, or is an Academic that their view is especially strong. Instead base such assessments on their record of impartiality, accuracy and rationality. As a doctor and a genetisist, I'm often shocked by how much faith people have in what we say, simply based on our title.

The best evidence is direct-these documentaries contain direct evidence. Quantum62 (talk) 09:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Quantum62

What do you mean by "genetisist"?VictoriaGrayson (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Your right Victoria-as already warned I'm a bad speller. Apologies to all in advance for any futher spelling errors. I think it's spelt Geneticist, thank you.Quantum62 (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Quantum62

Above you said you are psychiatrist. Now you say you are a geneticist.:

"I work as a Psychiatrist in the UK" "As a doctor and a genetisist, I'm often shocked by how much faith people have in what we say, simply based on our title."

VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Dearest Victoria, thank you for your question. Presently I work as a Psychiatrist, I'm qualified and worked in the Genetics field in the past. I didnt mean I do both simultaneously. But this isnt so important. I think its best if we just stick to the issue at hand. Someday I'm sure we'll be mighty pals!Quantum62 (talk) 10:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Quantum62

When it comes to video sources, it is important to read WP:PRIMARY and understand that the same standards apply - we can NOT use "direct evidence" to make someone's case here, per WP:SYNTH. Taking interview clips out of context is just as wrong as taking transcripted interview snippets out of context. This article must be NEUTRAL as far as showing the range of views in a balanced fashion. Thurman's "Taliban" comment would go in but also comments from the present day Shugden supporters of their critiques of the Dalai Lama, perhaps prefaced by a statement such as "the differences of opinion on this matter range from X, who says this, to Y, who says that," To give you an example of an article that could be extremely controversial (if it were more widely known about - I even hesitate to post about it here lest a careful compromise be upset by new editors with strong POVs ) see Charreada, which includes a controversial practice called "horse tripping." I have worked very hard with pro-and anti-forces there to keep that article rigorously neutral. See how there has been work to balance the views of both animal welfare and pro-Charreada forces, and how the article handles the side issues that got dragged into the debate. Montanabw^(talk) 14:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Quantum62, read the comment of AndyTheGrump above. I'll quote it here:

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and as such routinely cites academics as the best available sources - we aren't going to stop doing so on the basis of vague and entirely unsubstantiated accusations of 'an agenda'. We really aren't interested in such nonsense, and are liable to block those who persist in promoting it. Your choice...

VictoriaGrayson (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

VictoriaGrayson I wouldn't equate what Thurman says in an off-the-cuff interview as equal in quality to what he might write in an academic journal or publication. Quantum62 also has a point, Thurman is as famous as he is essentially because of his "cosy" relationship with the DL (and because of his well known daughter). Sources like Georges Drefyus, Christopher Bell, Martin Mills, Michael von Brück, David Kay, Sam van Schaik, Matthew Kapstein and Lindsay McCune are all good solid academic sources on different aspects of Shugden and the surrounding controversy. Although it is quite old, Nebresky-Wojkowitz is useful because he gives a detailed view of D Shugden at a time and place when there was no great controversy - and he puts DS in the context of other Tibetan protector deities.

Prasangika37 Re: Video sources - I think the first thing you should ask is: Was the a video made by an experienced and knowledgeable journalist working for a news organisation with a solid reputation for fact checking (and avoiding sensationalism)?

Chris Fynn (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

CFynn, we aren't using any interviews of Thurman, let alone off-the-cuff interviews.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that Montanabw, and thanks for your patience with this newbie. Its good you have experience of negotiating in controversial pages. I read those Wiki policies-some questions for you and other more experienced Wiki-users: So it says we cant subject a primary source to our own individual analysis-so if its just quoted-like evidence there is a ban is that the DL said...a quote of his where he says ban a lot-does that count? one problem is we're relying on others for the translation-I don't speak Tibetan! also, when it says in wiki policy: 'A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge', do you think this would encompass the many statements which include the word ban, made by DL, his prime minister, and independent news agencies? Could this count as straightforward? so could such statement be included-but left at that, without further 'interpretation'-i.e the DL said '....ban...' and left at that? I read wk:synch to-so for instance, if one said there seems to be a ban, because all these different people use that word-is that making a claim not been made by these people themselves? Thanks for the names of those scholars CFlynn, i'll look 'em up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantum62 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

There are no statements of the Dalai Lama using the word ban except for Dolgyalist translations. In fact the Dalai Lama has said many times he never used the word ban. Even if theoretically the Dalai Lama used the word ban a billion times, that doesn't mean there is an actual ban. Stating such would be WP:SYNTH, since the Dalai Lama doesn't control the government of India or the governments of Europe. There can never be a Dalai Lama imposed ban, just like the earth can never be flat. See the statements of Robert Barnett, Nathan Hill etc. Its the height of irony that Dolgyalists try to find statements of the Dalai Lama stating there is a ban, even though they view all his statements as lies. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Yup, that's one point of view-and of course should be included in the article. The other point of view would be to point out that DL is v powerful within his community-the Kashag would never act against his will, and the abbots of the monastaries regard him as an omniscient, infallible being. So he has real power, and great power, and therefore can in reality impose a ban. But not much point debating this, the above points are about how to fairly represent both points of view, whilst of course abiding by Wiki policies. Anyone any suggestions?Quantum62 (talk) 10:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)Quantum62

Gelug monasteries are private institutions just like NKT centers. Kelsang Gyatso also instituted a ban?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem with CFynn's lead

@Montanabw and Kt66:CFynn's version = NKT version of the controversy with mentions of discrimination and ban. In contrast, Joshua Jonathan read various academic works and correctly surmised the proper academic view of the controversy. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Would you not include those accusations as a component? Per WP:LEAD The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. Aren't accusations of discrimination and the ban part of the controversy? Prasangika37 (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

No. They are not part of the academic view of the controversy.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Two words are both POV pushing and to be avoided save where we are either quoting directly or explaining the precise position of one side or the other. 1) "cult" and 2) "ban". Each should be used briefly as in "Expert Foo says NKT is a cult, due to ABC, though the people on the other side of the issue disagree..." and "Expert Schmoo says the Dalai Lama's position is a 'ban" because of DEF, though the people on the other side of the issue disagree..." End of story. Fair and balanced expression of both sides. I don't particularly like CFynn's proposed lead nor JJ's existing lead, both are dull and neither is MOS-compliant per WP:LEAD. (Which is why I created a third alternative blending the two,but which everyone has ignored.) But frankly, we shouldn't be arguing about the lead at all because we SHOULD be working on the content, and then the lead has to be rewritten to summarize the content, mirroring each section or subsection with about one sentence for each major point. Until then, I DGAF what the lead says because it will have to be changed later anyway. So in the meantime, let's keep what's there and improve the REST of the article. This whole conversation has become ridiculous. Montanabw^(talk) 05:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Montana: improve the article, using reliable sources. Include more on the point of view of the NKT. Some more on other Shugden-factions. Some background-info on Tibetan politics. And reduce the amount of "opinions", which are being used as arguments, especially contra. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The NKT version of the controversy revolves around the Dalai Lama being a Muslim. Kjangdom told me to read a Ebook on it. Its why they hold a picture of the Dalai Lama dressed as a Muslim at the protests and hold signs saying "False Dalai Lama". The NKT version of the controversy also ignores the Yellow Book. So should we replace the bit about the Yellow Book in the article with the Dalai Lama being a Muslim?VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

RS on that one please? I've been scolded here for making claims like this without citations and rightfully so. I just checked the website for those engaging in protests on this page : http://internationalshugdencommunity.com/dalai-lama/ and it is not mentioned once. Their explanation and 4 points at the bottom seem to be pretty clearly different. Also, thank you JJ and Montanabw for your input here. I appreciate both your efforts in patiently attempting to fix this article as a whole. Montana you are right that explicitly saying either word as some authoritative fact is not RS and I have full support for not including 'ban' as a fact, but that its okay to include it as some POV that is clearly explained as such.Prasangika37 (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• Giant poster of Dalai Lama dressed up as a Muslim which says "False Dalai Lama"
• "The 'Saffron-robed Muslim', this false Dalai Lama, acts directly against the views, intention and deeds of these three precious lamas." - Western Shugden Society
• same exact statement on ISC website
• The ISC Ebook called "False Dalai Lama" which explains the Dalai Lama is a MuslimVictoriaGrayson (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

That being one point and that being their main point/argument, which is what you asserted is completely different. The main points are in that link I posted above. Prasangika37 (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The main point is claiming the Dalai Lama is Muslim:

• protesters chant "False Dalai Lama"
• they hold up signs saying "False Dalai Lama" at the protests including giant pictures of the Dalai Lama dressed as a Muslim
• there is the ISC Ebook called "False Dalai Lama."
• Kelsang Dekyong, the head of the NKT, is standing right next to the giant picture of the Dalai Lama dressed as a Muslim.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

All the demonstrations that I can tell up to the ones in June were just "Dalai Lama, Stop Lying ". The 'false' is a new addition in the recent demonstrations. The fact that the Dalai Lama is a 'false' one is an additional point to those who care about things like that. The 'stop lying' part is obviously the main one if you look at the 4 points listed and if you see every protest to date. This is because there is concern over discrimination and mistreatment. People aren't protesting because the Dalai Lama is false, they are protesting because of accusations of discrimination. I think this is quite obvious. See Geshe Kelsang in the Lopez interview: Lopez: Last summer [1996], you organized demonstrations in London against the Dalai Lama. The British press was very supportive of the Dalai Lama and the New Kadampa was painted in quite negative terms. Do you regret the formation of the Shugden Supporters Community in retrospect? Could you perhaps have done it differently?

GKG: We had hoped that His Holiness the Dalai Lama would change and give freedom to Tibetan people. That was our aim. Our demonstration was telling him: You made a mistake so you should change. After the demonstration we requested him to please sign a declaration to give complete freedom to Dorje Shugden worship, and he refused. Then when he returned to India he was stronger than before. http://www.tricycle.com/special-section/an-interview-with-geshe-kelsang-gyatsoPrasangika37 (talk) 19:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems you ignore anything I post on this matter, so I give up. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding process, For some reason I thought we are supposed to focus on the lead first, and then have the main body reflect the lead. It seems you're saying the other way around. I guess that is a precedent elsewhere? That sounds fine and I'll re-direct my attention. Prasangika37 (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

VictoriaGrayson said: "CFynn's version = NKT version of the controversy" - Thanks. Since pro-Shugden editors have previously accused me of supporting the Dalai Lama's version of the controversy, it seems I've now been accused of putting forward both versions. ☺ Chris Fynn (talk) 14:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Just calling it like I see it ☺VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

So is that the conclusion-leave lead till last?Quantum62 (talk) 10:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)Quantum62

Collective block

Someone suggested a collective block for Shugden-supporters; given these reverts I'm beginning to support such a block. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Joshua Jonathan: I have explained my reasoning for these reverts, but have never received a reasonable point in contention based in Wikipedia's laws. What is your issue with them? My issue is things like saying "Members of the cult..", which is manipulating language by implying that it is a fact that Dorje Shugden practitioners are cult members. Cult is a 'contentious label' per Wikipedia policy. WP:Label Terms like "cult ..may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." Widely used? No.

Do people like Robert Thurman and so on mean this term in conjunction with the scholarly version of it, which is a lot less offensive and derogatory, or do they mean it in the derogatory, Western-sense of the word (E.g. Jonestown etc.) In the scholarly version of it, it doesn't have a problem and is a very useful word, but in the second sense it just brings out emotions of people. WP:IMPARTIAL Most people interpret it in the second sense. There are also never facts given establishing how this is true.

"The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." Its very, very clear Robert Thurman counts as one of those people. Hes a huge part of this dispute publicly. He posts on his Twitter, for example, things that are against Dorje Shugden. Seems pretty much part of a heated dispute. This doesn't mean he is never usable, of course, but when in conjunction with using the word 'cult', which is a clear inappropriate label via Wikipedia, its quite obvious this is not in conjunction with NPOV. Prasangika37 (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that the term "cult" has a very negative undertone. Nevertheless, if you've been reverted on this two three times already, by two three different editors and you simply remove those those lines a third fourth time, then you're missing somea basic understanding of Wiki-policies. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh shoot, I see what you are saying. I didn't realize you and someone else also reverted me.. I thought it was VictoriaGrayson each time, as he seems to revert every edit I have pretty much ever made. I have brought this issue up 3-4 times though on the talk page with minimal interaction, but it was a still an oversight to not check who was reverting it. With all the editing going on its very challenging to see who is doing what. That was my fault and hopefully apologies are accepted. Please see the reasoning though and understand the edit is appropriate for the future, unless you can provide proper reasoning otherwise. If there is not a counter to this point at some point soon in the future then someone will have to make the edit, no? Prasangika37 (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

NKT and the modern Shungden practitioners have many of the hallmarks of a cult: {http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cult] "a small religious group that is not part of a larger and more accepted religion and that has beliefs regarded by many people as extreme or dangerous" Please also read WP:COI. Montanabw^(talk) 19:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw: , that does not seem to matter in this case in regards to WP:Label . The point in that case is that the word is inflammatory and needs to be backed up by many sources to be used on wikipedia, not that it accords with a dictionary definition. And anyway, the definition lacks power because dangerous? Extreme? What? Evidence please?? Any many people regarding it that way? Where? Prasangika37 (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not engaging on these issues here. (I also don't argue with the Moonies or the Scientologists.) The point is article content. The reliable sources that people keep removing explain the cult-like aspects of the NKT in particular. I am open to confining use of the word "cult" in the article to very carefully sourced material (not "many" sources, simply good, solid ones) but it is a violation of NPOV to NOT mention the cult concerns. The BBC story on their program "East" was particularly persuasive on that topic, though it was meticulously neutral. Montanabw^(talk) 22:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems like you are not following WP:Label and have a lot of emotions regarding this issue. Thats fair enough. The two sources used here are Thurman and Dodin. Dodin's is an interview with a website that has a section devoted to strictly criticizing the NKT and is not an RS. Thurman using it in passing and has issues with being partial. Neither validate their claims based on research or based on understandings developed by organizations that look into these things. Neither show examples and validate these claims with examples. You can't just say 'they're a cult' and not back it up with valid reasons. Hopefully other people will see that this is an inappropriate term to include here. If not I can invite a moderator to perhaps rule in. @Cullen328: Can you give some advice? How does it work? Prasangika37 (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thurman and Dodin are Tibetologists. See WP:VNT.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 01:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

First of all, every editor here needs to be scrupulously careful to avoid edit warring. It is a blockable offense. Great care should be taken with use of the word "cult" and a dedicated opponent like Thurman, in my opinion, is not the best source for something so contentious, though I respect his general expertise. This is a content dispute. Every editor is entitled to express an informed opinion. If by "moderator" you mean administrator, please be aware that administrators have no powers regarding content any greater than any other editor. The only thing that matters is the quality of one's argument, and how well it aligns with policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support Collective BlockVictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Did you just manipulate the talk page to bring down an old discussion to the bottom? Is this a thing? VictoriaGrayson, as you know, your behavior is generally far worse than anyone else's amidst this collection of pages, so I would consider consulting WP:KETTLE honestly. Prasangika37 (talk) 15:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Reorganizing the talk page is not a violation, only changing others' comments or removing your own once there (other than to fix typos or tweaks before others have replied. After that, one uses strikeout to remove something one didn't really intend to say.) And Prasangika37, you are unwise to raise KETTLE here, given the multiple editors with "37" in their names all editing here, one of whom has been busted as a sockpuppet already, plus a number of "new" editors all editing only articles on this topic. You would be wise to re-read WP:MEATPUPPET, WP:TAGTEAM, and WP:BAIT. What I see is one editor taking "point" on one side of the issue, with other, independent supporters weighing in on occasion, versus what is clearly a coordinated group making most of the same arguments, a number of which are brand new accounts. As for a collective block, it has to be based on behavior, not affilication, and at this point, all I see is a heated debate that has avoided personal attacks, but is getting WP:POINTy and has some edit-warring. What COULD happen is what happened with Scientology, which is that an ArbCom decision imposed discretionary sanctions on ANYONE editing in a contentious manner (see also [5]). Those sorts of things are nasty and none of you want to go there. Montanabw^(talk) 16:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw: What do I do then? Ask them to stop editing? I don't know how I am supposed to control the behavior of other editors.. or I would have done so a long time ago. I have repeatedly tried to distance myself from two different people on here and honestly I haven't found really anyone other than Elnon or John_Carter who I could agree with regularly on this article. Its honestly not surprising its drawing lots of people with strong opinions, because it is drawing strong opinions throughout the world, between Dalai Lama supporters, Buddhists in general, Dorje Shugden practitioners (Western and Eastern), Tibetans in general, and people interested in religion either because they like it or dislike it (see the many people writing articles critical of the Dalai Lama these days, ala Hitchens with Mother Teresa.. More of a 'Try to catch a religious person down' or 'find a fault with a religious person to tear down religion in general'). I have a feeling it will probably continue to become more of an engaged subject the more this sort of discussion arises on the world scene. Its hard to tell who takes interest in an article like this, but when I look at a similar article like Historicity of Jesus you can see people with VERY very strong opinions, but its challenging to see or understand what is driving them or where they are coming from. But my hope is that people are trying to bring a good mind, can be reasonable with one another, and so forth. Prasangika37 (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Recall the article was locked down because of you and Kelsang Jangdom. Notice this discussion section of Joshua Jonathan.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you shouldn't use people's personal names..Seems very similar to WP:OUTING I know that we deduced that was his name on here, but hes not using that name any more and ??presumably?? for privacy reasons. Anyway, claiming that somehow the lock down of the article was due to something I did and not taking responsibility is quite silly. I honestly ask you to just look at your own behavior and see: is this really in good faith and in line with Wikipedia's aims? With whatever you come to, fine. I just ask you to take a second to do an honest investigation. I clearly admit (and have admitted, multiple times) that I have made editing mistakes here..can you do the same?Prasangika37 (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Not "outing," where Kelsang Jangdom is a username for a WP:SOCKPUPPET of Audrey37; the block log is clear. Now both of you knock it off and let's get back to editing the article. Montanabw^(talk) 18:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

NKT/WSS Claims section

In an effort to start to balance the main body, as suggested by MontanaBw, here is a proposal for the section. There are no claims listed currently, so 'responses to claims' do not make sense. Thus, we should have claims and then responses. Per WP:QUOTE we should avoid long block quotes left and right, so we can just consolidate the scholars points into simple, consolidated arguments. I think I haven't left out anything that is necessary for their points to be conveyed and overall I think it makes this section far more palatable.

The WSS explains their reason for demonstrating, requesting the Dalai Lama "1. To give freedom to practice Dorje Shugden to whoever wishes to rely upon this Deity. 2. To stop completely the discrimination between Shugden people and non-Shugden practitioners. 3. To allow all Shugden monks and nuns who have been expelled from their monasteries and nunneries to return to their monasteries and nunneries where they should receive the same material and spiritual rights as the non-Shugden practitioners. 4. That you tell in writing to the Tibetan community throughout the world that they should practically apply the above three points."(http://www.westernshugdensociety.org/our-cause/letter-to-dalai-lama/) <

Scholars Robert Thurman, Nathan Hill, Thierry Dodin and Robert Barnett debate various claims of the Western Shugden Society (WSS). Thurman criticizes that "They then went on the attack, claiming they had been "banned" and "excommunicated," etc., when in fact the Dalai Lama was exercising his religious freedom by not accepting students who reject his advice, and actually go so far as to condemn him". Regarding if the 14th Dalai Lama has suppressed religious freedom, Thierry Dodin states "No, such a prohibition does not exist. Religious freedom is not at issue here. No one, and most definitely not the Dalai Lama, is repressing religious freedom.[web 1]" Hill argues that the Dalai Lama is not head of any state and has no political jurisdiction over which he can exercise suppression. He points out "even if some people did want to suppress or silence the pro-Shugen side, they have no means of doing so." [web 26] Barnett says the WSS allegations are "problematic" as "they are akin to attacking the Pope because some lay Catholics somewhere abuse non-believers or heretics." In addition, he criticizes their credibility based on perceptions of their heterodoxy, sectarianism, and provocative nature and thinks "its claimed concerns about cases of discrimination in India should be addressed by working within the Tibetan community"[web 27]

Where did Montanabw suggest to "balance the main body"? In fact Montanabw warned about WP:PRIMARY leading to WP:SYNTH, which may describe the above. Lastly, please quote the section of WP:QUOTE which you are referring to. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for not being more clear. In WP:QUOTE, basically every single one of these points apply for the section, so I'll quote them all:

: Using too many quotes is incompatible with the encyclopedic writing style. //Quotations that can't be justified for use in an article directly may be placed in Wikiquote and a Wikiquote template put on the article to inform readers that there are relevant quotations regarding the subject. //As a matter of style, quoteboxes should generally be avoided as they draw special attention to the opinion of one source, and present that opinion as though Wikipedia endorses it. //Instead of using quoteboxes to highlight its notability, explain its importance before introducing the quote or in an introduction to the quote.//Wikipedia is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics such as quotations.//Do not insert any number of quotations in a stand-alone quote section.//A quotation that does not directly relate to the topic of the article or directly support the information as it is presented should not be used, to avoid original research.//Intersperse quotations with original prose that comments on those quotations instead of constructing articles out of quotations with little or no original prose.//Longer quotations may be hidden in the reference as a footnote to facilitate verification by other editors without sacrificing readability

What I interpreted Montana to say multiple times, both in the NPOV noticeboard discussion on the use of 'cult' and above, is that the best way to make points is to Say So and so says X, Y and Z. On the other hand, others argue D, E, and F. I misrepresented him slightly in saying it was to necessarily 'balance', but he was explaining this is the method to keep NPOV, especially with controversial claims. @Montanabw:, please correct me though if I am wrong! I consulted the article he alluded to on Charreada above, as that is the style that permeates the entire article. I thought it was an excellent example of how you can cover controversial material and keep it readable and accessible for the general public. You can see there that there is not one block quote, there's a very nice use of prose, and it covers arguments and counterarguments very clearly. Regarding WP:PRIMARY, using the WSS explanation or claims is completely logical for the article, as primary is useful in explaining a parties POV (see: the same reason we use Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's words on Dorje Shugden). I don't see any synthesis being presented either? SYNTH involves multiple sources usually too, and I only cited one. Mind pointing it out? I am happy to just leave the 4 points as they are unless we can get a more direct, concise version of the claims. Definitely didn't mean to draw any undue conclusions. Prasangika37 (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Please don't cite policies which are irrelevant. For example on the NPOV noticeboard you were taking policies that apply to text and then trying to apply them to quotes. We aren't using quote boxes. These are quote boxes. There is nothing like this in the article. Standalone quote section refers to articles which have a bunch of quotes of an author for example. WP:QUOTE actually says quotes are "preferred to text" when dealing with a controversial subject. Lastly, Montanabw warned about using WP:PRIMARY material.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Basically, the main thing self-published sources can be used for is to state their group's own positions, and even that is problematic if a better, neutral third party source is out there instead. Same thing with Primary sources, they are RS to the existence of, say, a statement was published in 1722 or whatever. The Charreada article is an example of style more than sourcing, its sourcing has self-pub and primary issues, but it is needed to use some of both because there is so little info out there and almost all of it biased one way or the other. Here, we have a lot more to work with. We start with WP:RS and use the best possible sources. That means neutral, respected, third party sources get first priority, then primary sources where they might be the best source to accurately state what an organization says. Here, it is pretty clear that the Shugden supporters are trying to "game the system" by manipulating sources to present only a pro-Shugden view and are attempting to remove material critical of Shugden. That won't pass muster. Montanabw^(talk) 19:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Montana, would you prefer just another source explaining the WSS points? I don't think there are very clear scholarly secondary sources that clearly explain these points, as they were published in 2008. There are news articles--Would you say that is suitable for this situation?

Also, The critical material is still here in full blast. Its just readable style-wise and not long quotes that don't always directly deal with the content. For example, a quote about ID cards when there are no accusations of ID cards on the entire article. Also, this section currently criticizes accusations, but doesn't explain accusations clearly or at all sometimes. Finally, it uses Wikipedia's voice to assert 'cult', which has been pointed out by two users on the NPOV noticeboard as unacceptable and something that must be changed. And VictoriaGrayson, pardon the quoteboxes reference. I was thinking it meant block quotes. The rest of the points are very relevant, particularly the point on long quotes and lack of prose. Prasangika37 (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Montanabw.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: @CFynn: @Cullen328: Any input please? Prasangika37 (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The Washington Post comments that The Western Shugden Society wants the Dalai Lama to “lift the ban” on rituals involving Dorje Shugden. Reuters notes that "Critics claim that the Dalai Lama has excommunicated thousands of Shugden Buddhists from Tibetan exile communities in India, and continues to push practitioners out of communities around the world by encouraging his followers to deny them jobs, schooling and health care." Members said they can’t get government jobs in India because of their beliefs, and that their nuns and monks have been kicked out of monasteries. How about this as the first paragraph? http://internationalshugdencommunity.com/appendix-9-newspaper-magazine-articles/ has a ton of newspaper articles from what I see. Prasangika37 (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

All those newspaper reports show is that protests against the Dalai Lama were held at various places on various dates and that protesters have made various claims or allegations - they don't show that any of those claims or allegations are true or that the demands they are making of the Dalai Lama have any reasonable basis. If we are talking about allegations against the Dalai Lama we should adhere to BLP standards and we can't say this in a way that implies that the allegations are true, unless there is very solid evidence from reliable sources to back that up. Chris Fynn (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Prasangika37::::Re the WSS/ISC/NKT Request #3: "To allow all Shugden monks and nuns who have been expelled from their monasteries and nunneries to return to their monasteries and nunneries where they should receive the same material and spiritual rights as the non-Shugden practitioners." In the case of the two large monasteries, Sera and Ganden, the monks have not exactly been "expelled" - what has happened in those places is that the sections continuing Shugden worship have been separated from the rest of the monastery after votes by all the monks of the two monasteries. The Shugden monks are actually still living in the same buildings as they did before - but those sections have been re-constituted as separate institutions (and subsequently expanded). So there is no question of the monks having gone elsewhere or returning as it is a separation rather than an expulsion - and it seems they are now free to continue their Shugden worship in those places. Some Shugden monks and nuns may have been asked or told to leave some other smaller monasteries and nunneries —- but, strictly speaking, is it correct to call them "their monasteries and nunneries"? It seems they were inmates of those institutions and not the owners or they couldn't have been expelled. As inmates of those monasteries and nunneries presumably they were required to abide by whatever rules and restrictions the bodies in charge of those institutions put in place - and a rule came in restricting or prohibiting Shugden worship. I wonder, aren't monks and nuns residing in NKT institutions also expected to follow certain forms of worship and not others? Chris Fynn (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with CFynn.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@CFynn:, this is like arguing if the claims of Thierry Dodin or Robert Thurman are true. If you want to discuss this personally we can talk via email and I will happily chat about it. Otherwise, on Wikipedia I have been reprimanded for doing what you're doing because they're clearly >>opinions.<< The point is to explain the allegations on both side of the controversy. Its not to say that one side is true or not. Of course we all need to understand this and I don't think I was implying that at all? Sorry if I was. IF the allegations are being denied in the article, those making the allegations are being regularly criticized (see Dodin's quote, Thurmans quote, the Dalai Lama denying them, and this whole section I am speaking about) and the article itself is about the controversy, which has largely been fueled by the upset of people who are practicing Dorje Shugden, to not include these allegations is not even remotely NPOV. see: WP:WEIGHT and the example of Flat Earth, which I assume you know very well. Do you perhaps have a suggestion on how to explain the allegations clearly that is the cause of the least offence possible? Prasangika37 (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Please stop insinuating scholars are on an opposing side to Dolgyalists. To use an analogy, thats like claiming scholars are opposed to docking the tails of dogs by simply pointing out the facts.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Intriguing that you are using a word that is often interpreted as offensive or derogatory about Dorje Shugden practitioners. Anyway, I think its relatively clear there are two sides to the controversy. Its >>not<< saying the scholars are inherently on one side or the other, or hate people who are Dorje Shugden practitioners, or have bias or an agenda. I know well enough to not say things like that now! and I don't know what they personally think, anyway. In this case, there are two (or more!) sides, or points of view, represented within the controversy: one that simply favorably views Dorje Shugden and those that also perceive a ban or persecution of practitioners. This view has proponents, like the Western Shugden Society. The other point of view is critical of Dorje Shugden practice in general and its history, and potentially is critical of those current practitioners who are speaking up about the practice via demonstrating. This point of view, or side of the controversy, is supported or defended by words of these scholars, the Dalai Lama, and others. Its clear, then, that there are 'sides' to the discussion, or else there wouldn't be a controversy. Again, this doesn't mean a scholar is on a side, it means their point of view represents the view of a side, reinforces it, or supports it. It still means, based on the flat earth controversy example, that we explain both sides. I would love a clear answer: Do you think we should not represent any point of view that claims their is discrimination, a ban, and so on? Anyone is welcome to answer this. If the answer is not 'yes', then we might as well get moving on trying to word it in the best way possible so it accords to BLP, is clear that just opinions are being stated, and so on. Prasangika37 (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Those claims are already included via Harvard educated Nathan Hill, Columbia professor Robert Barnett etc. You just don't like their presentation. Pinging @AndyTheGrump: on these 2 statements:

This point of view, or side of the controversy, is supported or defended by words of these scholars, the Dalai Lama, and others. .....it means their point of view represents the view of a side, reinforces it, or supports it.

VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: ...Are you trying to assert that I am claiming they are biased? That was what AndyTheGrump had warned me about, and I am clearly >>not<< saying that. I don't really appreciate you trying to get me in trouble or accuse me of wrongdoing based on false premises. A scholar saying something that supports a point of view does not mean they are biased..it means they are saying something that supports a point of view (which happens in every article on wikipedia, particularly different controversies). It also doesn't mean they are doing anything wrong, are wrong in their assertion, and so on. Barnett and Hill only partially explain the point of view, not in its entirety, and like in the case of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso that we have already dealt with via Cullen328's help, we established its important to have the point of view of parties being represented (not just, a scholars point of view of what the participating party thinks). In addition, we have clear representation in the news articles of what the claims are, which we can trust. Do you think we should not include the claims, then, as represented in news articles? Prasangika37 (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@Prasangika37: I am quoting what you said verbatim. How can there be "false premises"?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

False as in implying something I said was inappropriate or implying something I shouldn't. Anyway, I think its clear hopefully amongst anyone reading that that is not the case :)At the very least, my responses here can hopefully demonstrate that. Prasangika37 (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Prasangika37 All of what I have mentioned above about the "expulsions" is clearly documented. Since you seem to like photographic evidence you can visit the websites of the main Shugden monasteries of Shar Ganden and Serpom and see for yourself that they are located in exactly the same place they were when they were part of the main Sera and Ganden monasteries. They haven't gone anywhere - their location is not an opinion - you can locate them on Google Earth to verify this. It seems the "expelled" monks are living in exactly the same place as they were before and continuing their Shugden worship. At least as far as those two main monasteries are concerned, this appears to be some kind of resolution, which would be significant. Chris Fynn (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, MORE than happy to discuss elsewhere. Even if you want to start a new thread below, we can look at the claim, even though I am not sure how helpful that would be for the article anyway. http://www.westernshugdensociety.org/our-cause/letter-to-monasteries/ for some examples of expulsion. (I'm not going to respond to discussing this in this thread anymore because, again, its not the point of it currently and its de-railing the conversation). I would highly prefer to discuss the issue at hand, which is whether to include the claims and allegations or not, as indicated in the italicized text above. Once we can agree on that, then we can see which ones are particularly included. In the case of the WSS claims, regardless if you find them true or not, it does not mean we shouldn't include them. They are factual evidence of the >claims< of the group and the allegations. The article can include RS on whether the claims are true or not, which it currently is doing with the scholar's responses.Prasangika37 (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

To meet people's needs and to try to give the highest quality reference possible, I'll use the RS New Religious Movements by George Chryssides and Tibetan Independence Movement by scholar Jane Ardley. This should clear things up in the greatest way possible.

Jane Ardley explains that after previously speaking out about Dorje Shugden, in 1996 the Dalai Lama went further and announced that members of both government departments and monasteries under the control of the Tibetan exile administration were forbidden from worshipping Dorje Shugden. This led to a massive outcry from Shugden supporters, particularly in Britain, with allegations of religious intolerance. For example, the Western Shugden Society has made various claims that have been debated by scholars. Scholar Georgia Chryssides explains “The Dalai Lama stands accused of restricting the religious freedom of followers of Tibetan Buddhism, and of causing widespread suffering to Shugden supporters, who are not denied access to their protector deity, but who are the victims of persecution, being unable to get jobs that relate to the Tibetan government-in-exile (for example, in schools), and are denied humanitarian assistance. “ What is more, they accuse the Dalai Lama of being superstitious, worshipping worldly spirits, and making decisions based on oracles, interpretation of dreams and divination.

Scholars Robert Thurman, Nathan Hill, Thierry Dodin and Robert Barnett debate various claims of the Western Shugden Society (WSS). Thurman criticizes that "They then went on the attack, claiming they had been "banned" and "excommunicated," etc., when in fact the Dalai Lama was exercising his religious freedom by not accepting students who reject his advice, and actually go so far as to condemn him". Regarding if the 14th Dalai Lama has suppressed religious freedom, Thierry Dodin states "No, such a prohibition does not exist. Religious freedom is not at issue here. No one, and most definitely not the Dalai Lama, is repressing religious freedom.[web 1]" Hill argues that the Dalai Lama is not head of any state and has no political jurisdiction over which he can exercise suppression. He points out "even if some people did want to suppress or silence the pro-Shugen side, they have no means of doing so." [web 26] Barnett says the WSS allegations are "problematic" as "they are akin to attacking the Pope because some lay Catholics somewhere abuse non-believers or heretics." In addition, he criticizes their credibility based on perceptions of their heterodoxy, sectarianism, and provocative nature and thinks "its claimed concerns about cases of discrimination in India should be addressed by working within the Tibetan community"[web 27]

Prasangika37 (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want to include claims then I'd say how much substance they have, or not, is relevant - especially if those claims are about a living person. Chris Fynn (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Great, Cfynn. I appreciate your constructive feedback. Thank you. Do you have issue with the quotes given here not working? I don't know tons about BLP, personally, and am happy to hear your thoughts or discuss. It seems like a scholar relaying allegations is quite kosher, especially since they're widely documented allegations and do not imply the allegations are true? Prasangika37 (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@CFynn: @Cullen328: @MontanaBW: Any input regarding BLP of the proposed paragraphs (The ones most immediately above, starting with "Jane Ardley"? I think the sources are suitable, but I figure the three of you know far more about BLP than I do. To me it is fair, but I am hoping to come to a consensus in the near future on this section and can't do so by myself! If there are issues with BLP here please point out in what nature or perhaps a constructive manner to convey certain points without violating the rule. Thanks :) Prasangika37 (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Well there are an abundance of primary sources which indicates these claims have substance. Wiki policy doesn't forbid primary sources, it may prefer secondary sources, but also encourages common sense.

For instance, re the ban, on June 6 1996, the Tibetan Parliament in exile passed an 8-point resolution legitimizing the ban on the worship of Shugden. Point 8 of the said resolutions states:

“In sum, the departments, their branches and subsidiaries, monasteries and their branches that are functioning under the administrative control of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile should be strictly instructed, in accordance with the rules and regulations, not to indulge in the propitiation of Shugden. ”

point 6 of same resolution: 'In forbidding the propitiation of Shugden, His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama is following the intention of the guru lineage, including that of his two tutors. ” Notice a) the word forbidding, b) the wee fib about Trijang Rimpoche!!!!

re the question-does DL have the power to enforce a ban, Al Jazeera News asked one of the Tibetan government’s Members of Parliament, Tsultrim Tenzin, whether there had been any parliamentary debate about Dorje Shugden, he replied that there had been no debate simply because there was no opposition, adding

“We do not have any doubt about Dalai Lama’s decisions. We do not think he is a human being. He’s a supreme human being and he is god, he is Avalokiteshvara.” you can watch that for yourself.

also there are many letters sent by the Department of Religion and Culture, to various monasteries requesting expulsion of monks-they use words like 'expel', 'follow the rule without contradiction' etc. and if still in doubt, watch DL saying these things in the monasteries.

re discrimination: this is from: Department of Health, dated: April 18, 1996, and signed by the Assistant General Secretary, with a government seal: 'In case there is anyone who doesn’t abide by the addresses of His Holiness to give up Shugden worship, then, since there is nothing more important that the well-being of the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan cause, such persons should submit their resignation. There is no other alternative for such person.' And we've all seen, i'm sure the signs up outside hospitals denying care to Shugdenpas.

Chris, in all seriousness, do these primary sources, coming from the CTA, who themselves say they never go against DL, where nepotism is rife(at one stage 3 or 6 ministers were DL family members), not prove: a) there is a de facto ban. b) its enforced. c) discrimination occurs.

You may still doubt these conclusions, ok, but is it possible to say these conclusions do not have substance? So do you (or anyone else) think, notwithstanding BLP considerations, a secondary source describing a ban and discrimination is acceptable? Thanking u-hope u're all well!!!!Quantum62 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantum62 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I see no objections as of now to the summary I have proposed of this section, so I will offer it up for insertion in the next 2 days if I don't hear any additional constructive criticism. Prasangika37 (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Prasangika37, you provide no page numbers, publisher, year of publication etc. Noone can verify your proposal. Also there has been objection. See these 2 comments of Montanabw:

Um, Quantum62, go read WP:MEATPUPPET, WP:TAGTEAM and WP:CANVASS. Whoever you are, it's clear you are not here as any kind of neutral observer, you are clearly here to tag-team with others.

Here, it is pretty clear that the Shugden supporters are trying to "game the system" by manipulating sources to present only a pro-Shugden view and are attempting to remove material critical of Shugden. That won't pass muster.

VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes I am not sure what Quantum62 said is very helpful and I would prefer to not be associated with whatever they're saying in this case. Here is the section, with page numbers, etc. :

Jane Ardley explains that after previously speaking out about Dorje Shugden, in 1996 the Dalai Lama went further and announced that members of both government departments and monasteries under the control of the Tibetan exile administration were forbidden from worshipping Dorje Shugden. This led to a massive outcry from Shugden supporters, particularly in Britain, with allegations of religious intolerance. For example, the Western Shugden Society has made various claims that have been debated by scholars. Scholar Georgia Chryssides explains “The Dalai Lama stands accused of restricting the religious freedom of followers of Tibetan Buddhism, and of causing widespread suffering to Shugden supporters, who are not denied access to their protector deity, but who are the victims of persecution, being unable to get jobs that relate to the Tibetan government-in-exile (for example, in schools), and are denied humanitarian assistance. “ What is more, they accuse the Dalai Lama of being superstitious, worshipping worldly spirits, and making decisions based on oracles, interpretation of dreams and divination.

Scholars Robert Thurman, Nathan Hill, Thierry Dodin and Robert Barnett debate various claims of the Western Shugden Society (WSS). Thurman criticizes that "They then went on the attack, claiming they had been "banned" and "excommunicated," etc., when in fact the Dalai Lama was exercising his religious freedom by not accepting students who reject his advice, and actually go so far as to condemn him". Regarding if the 14th Dalai Lama has suppressed religious freedom, Thierry Dodin states "No, such a prohibition does not exist. Religious freedom is not at issue here. No one, and most definitely not the Dalai Lama, is repressing religious freedom.[web 1]" Hill argues that the Dalai Lama is not head of any state and has no political jurisdiction over which he can exercise suppression. He points out "even if some people did want to suppress or silence the pro-Shugen side, they have no means of doing so." [web 26] Barnett says the WSS allegations are "problematic" as "they are akin to attacking the Pope because some lay Catholics somewhere abuse non-believers or heretics." In addition, he criticizes their credibility based on perceptions of their heterodoxy, sectarianism, and provocative nature and thinks "its claimed concerns about cases of discrimination in India should be addressed by working within the Tibetan community"[web 27]

Prasangika37 (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Do you have an issue with this proposed section using scholarly citations for everything, while retaining the meaning of the criticism of the views? VictoriaGrayson cited your opposition initially as a reason to not use this section, but I don't see any issues with it currently. Prasangika37 (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

You are creating a quotefarm. Also the divination referencing is not clear.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

R-referenced. Its the same page as the other Chryssides quote. VG do you really think that this section is somehow worse, from an encyclopaedic standpoint, than the way it currently looks? I think when we compare other controversy articles, which I have looked at extensively, this model is far more similar and has a deep rooted precedent on wikipedia. Prasangika37 (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes I think it is much worse.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 05:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 September 2014

Replace "Thurman explains that members of the cult want:" with "Thurman explains that members want:"

This is the relevant section.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 23:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Pinging @Mr. Stradivarius:.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree as a neutral. Montanabw^(talk) 00:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for making the request VG. Have full support. Can we also quickly fix '14 th' to '14th' in the "Views of the 14th Dalai Lama" title? The typo has been bothering me! I can't imagine it would be a controversial proposal either:) Prasangika37 (talk) 02:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 07:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Minor misunderstanding possible in lead

In the lead we should change "especially Kelsang Gyatso and his New Kadampa Tradition" to "especially Kelsang Gyatso's New Kadampa Tradition". Currently it makes it sound that Kelsang Gyatso himself is at the demonstrations, when he isn't.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm OK with that, due to misunderstanding potential; that said, I'm generally in favor of leaving the lead alone other than this. Montanabw^(talk) 23:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Are we talking about this:

The controversy has attracted attention in the west by demonstrations by Dorje Shugden-practitioners, especially Kelsang Gyatso and his New Kadampa Tradition which broke away from the Gelugpa school in 1991. Other factions supporting Dorje Shugden are Serpom Monastic University and Shar Ganden monastery, which both separated from the Gelugpa mainstream in 2008.

There is an unsourced statement so should we delete it and say instead that the demonstrations are organised by the International Shugden Community, using newspaper reports about the demos as a source? March22nd (talk) 06:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Statements in the lead don't require citations. See WP:LEADCITE. And Montanabw said leave the lead alone. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 06:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Victoria. I had a quick look through the article and that statement isn't made anywhere else in the article. (I may have miss it though as it was just a quick read). The article mentions the Western Shugden Society and a Delhi based Shugden group. So the statement I put above is unsourced and is not representative of any statements in the main article. It is also in contradiction to newspaper reports and seems to suggest that a monastery in India was involved in the protests. I think this is a valid reason to change it. Cheers March22nd (talk) 07:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Dodin says "The demonstrators are almost exclusively western monks and nuns, ordained in the New Kadampa Tradition (NKT) according to the group’s own ritual."VictoriaGrayson (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi again. The demonstrations in 2014 are organised by the ISC, as explained in several newspaper reports. This is in no way contradictory to Mr Dofins statement above. Why don't you want the organisation which has arranged the demonstrations mentioned in the intro but instead have mentioned an organisation which haven't organised the demonstrations? Thanks March22nd (talk) 16:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Before that it was Western Shugden Society, before that it was something else. The organization keeps changing its name. The important thing is NKT members.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: that is a misunderstanding of Leadcite, as all those points don't exist elsewhere in the article. Also, Dodin's quote is just incorrect. I don't think its a big deal, but for example, in Time magazine, " a group of 500 or more audience members screamed at and spat at a mixed group of about 100 people, both Tibetan and Western, who had been peacefully protesting the high lama" ( http://www.wusa9.com/story/news/local/dc/2014/03/07/dalai-lama-protest-national-cathedral/6166593/ has a video clearly showing Tibetan people and many people other than monks and nuns. There is lots of photo documentation of this also. Other news articles have noted this. Its just inaccurate, not a big deal either way really. Prasangika37 (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course all the points exist in the article. Secondly, the lead was written by JJ. Third, Montanabw just said leave the lead alone.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@Prasangika37: You say: "a video clearly showing Tibetan people and many people other than monks and nuns" Can you really clearly tell that people are Tibetan just by looking at a video? Just from looking, I'd say some of those people might be Tibetans, but could just as well be Chinese or any one of several other ethnicities. Chris Fynn (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with CFynn. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You can imply Tibetan, but if not its clear they're not "western monks and nuns", which is Dodin's quote, thus negating it. Prasangika37 (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, you can tell they are Tibetan, because the CTA published the names, and sometimes the addresses of over 30 Tibetans who they say attended the protests, on their website. Why do you think the CTA did that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantum62 (talk • contribs) 11:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

"Views Section" and "History" section

Currently there are a bunch of bizarre categories that are dividing up the 'views' section. In general its very, very sloppy, there is a lot of overlap, and the categories/subsections within "views" are not very clear demarcations. For example, there is the Dalai Lama's views in views of opponents and in Third party views. "Criticism of Dorje Shugden Practitioners" is a section, but there are aspects of that in all the sections and seems like it would be appropriate to be weaved into other sections. The 1970s response, the elevation section, the repeated 'Phabongka elevation section' , and parts of the NKT/WSS claims all are represented in the history.

It seems like these categories, along with the whole article, should be reformatted altogether. Perhaps the whole article should have three sections: Overview of the controversy (A brief combination of who Dorje Shugden is (at least two versions of this, as there is disagreement), the historical significance, and the aspects that are considered controversial, as what is 'controversial', has many nuances and there is not universal agreement) 2. Historical Development (2a. Explanation of original issue with the 5th Dalai Lama, 2b. 30s, 2c. 1970s, 2d. 1996, 2e. Modern day) 3. Aspects of the Controversy (3a. "Criticism of Dorje Shugden practice" This could be divided into 3a1) Dalai Lama 3a2) Complaint about the elevation 3a3) Third party criticism, 3b. "Allegations of Discrimination and Ban" (This can be the new NKT/WSS Claim section I have outlined on the talk page above), 3c. "Murder Accusation", 3d. "Relationship to Chinese Sources")

This division I think could provide a far more logical construct for the article to work within. I think having these 'aspects of the controversy' can clearly explain four major aspects of what people would consider controversial about the subject. What do people think? Prasangika37 (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan's organization is certainly better, as he is following the model used in other articles.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, of course ;) with Vic. An "overview"-section is a repetition of arguments. Basically we only need a history-section; the "Views"-section is there, to separate facts from opinions, since the opinions are being used in this article to fight out a battle. I'd rather remove that section altogether. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay no problem with no Overview. @Joshua Jonathan: @VictoriaGrayson: Do you agree that the current division of 'views' is sloppy, though? A lot of it is repetitive and the division of points is not always logical, for example having three sections on the Dalai Lama's different views.. Prasangika37 (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Having repetitions on the DL is not a problem to me, actually. The real problem is the relevance of all those views. It's another battleground for the controversy. So I'd really prefer to stick to "the" facts, and provide abundant links, so interested readers can find out more on their own (Which, I suspect, are only a few; those who are interested already know; the rest doesn't want to know all the details about "he said that she said that you said"). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Its not the issue with reptitions of quotes, its the illogical format of having 3 different sections that refer to the Dalai Lama's views. We could simply have "Dalai Lama" with all three sections in one. No? Prasangika37 (talk) 14:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

"Chinese Involvement" section

Here is a new version proposed to help this section. First, which hopefully we can speedily agree on, is that "Also the Central Tibetan Administration in India has stated that "In order to undermine the peace and harmony within the Tibetan people, China provides political and financial support to Shugden worshippers in Tibet, India and Nepal in particular, and in general, across the globe." [web 29] And, in an on-line article published by the Times of India, a source in the Religion and Culture Department of the Tibetan Government in exile is quoted as saying that Dorje Shugden followers "have their people in all Tibetan settlements. We are worried about their sources of funding. It might be China or some other anti-Tibetan elements." [web 30] " have issues. The first is WP:PRIMARY, which repeatedly has been rejected in other parts of this article. If we want to include this, we should include the direct WSS claims earlier. It seems like our conclusion is that neither are appropriate. I think this is an especially problematic section as it is asserted as fact as opposed to a mere accusation.

An aspect of the controversy is over the relationship between the propagation of Dorje Shugden and The People's Republic of China. This includes questions about monetary support and political favoritism.

Warren Smith asserts that "Within Chinese controlled territory, the Chinese government demands monks to worship Shugden, in conjunction with forcing them to denounce the Dalai Lama and fly the Chinese national flag." Robert Thurman has claimed that some Shugden activities are financed by the United Front Work Department of the government of China in a strategy against the Dalia Lama. Carol Matthews says that Tibetans and Westerns who are critical of New Kadampa Tradition accuse them of being agents of China, but that there is no substantial proof of this.

Ben Hillman says that a senior lama reports that the Chinese give disproportionate amount of funds to pro-Shugden monasteries and were more lenient with Dorje Shugden practitioners who were looking to study abroad. Thierry Dodin supports the assertion that the Chinese are strategically supporting Dorje Shugden. He notes that they have encouraged division among the Tibetans by promoting followers of the Dorje Shugden sect to key positions of authority, subsidized construction of Shugden temples and monasteries, and have supported Shugden Lamas around the controversial Chinese-chosen Panchen Lama. Raimondo Bultrini documents the Chinese coordination of Shugden activity in the book The Dalai Lama and the King Demon. Raimondo Bultrini documents the Chinese coordination of Shugden activity in the book The Dalai Lama and the King Demon.

In December 2012, Lama Jampa Ngodrup, a promoter of the practice of Dorje Shugden, apparently became "the first Tibetan lama to be appointed by the Chinese Government to travel on an official trip abroad to give Dharma teachings."

What do people think? Is this a more readable summary? I think it helps consolidate the points and makes the points quite clear. We can keep the long Hillman quote perhaps in the bottom, too, as to not lose it altogether. Prasangika37 (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what this Carol Matthews reference is, because yet again there is no page number, publisher, year of publication provided. I would ask Prasangika37 to stop proposing material which no one can verify. Also stop proposing sections which obviously delete a lot of information. What happened to Warren Smith?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Oops..! Sorry, I thought the smith quote was Bultrinis! I included it in the summary, but attributed it to Bultrini accidently. I am editing the above with the page number of Matthews, too. Sorry about that sloppy referencing. // Regarding Bultrini, instead of just saying Bultrini has documented this in his book, perhaps we can give an example of his documenation of the relationship? It seems a bit silly to just send people off on a goose chase to read his book by saying "He has documented it yadda yadda", as opposed to the specific citation? Prasangika37 (talk) 14:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Prasangika37, did you ever click on the footnote of Bultrini? Click here.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Right I see that.. if you would prefer it strongly to be that way then I don't have a big problem and am not going to be pushy over it. It just seems like it would make Bultrini's point a lot more obvious or powerful to include a one-sentence, maybe 15ish word sentence explaining it, as opposed to just saying 'he says things regarding this issue in his book'. But anyway, not a big deal. For the mean time, I'll include it like that in the version above.Prasangika37 (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Re Chinese Involvement: As far as I know there is no real evidence of Geshe Kelsang and the NKT having close links with the Govt of China. However there does seem to be a fair amount of good evidence, including photographs, of other pro-Shugden organisations and lamas (e.g. Gangchen and Kundeling Rinpoches), as well as some Shugden monasteries, in Asia having close links with the Govt. of China. Remember the pro-Shugden camp is not monolithic - they have their factions too. Chris Fynn (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes I think that makes sense CFynn. I think we don't want to make it seem though that its some Chinese conspiracy that there is funding or support for pro-Dorje Shugden groups in India/China. It appears that whats going on is that the Chinese are either being opportunistic or naturally have more Dorje Shugden followers for whatever reason. Do you two have an issue with this version of the section that I am proposing above? I think it is still clear that there is this Chinese support etc, but am getting rid of the quotefarm and so on that prevails throughout the article. Prasangika37 (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no quotefarm. An example of a quotefarm is what you are proposing in the NKT/WSS section. WP:QUOTE says "quotations are preferred to text. For example: When dealing with a controversial subject." VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

A big block of standalone quotes is a quotefarm.. It overly highlights certain points and is not the precedent on wikipedia. Check basically any article, for example Charreda which was mentioned before. They are never of the style this article is in, which is like a collection of quotes relating to the issue at hand. It is almost always in prose with quotes utilized throughout. The issue with quotes in controversial topics is so people do not reword in a manipulative way for a controversial topic, but it doesn't mean to just slap quote after quote. Prasangika37 (talk) 19:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

First you claimed there were quote boxes in the article, when they were none. Then you tried citing policies which do not even apply to quotes. Now you are trying something else. WP:QUOTE says "quotations are preferred to text. For example: When dealing with a controversial subject." Also WP:QUOTE says "Overuse happens when ...a quotation is visually on the page, but its relevance is not explained anywhere." Every quote in the article has apparent relevance. They are not standalone like you claiming. I oppose all your ideas on this talk page.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 05:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The quoteboxes themselves are not the issue; the issue is if the material is presented accurately and if they are undue to the overall weight of the article. Usually a lot of quotes is just sloppy writing, someone isn't taking the time to synthesize. On the other hand, they can sometimes be very appropriate. I'm being critical of someone for having too many right now in one section of Montana_Vigilantes#20th_and_21st_century_analysis. (They are using quotes instead of just explaining the issue, it's a bit lazy). OTOH, they can be appropriately used to highlingt important points, as (yeah, me) I did with Mucho Macho Man - see all the yellow quoteboxes there. Neither article is particularly controversial, hence why I use those examples here. In this case, the Chinese government definitely IS a player, but CFynn rightly points out that we need to be as precise as possible. When in doubt, more sources. Montanabw^(talk) 05:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight, Montana. VG I am just not sure what is the big deal about putting it into a paragraph and why you are so deeply against it. Basically every article on wikipedia goes for that style of synthesizing quotes, using prose, and not just having 'so and so says this' and then, 'so and so says that' repeatedly and in separate sections. See every article on wikipedia.. It is going to happen anyway at some point, so why not make the change now? You're fighting a losing battle. If you want different information in the prose then by all means propose it! I am very happy to alter exactly how the points are synthesized. Stylistically its a no-brainer, though. Especially when it comes to the 5 line type quotes that the article contains. I just looked at 20 controversy articles in a row, and the only one I did not find any that have whole sections that are just highlighted quotes like the ones in this article. The Satanic Verses controversy article is the only one where I saw them used often regularly (even though its still less than here in regards to ratio of total text) in fact, and I assume that will probably change over time. Prasangika37 (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

"In Tibet and China, Tibetan Buddhist teachers who promote Shugden gain financial and political support by Chinese Communist Party officials — China clearly benefits from division within Tibetan Buddhist ranks." — Matteo Pistono (scholar of Tibetan Buddhism and author of "Fearless in Tibet" and "In the Shadow of the Buddha"). Source: Here’s why demonstrators are trolling the Dalai Lama’s US tour Global Post, October 30, 2014.

— Chris Fynn (talk) 07:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Combined sections

Prasangika37 made a good point of having too many sections. I recombined some of the sections here. There is no content change. Just reshuffling.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. That is what I am talking about to start :) I think we can make efforts in refining the logistics and order of everything over some time, but I think it makes the article a lot more readable. For example, if someone wants to know the statements of the Dalai Lama on the issue, it seems to be far more effective to have them all in one place, instead of three different sections. Dividing it reduces the potency of his points or the connection between his arguments, which are obviously very important to the controversy. Prasangika37 (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Where, when, and if VG and P37 agree on anything, I shall not intervene. Gotta be NPOV if you two are on the same page! (Or, if I may make a religious pun, it's the gospel truth! )Montanabw^(talk) 21:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 September 2014

Implement this draft which consolidates some sections. There is also a slight tweak to the lead based on previous discussions.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, whats the tweak?? I'm a bit dull.. Prasangika37 (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

First 2 sentences of lead.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's the diff. Any objections? VictoriaGrayson: it's probably simpler if you make changes incrementally. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Martin. @Joshua Jonathan and CFynn: Do you guys have any input? I am fine with this new intro as I find the ideas of purity and the talk about the schools of Buddhism can be abstract, not helpful, and even slightly inaccurate. I tend to lean towards 'simpler the better' in regards to this article, as it quickly sprawls out of control when we start adding too much. But, JJ added this stuff initially and it'd only be fair to include his POV. Prasangika37 (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The lead is okay, but moving back the comments into the history-section, I don't know. It makes sense, but it's also an invitation to reinsert the views of the Dorje Shugden practitioners, isn't it? But I may be mistaken here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson:, Prasangika37 Changes suggested for the lead are OK. (BTW Nice to see the two of you agreeing on something.) The stuff in the footnote about Nyingma Dzogchen~Buddha-nature vs. Gelug Madhyamaka~Prasaṅgika that you want to remove is irrelevant and actually inaccurate - so better gone. [BTW for the Nyingma view of Madhyamaka and it's relation to Dzogchen see e.g. Karma Phuntso (2005) Mipam's Dialectics and the Debates on Emptiness and Mipham's commentaries on Chandrakirti's Madyamakavatara and Shatarakshita's Madhyamakalankara published as Introduction to the Middle Way and The Adornment of the Middle Way - Padmakara Translation Group]). - Anyway all that stuff has nothing to do with the Shugden controversy.

Two other small tweaks I'd make at the same time: Change "The conflict reappeared by the publication of the Yellow Book" to "The controversy reappeared with the publication of the Yellow Book" or "The controversy reappeared with following the publication of the Yellow Book"; and change "The controversy has attracted attention in the west by demonstrations by Dorje Shugden practitioners" to "The controversy attracted attention in the west following demonstrations by Dorje Shugden practitioners" or ""The controversy attracted attention in the western media following demonstrations by Dorje Shugden practitioners". The current phrasing of those two sentences seems awkward to me. Chris Fynn (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Done CFynn.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I have copied over the changes requested. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete Kay quote?

This seems to be a useless throwaway comment from Kay that doesn't fit in any section in the article:

[W]hen traditions come into conflict, religious and philosophical differences are often markers of disputes that are primarily economic, material and political in nature.

VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It may be useful for the future, actually, if we can develop a section that involves where the roots of the conflict or controversy lie. It seems that there are many different views on this, like in Mills, Lopez, and Kay to start. It might actually present a more all-encompassing perspective on the controversy. I think the point that there is something political going on is very important and this exact point is proposed by various scholars. Prasangika37 (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Additions

Hi @Montanabw:. Sorry about the issue with the editing. I did it because everything I did didn't seem to be very controversial. Did you look at it? I added the paragraph into the NKT/WSS section Jane Ardley explains that after previously speaking out about Dorje Shugden, in 1996 the Dalai Lama went further and announced that members of both government departments and monasteries under the control of the Tibetan exile administration were forbidden from worshipping Dorje Shugden. This led to a massive outcry from Shugden supporters, particularly in Britain, with allegations of religious intolerance. For example, the Western Shugden Society has made various claims that have been debated by scholars. Scholar Georgia Chryssides explains “The Dalai Lama stands accused of restricting the religious freedom of followers of Tibetan Buddhism, and of causing widespread suffering to Shugden supporters, who are not denied access to their protector deity, but who are the victims of persecution, being unable to get jobs that relate to the Tibetan government-in-exile (for example, in schools), and are denied humanitarian assistance. “ which no direct protest was levied against. It is all scholarly, based in fact, and no OR. I have asked for feedback repeatedly and heard nothing about this side of the edit that expressed concern. I did receive feedback on the other paragraph that I proposed, so I did not edit that in the way I had mentioned.

In addition, I removed spaces between quotes, took off quote tags and made points into paragraphs without altering the words of the quotes.

Lastly, I edited "Scholars reject..." from the Thurman quote, as it is implying, using Wikipedia's voice, that scholars universally reject any claims that are made. This is not true, as seen in the paragraph I am proposing above. I made it that "Some scholars" or something along those lines, unless we can prove that scholars universally reject the claims made by the WSS.

Are there issues with this? Prasangika37 (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@Elnon: This is another area where theses sorts of editing issues have been happening. Anyway, I am going to wait a couple days and if there aren't justified reasons to not allow these edits I will include them. There is a bit of ownership going on on this page, as the entire article was not imposed due to consensus, anyway (it was put in in a coup over night in July). What happened to BRD anyway? I don't think its fair to threaten me with 'protecting the article' when I make an edit, especially one that is completely in line with Wikipedia rules and guidelines. If there is edit-warring, fine..but in this case it was just an edit. Perhaps we should put in a 'Controversial' tag if we want to make sure there is talk-page discussion as much as possible in regards to edits, as that seems to be the precedent.Prasangika37 (talk) 11:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I waited nearly a week and got no response. I am re-including these points. Prasangika37 (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

What you do is create new threads, and then say there is no response or objection. Please start by quoting all your sources on this talk page.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: Why did you take the reference out to the DL not allowing Shugden followers to his teachings? It is clearly stated on the website. If you believe it should be addressed in another section, I'm happy to oblige that. Is your view that Shugden followers not being allowed at the DL's teachings not relevant to this page?! Please explain your reasoning for removing this. Thank you. (BTW: Just an observation, but it's not very friendly or welcoming for newcomers on here.) Moon over manhattan (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

We already have a section on that topic.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: What do you mean quoting all your sources? I quoted the sources in the text. They are very clear. Please give 1 good reason to revert. See WP:ROWN. "In the case of a good faith edit, a reversion is appropriate when the reverter believes that the edit makes the article clearly worse and there is no element of the edit that is an improvement. This is often true of small edits." @Elnon: As you can see, constant wikipedia-wide reversion with no justification... Prasangika37 (talk) 01:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw:, who first reverted you, CFynn and myself have already commented on this stuff. I believe the edit makes the article clearly worse and there is no element of the edit that is an improvement. Moreover, you say you provided quotes, but that is false.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Montana commented once, but with no criticism. CFynn had some points alleging about BLP but no back up at all and response. Here are quotes: Ardley: 175: Worship of this figure is especially popular in eastern Tibet, and the present Dalai Lama prayed to Dorje Shugden for many years. However in 1976 the Dalai Lama announced he was advising against the practice because it was promoting sectarianism, which could potentially damage the Tibetan independence movement. Twenty years later, in 1996, the Dalai Lama went further and announced that members of both government departments and monasteries under the control of the Tibetan exile administration were forbidden from worshipping the spirit because the ‘practice fosters religious intolerance and leads to the degeneration of Buddhism into a cult of spirit worship’. This led to a massive outcry from Shugden supporters, particularly in Britain. The Dalai Lama was accused of religious intolerance and provided an opportunity that was not missed by Bejing, who used the dispute as a further reason to denounce the Dalai Lama. // Chryssides: Chryssides 241: 241- “The dispute between Kelsang Gyatso and the Dalai Lama admits of no obvious resolution. The Dalai Lama stands accused of restricting the religious freedom of followers of Tibetan Buddhism, and of causing widespread suffering to Shugden supporters, who are not denied access to their protector deity, but who are the vitims of persecution, unable to get jobs that relate to the Tibetan government-in-exile (for example, in schools), and are denied humanitarian assistance.” These are important points and explain what is going on. Happy to include the whole quotes if you prefer. I removed the central part of Ardley because the point is already made in the page a couple times regarding the Dalai Lama's claims. Prasangika37 (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

And there you go. Chryssides says the dispute is between Kelsang Gyatso and the Dalai Lama. And Ardley says the dispute is used by Beijing.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

What does that matter? They aren't the main points of the quotes obviously and do not take away from the points being mentioned... It doesn't deny the usage of them. Anyway, want the whole quote included instead? I have no issue with that. I wanted to spare you and others large quote blocks. Prasangika37 (talk) 03:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Also Ardley says the outcry was "from Shugden supporters, particularly in Britain."VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep.. That is in the proposed entry... Anyway, give me a reason that this is inappropriate for the article, using wikipedia policy. I don't understand, if you want the article to as accurate as possible, why you are against including direct reasons that groups are demonstrating. Especially, when they are clearly RS? I can have an RFC if you would prefer. Prasangika37 (talk) 03:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: Hello VictoriaGrayson, any logical reasons available for not including scholars who have valid, missing points? Are you saying we should not, for a fact, include scholars points of view on why people are alleging there is a ban? Prasangika37 (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson:, You answer: ":We already have a section on that topic". It refers to Western Shugden followers not attending the DL's teaching. My edit refers to Tibetans (in particular) not being allowed to attend teachings. Which section to you think it should be included? I'm happy to reinsert. Thanks! Moon over manhattan (talk) 13:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually your own nonreliable souce is about "foreigners" i.e. Westerners.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 13:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson:, How is the official website of the Jangchup Lamrim Teachings a "nonreliable source"? It is the official site of the DL. http://www.jangchuplamrim.org/how-to-attend/registration/. It clearly states ALL attendees (not just Western ones). Your comment (above) makes little sense. Please show where it specifically states Western DS followers are not to attend. Can you please explain why this can not be included? Thank you. Moon over manhattan (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

That website isn't the greatest. Granted, VG is being a bit hypocritical because we use the Dalai Lama's website as a reliable source for his quotes. He should know that we should use either both or neither. Anyway, why don't we consult Donald Lopez on the issue instead? A completely qualified, respected scholar of the issue who has looked into this deeply. VG, these will have to come into this article at some point pretty much no matter what, or at least the points they are making. Very important stuff.

“The Dalai Lama’s opposition to the worship of Shugden became more pronounced in 1996. He made strong public statements against the practice during teachings at the celebration of the Tibetan New year. At a tantric initation in a Tibetan refugee settlement in south India, he requested that those who did not disavow the deity leave the ceremony. “ (191-192)

On July 15, 1996, the Tibetan government-in-exile issued a statement that read in part: The Tibetan Administration’s basic policy on the issue of Dholgyal propitiation was spelled out in the unanimous resolution passed on 6 June 1996 by the Assembly of Tibetan People’s Deputies. The resolution stated that the government deparments and their subsidiaries, as well as monastic institutions functioning under the administrative control of the Central Tibetan Administration, should be strictly forbidden from propitiating this spirit. Individual Tibetans, it said, must be informed the demerits of propitiating this spirit, but be given freedom “to decide as they like.” The resolution, however, requested the propitiators of this spirit not to receive Vajrayana teachings from His Holiness the Dalai Lama.”(192)

” Monks of the six major Geluk monasteries in the refugee community were asked to sign a statement supporting a ban on “dubious deities” The Tibetan government-in-exile requested that the abbot of Sera monastery, a traditional center of Shugden devotion, report the names of those monks who continued to worship Shugden.”(192)

Prasangika37 (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@Prasangika37: Thanks very much for the info on the DL website's teaching schedule. Much appreciated! I think your proposed edits are a worthwhile inclusion in the page. IMO, the previous quote in the "Initiations by the 14th Dalai Lama" section gives the impression that Western DS followers are the only group discouraged from attending DL teachings. In order to give a balanced understanding it seems pretty important to include your proposed edits. Moon over manhattan (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I am also wondering about an insertion re: the FPMT's advice regarding Shugden (Dolgyal) -- in particular the FPMT's policy of not allowing Shugden followers attendance to their centers, and that FPMT teachers / staff should not attend teachings by Shugden practitioners. Would their own website be an unacceptable source for citing? http://fpmt.org/teachers/zopa/advice/shugden/ Thanks for anyone's comments / input on this. Moon over manhattan (talk) 17:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Folks, there's a lot of tl;dr here (I have skimmed, looks like the same conversation that was going on a week ago...) But here is the lowdown on sources: jangchuplamrim. is a tertiary source at best, perhaps affiliated with HHDL, but not an official spokesperson for HHDL (the site itself gives a link to the "official" version. The fpmt site is an authoritative and reliable source for what the Dalai Lama actually says and his officially announced positions, so reliable for anything that is claiming what the Dalai Lama actually said or does or advocates. Prasangika37, I am noticing a pattern of tendentious editing and getting assorted other new users to tagteam with you, and I do not approve. You clearly have difficulty understanding NPOV and the Wikipedia MOS. Though I get tired of you folks going over to my talk page, if you want me to assess any SPECIFIC sources in terms of what a neutral MOS analysis would say about them, you may ping me as needed. Montanabw^(talk) 23:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me give all of you an example: Today's featured article (Oct 1, for at least a few more hours) is Mucho Macho Man, a featured article about a race horse that I took to FAC (along with some other great folks, not to take away from anyone else's efforts), I used dozens of footnotes (over a hundred). One is to the web site of his owners, which would normally be a bit suspect, but in one case it is a RS for the statement that they live in a suburb of Atlanta, Georgia called Suwanee. It is presumed reliable because the people themselves generally are the best source to know where they live! If I were to use that same site for a statement like "Mucho Macho Man is the greatest racehorse that ever lived," Well, no, that source is NOT reliable for that assessment. However, I COULD say, "the horse's owners have stated in an interview on X date, 'we think Mucho Macho Man is the greatest racehorse that ever lived!'"(footnote) - that would also be OK because it is a direct quote. To give another example, I used The Blood-Horse many, many times for information, as it is a neutral third party source on horse racing in general, even though the writer who did the most articles about the horse clearly liked the horse a lot, and some of the comments after his stories were critical of both him and the horse, but that did not detract from the usefulness of the source, I just had to be sure to find other sources that balanced things out. That's what NPOV is all about, balancing the sources, WP:DUE weight and what I like to call "teaching the controversy." Montanabw^(talk) 23:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Tendentious editing? If you have a problem with the specific sources I cited, then feel free to comment, but I don't get the animosity when everything I am doing is in regards to Wikipedia guidelines. Establish how something is tendentious or focus on the material. Main question: Do you think the quotes I provided, whether it is Ardley, Chryssides, or Lopez, do not work in the article? I think they're NPOV and help balance out the page as you said. They are perfectly reliable and fill in a major gap in this article. Thats all I am establishing there. I find it very, very bizarre that you accuse me of tendentious editing, but ignore VictoriaGrayson, who apparently singularly seems focused on a very specific POV across many articles and militantly reverts constructive edits. // Also, please don't accuse me of tagteaming or whatever, as you have already made false accusations to @Elnon:. Moon over manhattan didn't even support what I was saying and I went against what he was proposing by offering a better resource. So.. tag-teaming? Please focus on the work I am proposing and if you have a constructive point on that, feel free to share. Otherwise I will go towards including the point.Prasangika37 (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw: First off thank you for giving a better understanding re: citing. Much appreciated. Secondly, Prasangika37 also kindly gave me some useful advice and offered some helpful quotes to help balance out the (current) perception that it is only Western DS followers disallowed from attending the DL's teachings. Honestly, I was only trying to help balance the page out with more up to date info (eg: 2014 DL registration rules). I would much prefer to have that included (which is factual, just the source not 'cite able', it seems by the group here). I 'stumbled' upon the 2014 DL registration form when researching 'PAP' requirements for India. It seemed to relate greatly to this page. I'm not sure what 'tag teaming' is on WP, so I'm fairly convinced I'm not doing it! Thanks again for your help -- it does seem to be a rather complicated process here on WP (at least on this page)! I expect that is why it is called DS Controversy! Hope you all have a nice day. Moon over manhattan (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

What you aren't getting is that you have to have a neutral RESULT. A source reliable for some things may not be for others, hence a blanket analysis is seldom helpful (other than the general MOS decisions of WP that certain things like facebook, twitter, personal blogs, and so on are generally not RS- though with a few exceptions) The problem I am seeing in actual edits (as opposed to this ongoing talk page drama, (which, as in so many articles, usually generates more heat than light) is that the edits tend to present the DS followers' interpretation of what the Dalai Lama said as "fact" as opposed to what the Dalai Lama actually said. Yes, the restrictions on Shugden are not on just WSS followers, but the problem is that you have to handle sources carefully: A source with a POV is "reliable" for its own POV, but it is not reliable for accurately stating its opponents' views. Hence, WSS is reliable for its views of the WSS, but not for stating the position of the Dalai Lama. FPMT is reliable for releasing statements by the Dalai Lama, but were it to state "WSS says foo" it would not be a reliable source for verifying the positions of WSS. Thus, what is acceptable might be a sentence such as "The Dalai Lama has said "ABC" (cite to FPMT official press release). However, the WSS has stated that they understand the Dalai Lama's comments to actually mean DEF (cite to WSS official press release), while news reports indicate that in actual practice, incidents G, H, and I have occurred. (cite to neutral, respected third party source such as the BBC).' Do you see how this works? Montanabw^(talk) 18:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw: I do see now! Thank you very much -- Neutral Result! I'm sure that is explained on WP (somewhere), but I really appreciate you taking the time to explain it here. I will work towards what you have explained, going forward. Moon over manhattan (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit-warring by VictoriaGrayson

@VictoriaGrayson: please stop edit-warring and reverting anything that gets added to this page with no justification. I just saw you edited audrey37's reversion of your previson edit. If you have constructive criticism, please share that, but otherwise its clearly inappropriate. Please answer: Do you think we should not use reliable sources to explain the views of claimants of discrimination if we are also using sources to refute those claims? Not including the claims themselves, or just including them in the form of their criticisms, is not providing NPOV or balance. Do you just want the whole quotes included instead? If so, that is what I will include so the Cherrypicking claim doesn't fit. Prasangika37 (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Great, so the quotes are there in their fullest, so "Cherrypicking" is not a valid argument. Also, I think the section now fits @Montanabw:'s desire for the section having "Expert ABC ssays this"", but Expert DEF counters with this". MontanaBW do you agree? You wanted a balanced rresult and I think including specific claims and specific counters is a perfect way to do this. Prasangika37 (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I would need to review specific diffs. Link them here. I have too many articles watchlisted to go through dozens of edits. That said, remember that just quoting verbatim can also be manipulated. the goal is a neutral RESULT - not pseudo-balance that actually skews the article. Montanabw^(talk) 16:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay thank you for your patience and your time with the article, as per usual. I will give the specific diffs later this afternoon. I put the quotes in verbatim just because of the direct request via VictoriaGrayson (and claims of Cherrypicking), even though I think having them verbatim makes them a bit more complicated. Prasangika37 (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

My main point is that in a section on "views of the NKT/WSS", we need to include the views, which are currently not present. I chose quotes to represent the views/what they are based on. Most of the modern controversy is based around the views of the accusers of discrimination, and the article currently just has refutations, but none of the explanations of the views themselves from someone who isn't amidst refutation. Most recent edit attempt-[6] I think this is worse than the next one, as I really would prefer to not include the entire quotes as they belabor the point and are unattractive in the article. The previous edit attempt- [7]I think this is superior, as it doesn't have big chunky quotes but instead conveys points simply. VG accused this of being cherrypicked though by not including what is in the previous quotes. Maybe this version can just include any aspects that were deemed cherrypicked for a happy medium. This is the reversion VG made-[8] ..hopefully used diffs right as I am a bit of a newb when it comes to using them. ... Prasangika37 (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Rebuttal by VictoriaGrayson

If I had no justification, why did you respond to my justification of WP:CHERRYPICKING? That makes no logical sense. Secondly, Montanabw also reverted you. You are the one edit warring. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

NPOV Questioning

Hi, I included the NPOV Dispute point. I feel the page still has lots and lots of issues and this tag was removed at some point in July without coming to any conclusion the dispute is solved. John_Carter had previously included it. If there are issues with this inclusion please feel free to chime in. Especially since the page was recently locked, we can tell that things are a bit controversial here in regards to the controversy :) I am willing to discuss it, but I think it would be definitely false to not include it. If there is a better tag feel free to replace it, but I think some tag should be used for the time being. Prasangika37 (talk) 18:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion of NPOV tag.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, long time no talk VictoriaGrayson. Hope all is well in your world. Willing to share why? Prasangika37 (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Grammar and redirects

I have edited the page to fix grammar and redirect wikilinks to direct ones. There seems *zero* reason to roll those edits back. Here's the diff after I reverted the removal of my edits: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Dorje_Shugden_controversy&diff=next&oldid=629220408# Ogress _smash! 23:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

You are engaging in tendentious editing. See WP:TE. For example you changed a direct quote of "gyalpo" to "gyalpo spirit". This is just one of several problems you introduced into the article.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

"Tendentious editing is a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole." I have no dog in this fight, madam, and I fail to see how copyediting the article is non-NPOV. I fixed "gyalpo" as per your note: that was a purely graphical error on my part because gyalpo redirects to gyalpo spirits. I apologise for that error, but deleting the entirety of my edits because you have a vague sense I have some kind of partisan, biased editing... why would you say that when I am engaging in fixing wikilinks and fixing formatting? I don't even understand what partisan position you believe I am championing. Ogress _smash! 02:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you believe I am pro-Dorje Shukden or anti-Dorje Shukden? I assure you I am not even a Tibetan Buddhist, never mind a Gelukmo. Ogress _smash! 02:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm a fan of using piped links instead of redirects. Just my opinion. Ping Victoria on her talk page. Montanabw^(talk) 21:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Pinging @Elnon: @Ogress: This is getting so tiresome. How many people are going to be accused and lambasted for making edits here, instead of actually trying to relate to people's specific points? Prasangika37 (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:CANVASS: Calling upon only your supporters (and not folks like Jonathan, Cullen, etc on the "other side") is canvassing. Montanabw^(talk) 06:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw: I don't see an other side here.. "My supporters" demonstrates that you are also doing this finger pointing too. I am alerting the two of them because they have both interacted with this finger pointing already and its important that they know its continuing and is a continual habit. Joshua Jonathan and Cullen328 have been continually non-existent or non-responsive on this page after I have alerted them on a variety of other issues. I don't mind them knowing eitherway.Prasangika37 (talk) 13:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I am no one's supporter. >:-( I don't even know what the issue is outside of my own conflict. Ogress _smash! 23:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The issue is basically that the Western Shugden Society, New Kadampa Tradition, and other followers of Shugden are very strong opponents of the Dalai Lama, and their activities may be backed or funded by the Chinese government, though the link is far from clear. Some people believe that the Shugden movement, particularly the branch headed by Kelsang Gyatso, exhibits the hallmarks fo being a cult. Also, some Shugden supporters in India may be implicated in the murder of two associates of the Dalai Lama. However, the Shugden followers deny all of this, and hence we are off to the races. The problem is complicated by a significant number of pro-Shugden edits coming from new and single-purpose accounts that are all saying the same thing, plus we have busted at least one sockpuppet. So the issue is highly controversial. All that said, Victoria and Prasangika are kind of locked in mortal combat here and it's kind of hard to get either of them to AGF as to the other. Montanabw^(talk) 21:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I picked that general fight up myself, we've got NKT centers here. Plus I studied some Tibetan under the radar in Beijing (yay, dodging police raids), so I'm aware of how the Official Machine works. But thank you for clarifying the general issue I didn't understand, which is to be 'lack of AGF/sockpuppetry/whitewalling'. However, I've 1. been an editor since 2004 2. am not aware my edits were partisan 3. were not aware my edits on any page were partisan. The articles on Islam suffer this kind of issue constantly, which is why I finally surrendered after a decade of fighting and deleted my watchlist and decided to start over copyediting. Surprise, bear trap. In the interests of clarity: I lived in a Korean Seon monastery then went on to study Buddhism under Nagatomi at Harvard. If anyone taught me the principles behind rime, it was him.Ogress _smash! 08:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh editing land mines are everywhere, I passed by here thinking I could be relatively neutral because I'm not a Buddhist at all (member of Amnesty International for a long time, though). But this place is tame compared to the shitstorm over capitalization of animal breed names.... sheesh! Now THERE's a war! Montanabw^(talk) 05:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Removed Further Reading section

Further Reading section seemed redundant. Those 2 references are already listed in the Sources section.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Prasangika37 / Beeflin not following WP:SAY?

• Using a word like 'claim' is a loaded word per Wikipedia policy. See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Words_to_watch and WP:CLAIM which states "To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence."
• Prasangika37's word of "thinks" is not even listed in WP:SAY.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

We want to be clear though that these are just opinions as of now. In addition, you have been corrected in the past for using wikipedia's voice to assert points. I have just edited your inclusion that "The isc is a front group for the nkt" and removed it, as you included it in Wikipedia's voice. Also, the article is starting to become overwhelming full of Thurman's op-ed pieces, which are not even scholarly, sourced or peer-reviewed articles. Please watch this and pick and choose carefully of what is appropriate and what is not. Prasangika37 (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

But you inserted Thurman's new piece into the article first. See this diff.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Inserted it in order to counter balance the confusing points that have been included from his POV, not to add more of his exact same point of view in. Prasangika37 (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Putting back in edits

@Montanabw: No idea why you reverted me. NKT sources?? Strange accusation. Please spend some simple time looking into sources before accusing people ( a simple google search would do-->http://www.amazon.co.uk/British-Buddhism-Teachings-Development-Routledge/dp/0415395151 )( http://www.amazon.com/Buddhism-Bath-Authority-Adaptation-Community/dp/1871363055 ). Both Bluck and Waterhouse are scholarly, reliable sources and are far superior to the interviews and op-eds we use on this page already.. If you have issues with content I'm happy to chat though, but claiming something about the quality of the source is inaccurate. Prasangika37 (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, you also tossed out some other stuff and rearranged half the article to put some material way down at the bottom. The "British Buddhism Teachings" book is quite problematic, as it doesn't mention mainstream Matayana material (at least what it lists in the Amazon link you provide) but does mention other new religious tradition that have cult elements, such as Triratna/FWBO. I found a couple articles where both Bluck and Waterhouse are rather roundly criticized for having an uncritical and superficial review of both NKT and FWBO, without interviewing anyone critical of the movement. Given that they are cited for criticism of the Dalai Lama, they are not at all good sources, I'm afraid. BTW, Bluck is in Google books here in the USA: Bluck. In referencing the preceding, I also found this, which offers a more critical view of the NKT. Montanabw^(talk) 04:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

They are cited for criticism of the Dalai Lama and are thus not good sources? What rule related to WP:RS is that? Critical of the Dalai Lama doesn't make you a non RS. I find it so strange that you would assert such a thing. Thats like saying Thurman, Dodin, Barnett, and Markansky, , all who are used here, shouldn't be used because they are basically just critical of Dorje Shugden practitioners. That doesn't cut it, unless you would like to remove them also from the article. In addition, the points included from them here are largely unrelated to criticism of the Dalai Lama. They are just factual observations from their own reporting. Prasangika37 (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The link you sent is from Carol Mcguire, who from what I understand, spends hours each day writing on messageboards against the NKT and is not a scholar. Even if it was an RS I don't know how it relates to the issue at hand! Prasangika37 (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

They parrot the positions of the NKT, the way the material is phrased implies that it's a general criticism, not a specific one. If you were to make it far clearer that the source had a bias and that it was explaining the criticisms of the Dalai Lama that NKT makes, it would be less objectionable. But the point is that these two writers clearly equate Buddhism with two groups widely viewed as cults (FWBO seems to be unaffiliated with NKT, but has similar criticisms) neither writer seems to have examined mainstream Tibetan Buddhism. These works would be akin to someone studying Christianity and only looking at the Moonies and The Way. This article needs to not whitewash the very legitimate problems that the NKT has. Montanabw^(talk) 23:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

How are you going to say they didnt study other "Buddhisms"? How do you know that? This is getting absolutely bizarre. They're both scholars and more-so than Dodin, whos point of view you support on this page.. " British Buddhism presents a useful insight into contemporary British Buddhist practice. It provides a survey of the seven largest Buddhist traditions in the United Kingdom" Its published in the same journal that David Kay's work was published in, which is used here. Bring it to NPOV if you would like or do you want me to? The quotes included from them is about the Dalai Lama and the denouncement on the practice of Dorje Shugden, not about the NKT.. So 'whitewashing?' It has nothing to do with them. You in fact seem like you're whitewashing the criticism or explanation of the denouncement against Dorje Shugden.

As a sidenote, widely viewed as a cult? You're showing a bit of a strong, extreme view and a seeming obsession with criticizing the NKT, when I am not even talking about them. As a sidenote, The NKT is widely respected in fact. Look at the scholarly publications relating to them. Look at the mainstream mediea coverage here of the recent demonstrations for religious freedom by the International Shugden Community, which seems to consist of many members of the NKT. http://arebuddhistsracist.com/media_coverage.html . The mainstream media actually seem to be more critical of the Dalai Lama or acknowledge this than anything. The main criticisms of the NKT come from within Tibetan Buddhism and scholars of it, particularly proponents of the Dalai Lama. Its convenient for them to attack the NKT as members of the NKT challenges the Dalai Lama's authority and criticize him of discriminating, which makes those who are passionate about 1)him 2) "free tibet" 3) Virulently anti-China, very upset. If you notice, the main criticism in any texts doesn't come until they start speaking up against him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasangika37 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Anything? 1. Critical of the Dalai Lama is not grounds for deeming not RS. 2. "not talking about other mainstream mahayana groups" is not grounds. 3. In addition they're both scholars. 4. There is nothing about removing criticism of the NKT here so'white washing criticism of the NKT' doesn't apply. 5. The journals etc. utilized are reputable. Prasangika37 (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Still waiting... I'll re-insert when appropriate, then, as I am taking your extended silence as a message! Prasangika37 (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)