Talk:Dorje Shugden/Archive 6

Archive

As this talk page had once again grown very long (over 260 kilobytes), I have once again moved the discussion which has taken place since November 2008 to 25 May 2009 to another archive subpage.

Please add any new sections from top to bottom! Chris Fynn (talk) 11:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to keep the RfC open in the hope of attracting a little more input from outside the page, so I've moved that section from the archive back into the main space. --Clay Collier (talk) 12:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Did not intend to close down any of the discussion by archiving it ~ indeed, if only to avoid repetition, I hope people will continue to refer to what has been written there. It is just that this discussion page was getting long and unwieldy and difficult to edit, particularly for those on a slow connection. Chris Fynn (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Nature and Views on Dorje Shugden

How should Dorje Shugden be identified in the intro? Should conflicting views on Shugden's nature be presented in the article? If so, where should they be placed? 23:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

1)Tibetan Buddhists currently disagree on what type of being Dorje Shugden is; the Dalai Lama and various organizations associated with him are of one view, and worshipers of Dorje Shugden are of another. Given this disagreement, how should we identify Shugden in the intro? Solutions floated previously have included:

• A deity in Tibetan Buddhism and the Gelug sect
• A deity in certain sections of Tibetan Buddhism and the Geluk sect
• A supernatural being in Tibetan Buddhism and the Gelug sect
• regarded by some Tibetan Buddhists as a deity, and others as an evil spirit
• Saying nothing about what Shugden is, but indicating that a controversy exists over his nature.

2) There is currently a Dorje Shugden Controversy article that covers some of the material relating to the dispute over Shugden's status. Should all information about the views of those who do not regard Shugden as a deity be kept in the Controversy article, or should some of it be incorporated into the main text in some form?

3) If material relating to the controversy is to be included, where should it be placed in the article? Three views:

• The information should be early in the article, just after the intro, as it relates to the nature of what Shugden is, and who believes it, and thus informs the reading of the rest of the article.
• At the end of the article, as it relates to criticisms of Shugden by those who do not worship him, and thus should not be given undue weight.
• At the end of a section on the history of Shugden and his practice, since the controversy did not emerge in its modern form until the second half of the 20th Century.

My views and the views of several editors who have been involved in this article for some time are in the Talk sections above. --Clay Collier (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Uninvolved Editors

• I know (knew) nothing about this until I responded to a complaint about edit warring on WP:AN3. Here's what I believe Wikipedia policy and guidelines have to say on the matter. First, as to the use of two separate articles (point 2). Per WP:SUMMARY, the split article (Dorje Shugden Controversy) is appropriate so as not to overbalance the main article (this one) with material about this one aspect of the subject. However, WP:SUMMARY is quite clear that the split material should still be summarized at the main page. So the existence of the controversy article emphatically does not indicate that we should remove all mention of the dispute here. So the controversy should be summarized in a paragraph in this article, with a link to the controversy article as the main page for this aspect of Dorje Shugden.

  On the other points: (3): It's better to have the paragraph summarizing the controversy integrated into the history section; that way, we avoid a "controversy" section which is always a bit uncomfortable. Further, the controversy is so essentially important that it needs to be discussed briefly in the intro. Given that, (1): I think it's best to give an initial description based on what adherents believe, and then later in the intro, the opposing point of view should be briefly described while describing the controversy. Mangojuice^talk 16:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Mangojuice. Thank you for your neutral input. I fully agree with what you said. I tried to implement the point (3), but these 3-4 users continually revert it. Clay tried also (he has a great deal of patience), he proposed a very balanced compromise, and they reverted all his changes also. It's been going for years. What can we do? In the current form the article is almost ridiculous. And especially the intro is very misleading. Asasjdgavjhg (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mangojuice, I think it is fine to mention something in the introduction, but it needs to be fair, neutral and non-inflammatory or the article is straightaway off to a bad start and will attract an endless edit sparring; so for this reason I've kept what Asasjdgavjhg has said but reworded it. I think your other points are valid also, thank you. (Truthbody (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC))

Hello again Mangojuice, I have tried to implement your suggestions, please advise whether this works better now. (Truthbody (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC))

Unfortunately, Asasjdgavjhg just keeps adding more stuff to the introduction to skew it in favor of the Dalai Lama's brigade, which means that has to be balanced out, and it is all getting unwieldy again. Can we go back to the simplest version of this from earlier today? (Truthbody (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC))

Truthbody, let's not forget that, amongst Tibetans and Tibetan Buddhists, the view of "the Dalai Lama's brigade" is held by many more than the view of the "Shugden adherents" who believe that he is an "Enlightened Buddha". There are also many Tibetans and Tibetan Buddhists who have no particular view, or consider Shugden to be just another one of the numerous (un-enlightened) protector spirits and local deities found in Tibetan Buddhism. I have personally met quite a number of Tibetans who propitiate Shugden as a worldly dharma protector. Many DS adherents editing this article seem to consider the views of anyone who does not fully subscribe to thier beleif that DS is an Enlightend Buddha to be part of "the Dalai Lama's brigade". Chris Fynn (talk) 06:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Protecting the Protector?

The zeal and dedication of some contributors to this article is noteworthy. Although the topic of whether Dorje Shugden is an "Enlightended Buddha", a worldly protector, an angry spirit, or simply a figment of the Tibetan imagination that has taken on a life of its own may only be a matter of academic interest or curiosity for most readers; for commited members of the NKT, and other Dorje Shugden devotees, this "debate" ~ in part carried on by editing this and related articles ~ is understandably a matter of upholding the reputation and the validity of their school, their teachers and the teaching and practice lineages which they follow and "take refuge" in. — Lodru (talk) 05:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

POV

I have added a POV template to the article since the article lacks prevalence of a perspective in found in high-quality reliable sources and I think instead largely reflects the POV and opinions of NKT practioioners and other adherents or devotees of the entity which is the subject of the article. Though there is a wealth of high quality sources including scholarly articles and critical studies on the subject available, the majority of sources used in the article are non-academic publications by organisations whose members are devoted to this entity. Consequently the article gives undue weight to such sources and there are huge hunks of text refelecting only the minority opinion of Shugden devotees including whole paragraphs from paens in praise of Shugden. The article certainly does not reflect the consensus of critical scholary opinion on the history and practice of Dorje Shugden which can found in numerous published scholarly articles and studies of the subject and on the controversy surrounding it. I'm not sure what to do about this - previous attempts by others to balance the article have resulted in edit wars as Shugden devotees invitably seemed to feel that such sources are biased against them, and relentlessly re-edited the article to suit their perspective. At least that is not going on just now - but that hardly makes the article balanced. Chris Fynn (talk) 08:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Reasons for adding this template have been clearly stated above but Truthsayer62 is repeatedly removing the template without any discussion before this is resolved. Reasons for POV template are in addition to those cited on previous occasions by others. Chris Fynn (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

the article does not require another POV template as the neutrality issue has already been flagged by other users. Chris Fynn's reasons are part of the overall neutrality issue and this has already been flagged. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Chris - if you read through some of the archive of this discussion, you'll see reasons given clearly for the prevalence of sources representing the practitioners' view of this entity here, namely:

this is an article about an object of religious faith, a deity (bear with me, please). in keeping with WP articles on other deities/objects of religious faith such as Hindu gods, Christian saints etc., it is entirely appropriate that the article presents, mainly, the view of the adherents of this deity.

of course, controversy exists over the nature of this entity and this is properly covered in a separate article, which is clearly indicated and linked to within this article - that is the place for the references you cannot find here to be added, if they are not in fact already there. thus the reader who wants to understand the *deity* and the beliefs and practices of its adherents can find the information they seek here, and the reader looking for information on the *controversy* is directed to that article. this is quite clear from the existing text, adequate and appropriate and there is nothing underhanded or disingenuous about it; i rather feel that your rekindling of this POV argument is somewhat pointless. Atisha's cook (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

@ Atisha's cook:- A well-known problem with the what you call the "Practitioners View" and others might call an insiders view is that this all to oftem means there is a conflict of interest. As has been pointed out elsewhere if you are affiliated with the people, things you have write about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with. - Wouldn't projects and products include practices strongly promoted by a religious organisation you are affiliated with, particularly when there is some controversy associated with that practice? The NKT and similar organisations are clearly involved in actively promoting this practice. A COI may also arise if NKT members or Dorje Shugden Devotees participate in "participate in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors" or where you link the Wikipedia article to the website(s) of your organization.

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views must be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material." The prevelence of perspective should be that in found in what are normally considered high-quality reliable sources. Although views contained in publications by organisations involved in promoting this practice affiliates should clearly be reported in the article, such publications do not normally count as high-quality reliable sources

Citing the fact that other WP articles about deities/objects of religious faith such as Hindu gods, Christian saints etc. have been written from a similar POV frankly cuts no ice. Many of those articles need cleaning up too.
- Chris Fynn (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

this seems to boil down to a debate about whether or not this controversy is the single most important defining characteristic of this deity. i would argue that it isn't. controversy exists - and has become quite intense since the Dalai Lama banned the practice in '96 - but controversy exists about *all* objects of faith. it needs to be recorded - therefore there's a separate article about *the controversy* - but if every article on every deity included descriptions of every controversy surrounding it then they would fast become unwieldy and pretty useless. keep the article short and to the point, and point the interested reader to further information on the controversy. why is this not sensible? Atisha's cook (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the POV template because the issue of neutrality is already flagged and does not require another template. This is not to diminish the issues that Chris Fynn has raised, and if he feels strongly about them he should make edits accordingly. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 09:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

with respect, for all the reasons i gave above, i disagree that this is the appropriate place for such edits: they properly belong in the Dorje Shugden controversy article. however, i agree that the addition of a POV template is redundant, though i fear that there'll always be those who try to manufacture a dispute precisely by adding templates and then edit-warring over them! Atisha's cook (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If there are different sources for the different ways in which Dorje Shugden has been approached/practiced (e.g., as a worldly protector or as an enlightened being), these should all be reflected in this article. The Dorje Shugden Controversy from the 1970s on, of course, has its own article. I would say that the practice has not been "controversial" from the start, however. "Debated" might be a better term; maybe that can be covered in this article as well, without delving into the current controversy too much, except as to summarize and then redirect the reader to that relevant article. Emptymountains (talk) 12:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Since the consensus of scholarly opinion actually seems to be that there has been one controversy, "debate" or another about DS since the 17th century — and indeed throughout the history of this "protector" since then — the facts and details of this historical debate belong right here in the main article. I agree that most of the details about the contemporary manifestation of the controversy (related to the Dalai Lama's "ban" etc.) or if you will the current controversy belong in the Dorje Shugden controversy article since otherwise they would probably overwhelm eveything else here - but I would stongly oppose attempts to sanitize this article by moving material about the historical controversy or debate there too. - Chris Fynn (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Chris - quite right that anyone with a potential COI should, at least, exercise great caution in editing and this is what i always try to do. you also will need to do this here: you're hardly a disinterested observer on this topic! now, it's clear that the advice you've quoted above, which i'm quite familiar with, is intended to prevent bias in the articles; it would be extreme, however, to say, for example, that no Christian (and also no Muslim, no Jew, etc.) should edit articles on objects of Christian faith, practice or debate, wouldn't it?

wrt sources, to lay my cards out on the table, in my opinion the Dalai Lama has succeeded in pushing his view (you don't really question the nature of his "ban"?, do you?) on this deity so that it has now become widespread. i believe that some of your proposed sources, such as Thurman, are in fact compromised as scholarship by their authors' hero-worship of the Dalai Lama, eg. "Why the Dalai Lama matters". there is therefore, to my mind, a serious question about some of these sources: can they truly, impartially, be considered high-quality reliable sources? that's not to say that impartial material doesn't exist.

i think the best way forward is for you to submit here your intended edits and their sources so that we can discuss them. i for one will not simply oppose them because they don't accord with my view, but i may argue against them for any of the reasons i've given, and others: we can discuss this, however. any edits that improve the article will be welcome. Atisha's cook (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

@Atisha's cook:- Actually I don't take Thurman all that seriously - an entertaing speaker but a bit of a clown. With regard to my own position - I have been studying Tibetan Buddhism since before 1970 and living with Tibetans and Bhutanese from then till now. I have received extensive personal teachings from lamas of all tratitons including from Yongzin Ling Rinpoche, Sakya Trizin, Kalu Rinpoche, the 16th Karmapa, Dilgo Kyentse, Penor Rinpoche and Kunnu Lama but I have never been a member of any Buddhist organisation or Tibetan cultural or political organisation. I have good freinds who are practitioners of all traditions ~ including some who regard Dorje Shugden as their protector. Generally wrt matters Tibetan an Tibetan Buddhist I regard myself as well informed but not partisan. I regard literal interpretations of texts praising lamas or protectors skepticaly ~ or largely metaphorical ~ after all there have been many very wordly lamas calle emanations of Buddhas or Enlightend Bodhisattvas in prayers even though their deeds often speak otherwise, Similarly almost every local deity has been called an enlightend Bodhisattva or Buddha in one prayer or another. Therefore if some high lama has praised a protector as Manjusri, Lokeshvara or Buddha I need some serious evidence that this is not just poetics or metaphor. I enjoy argument and debate - but am not necessarily against every pov I argue with. Although you may disagree with me, I thin I do try to be up front and fair - Unlike most people posting here I use my own name so every body knows exactly who I am.

Yes I'm seriously thinking about editing or re-writing this article based on what Wikipedia considers "reliable sources" but see little point in spending the time to do this if all my edits will be deleted by people who think I oppose them. Come on - this is an encyclopedia which aims to provide something like a condensed view of what the majority of critical western scholars in the field say about a subject - don't expect it to be more. From a "practioners viewpoint" an article may seem all wrong - but Wikipedia should only be reporting what that viewpoint is - no endorsing it in anyway. No one should even be attempting to make Wikipedia articles conform to a "Practitioners viewpoint". Anyway I'm not even going to attempt to edit this article until the end of October or November at the earliest. For a start I will be away from any computer from the begining of October till then. Chris Fynn (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia should only be reporting what that viewpoint is - no endorsing it in anyway." i quite agree, and as far as i can see, the article doesn't currently "endorse" any view. my point is not that articles on deities etc. ought to promote or endorse the view of their adherents, but simply that, as an encyclopaedic entry, it is most relevant and appropriate to describe how a deity is perceived by its adherents (with suitable qualifiers: "Christians believe that Jesus...", etc.). the main article should not be given over to discussion of opposing views ("Jews believe that Jesus...") except briefly; where there is sufficient controversy to warrant it, then, as we have in this case, to keep the articles clear and concise this can be separated into its own article, clearly linked to from the "main" article.

that's my view - i'm not trying to promote only my own beliefs concerning this entity. Atisha's cook (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

There has been a great deal of high-quality and well-reasoned discussion on this article's positioning and function respective to the Dorje Shugden controversy article and other qualified Wikipedia articles of the same genre, all of which can be found in the archives. Life is short, so rather than repeating exactly the same discussions again, as seems to be happening here, can Chris Fynn and others please look at the discussions in the archives and see if their points are already dealt with? I think most of what Chris says above has been discussed in detail already. As just one example, I contributed something that seems relevant here as well, and although I wish we didn't all have to keep repeating ourselves, I feel the need to add it here in answer to some of Chris's latest points.

"I agree with Yourfriend that we should keep the controversial elements, which after all were started by the Dalai Lama not by the Deity or even his practitioners, in the controversy article and let this one be about the Deity Dorje Shugden. The article has a suitable and adequate reference to the other views of his nature and the reader is directed clearly to the controversy article if he/she wants to know about this controversy. Even when the politics die down, the Dalai Lama's influence is less pervasive, the Phoenix-like Dorje Shugden temples and monasteries get larger and larger in the east and the west, and the reputations of the great Gelugpa Buddhist Masters (who also practiced Shugden) such as Trijang Rinpoche, Zong Rinpoche and Geshe Kelsang Gyatso are restored, Dorje Shugden will still be relied upon as a holy being; and this article shows the nature of the Deity, the practice and reliance. In the future, it is likely that this Protector will be relied upon once more by hundreds of thousands if not millions of people in Tibet, China, India and the West. (Truthbody (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC))" (Truthbody (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC))

Sources

The majority of the references currently cited in this article seem to be from works by noted Tibetan Shugden adherents such as Pabongkha, Trijang Rinpoche, and especially books by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso ~ I don't think any of these qualify as what Wikipedia:Sources calls "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and to counterbalance these there is only a single reference to a source by a Tibetan with a differing view - the Dalai Lama - although such views are apprently the majority in that community. Other well known and respected Tibetan sources supporting the view that Shugden has usually been considered a mere worldly protector or a harmful entity are not cited. The article contains several references taken from rsther dated sources such as a 1926 book by the missionaries Paul Sherap & G. A. Combe, a 1935 National Geographic article by the famous botanist Joseph Rock, and reprint edition of René Nebesky-Wojkowitz's 1956 book Oracles and Demons of Tibet. There is also a second hand account of a story which one of the Dalai Lama's former chamberlains apparently recounted to Helmut Gassner whom the article claims was "the Dalai Lama's translator for 17 years". However if we actually read the cited source (transcript of a talk by Gassner) it is apparent that he only acted as an ocassional interpreter for the Dalai Lama on visits to Germany - and much of that seems to have been English to German - so to call Gassner "the Dalai Lama's translator for 17 years" is imo a rather misleading exageration. The quote of the chamberlain's story is seemingly included only to try and prove that the Dali Lama once relied on Shugden.

The current version of the article does have a single passing reference to D. N. Kay's Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain (Routlege 2004) and another to C. H. Partridge's New Religions: a Guide (OUP, 2004) - unoubtedly both good quality sources - but where are the references to and quotes from directly relevant academic material on the subject written by noted Tibetologists and Buddhist scholars such as Robert Barnett, Michael von Brück, Georges Dreyfus, Matthew T. Kapstein, Donald Lopez, Robert Thurman, Paul Williams and so on? For some reason references to such writings that get included seem to quickly disappear. Shouldn't books and articles by writers like these, published by university presses and in peer-reviewed academic journals be considered Grade A sources for a Wikipedia article? Doesn't repeated deletion of material referencing such sources amount to vandalism?

There have also been academic thesis related to Shugden written such as Lindsay G. McCune's Tales of Intrigue From Tibet’s Holy City: the historical underpinnings of a modern Buddhist crisis [Florida State University, Dept. of Religion 2007] and papers such as Christopher Bell's recent Dorjé Shukden: The Conflicting Narratives and Constructed Histories of a Tibetan Protector Deity given at this year's annual meeting of the AAR but these are also not cited or quoted in the article.
Chris Fynn (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Chris, I am attempting to add in some material from the references you suggest. I only wish that some of them had actually described the practice of Dorje Shugden more than they do the controversy surrounding its ban. I also note that Bell's paper has not been made available, as the AAR meeting hasn't happened yet.

P.S. Dreyfus and Kay, and also Mills and Ardley, all say that the controversy started in the 1970s. For example, Kay (in agreement with Dreyfus, as quoted on the Controversy page) explicitly says on page 49 that before the 1970s, "there was no open conflict or controversy" regarding the Dorje Shugden practice. Emptymountains (talk) 03:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Prominent reference to the Dorje Shugden controversy in the lead --> removed WP:POV tag

I agree on the concept that has been discussed and largely agreed upon in previuos discussions, namely that this article should focus on the deity from a practitioners/adherents POV and that the controversy should be left to the seperate article.

This concept can be legitimised only though, when there is a prominent reference to the controversy that cannot be overlooked by the casual reader. The controversy is of the highest significance to the perception of the deity among the general public, be they Buddhist or non-Buddhist, and most definitely among the adherents of Tibetan Buddhism. In fact, most people only ever hear about this deity precisely because of the controversy surrounding it.

I have added such a reference and at the same time removed the WP:POV tag, because i believe it is ok for this article to focus on the adherents POV under said condition - plus, of course, appropriate WP:NPOV language like: "Adherents think..." (already very good in the article). I appeal especially to the NKT-affiliated editors dominating this article to agree on this compromise and not to remove the reference from the lead. Anything less than an explicit mentioning and link to the controversy in the lead (!!) would imho inescapably delegitimise the strict seperation of practitioners/others views in the present two-article concept. Andi 3ö (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Andi - i still disagree with your elevation of the controversy to the most important or relevant point concerning this deity, which is what placing it in the lead does. it simply isn't the case. some interested parties, particularly those interested in modern Tibetan politics and academic study of Tibetan religion, see Dorje Shugden as nothing more than a point of controversy, and there's a relatively large amount of literature on this controversy as a result. but this is to confuse the deity with the controversy: in my view these things are separate. just because there is a controversy, does not make that controversy the most important feature or aspect of the deity. i feel that you've now given that feature undue weight in this article. however, i appreciate your attempt to resolve the endless bickering over POV...

there seems to be two camps: those interested mainly in the deity and those interested mainly in the controversy - which illustrates perfectly the need for two articles! that article is all about the controversy; this article should be all about the deity and its practice. it seems that you (and Chris, etc.) feel that the deity is defined by the controversy; it is not. these topics are separate.

interested to hear others' views. Atisha's cook (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys, I actually think that Andi's changes make sense, and I tend to agree with his reasoning. There are also lots of other pages and organizations, like the link to Western Shugden Society that reflect the significance of the controversy. The controversy and ban are a big deal ... but they definitely shouldn't overshadow or drown out the actual spiritual practice. Since the Tibetan government openly states that the ban is just political, it remains important to separate the ban and the ensuing controversy from the actual practice. Peaceful5 (talk) 00:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It's true. Someone may be looking to find out more about the controversy, but if they only type "Dorje Shugden" in the Wiki search engine, all they get is this article, not the one they are looking for. Maybe it is a little weighty in the lead, but more of the current article could be summarized in the lead, too; right now, all it says is that DS is a Dharma Protector since the time of the 5th Dalai Lama. Emptymountains (talk) 01:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The article refers to the controversy article, which I think is fair enough. Anyone who is interested enough to read the whole article will find the link to the controversy article. Even though the controversy and ban are a big deal, I don't think they warrant a mention in the lead - this is just too heavy handed.--Truthsayer62 (talk) 06:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it should be in the lead; that's fair to the reader. But, it is a very long sentence, taking up nearly 50% of the lead. Perhaps it could be shorted to something much more succinct, such as: "With the current Dalai Lama's attempts to suppress the practice, this debate has intensified into what is known as the Dorje Shugden Controversy." Emptymountains (talk) 10:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

this shorter version is preferable, to reduce the undue weight given to the controversy in the lead; i still feel that its inclusion in the intro isn't justified and is in fact still giving undue weight to the controversy in this article, but if there's a consensus that it *should* be here, then i won't oppose this version. Atisha's cook (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the observation that the controversy now takes a little too much space in the lead, compared to the rest. On the other hand i like the current formulation a lot, because it leaves very little room for misinterpretations and is very well sourced. I'm not sure what to do. As Emptymountains suggested, we have two possibilities: a)expanding the regular content of the lead according to WP:LEAD, i.e. summarizing the content of (all major parts of) the article, or b) shortening the controversy-sentence. I have the feeling that shortening the sentence bears a great risk of oversimplification and makes it very hard to assure a [WP:NPOV]] (every single word of the sentence becomes even more meaningful). On the other hand, summarizing the sections about Dorje Shugdens function, symbolism, appearence etc. in just a few words respectively, is also not an easy task... Andi 3ö (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok...i'll give it a try. What about this:

"With the current Dalai Lamas growing opposition and subsequent "explicit ban" of the practice, this debate has escalated into what is known as the Dorje Shugden Controversy."

I took your version, EM, but 1) used wording similar to the status quo (so we can use the footnotes) and 2) avoided the nasty word "supression", because then we avoid the debate of whether the Dalai Lama (and the Gelug Establishment) actively "suppress" the practice (with all its harsh associations of e.g. physical force etc.) and b) to what degree they are successfull in doing so. I also replaced "intensified" with the stronger "escalated" because i think we can all agree that the controversy has (sadly) become much more than an "intensive debate" (about the nature of Dorje Shugden). Andi 3ö (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

There are I think two kinds of controversy which need to be distinguished:- the historical controversy over the nature of this entity - which was carried on largely through debate pretty much confined to learned lamas; and the contemporary controversy surrounding the DL's apparent "strong discouragement", "ban" or "suppression" of the practice and the subsequent very public protests of Tibetan and Western practitioners in reaction to this (and the consequrnt reaction of others to these public protests) which is what has caught the headlines and which some allege is at root as much political as anything else. While the two controversies are obviously related, they seem to be of quite a different nature from each other and so need to be distinguished.
Chris Fynn (talk) 10:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Almost everything in religion is contentious and debated, but I don't think we should equivocate that with being controversial. The general use by Kay, Mills, Ardley, etc. is that there has been an historical debate and a current controversy. So, when one refers to the "Dorje Shugden controversy," this concerns not the practice itself but, as a human rights issue, the Dalai Lama's ban on the practice. Lobsang Gyatso's student, Geshe Georges Dreyfus, is the only third-party(?) source I know of who refers to the Deity as controversial. Yet, he contradicts himself when saying, "Retrospectively, we can say that the whole affair started from [The Yellow Book] and the Dalai Lama's reaction to it. Prior to its publication, there was no controversy concerning Shuk-den." Emptymountains (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you mentioned this. Yesterday, when I was looking back over the lead and read "Dorje Shugden's precise nature has been the subject of debate among some learned Lamas of Tibetan Buddhism since his appearance in the 17th century" I wanted to post and have some discussion about this. As far as I am aware, except for the 5th Dalai Lama's initial negative comments about this Deity, there has been no debate. It seems that this present controversy has been created by the publication of the Yellow Book and the Dalai Lama's reaction to it. If you refer to Trinley Kalsang's Dorje Shugden History site, it's pretty clear that Dorje Shugden was regarded, at various times, as an emanation of Avalokiteshvara, Manjushri or Vajrapani so where is the controversy from the 17th Century? Therefore I'd like to remove "Dorje Shugden's precise nature has been the subject of debate among some learned Lamas of Tibetan Buddhism since his appearance in the 17th century". --Truthsayer62 (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that this is entirely correct. There has been debate during the past two centuries, and one could cite a number of third-party sources claiming such. Even in Trijang Rinpoche's Music Delighting the Ocean of Protectors there is reference to this historical debate (e.g., pp. 110-111). Also, this text was published circa 1967 (10 years before The Yellow Book), and Trijang Rinpoche addresses this debate in the conclusion (pp. 125ff). Even the introduction (pp. 5-10) takes this debate head on. Emptymountains (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought we could try this for size -- move the "Dorje Shugden controversy" to an easily identifiable heading in the contents, which the reader can see, and keep all the material that has been added but not give it such disproportionate wording in the lead, as there is already an entire Wiki article dedicated to it and this article is supposed to be about the Deity. (Truthbody (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC))

TB. This article is supposed to be an overall article about Shugden, not fencing off particular aspects. The article should strive to reflect the balance of what is written in what are usually considered to be reputable and reliable third-party publications about this entity not what is written in the publications of devotees ~ though those views should of course be reported. Whether DS is "the Deity" (especially with a capital "D") is clearly a matter of POV. Chris Fynn (talk) 02:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Chris and Andi - i still fail to see the validity of your point. *of course* whether or not Dorje Shugden is a Deity is a matter of POV: surely this is self-evident with respect to ALL objects of religious faith. isn't that one of the main characteristics of religious faith, that it's objects, being primarily objects of mental perception as opposed to objects of the senses, are not universally agreed upon or verifiable by modern scientific methods? this is also the case for Jesus Christ, the Prophet, Lord Krishna, etc., etc. - imo, it is completely redundant to bloat this article as you insist.

.*of course* there is controversy - just as there is about all such objects. *yes* there is a particular and current dispute over the nature of this object. *yes* this needs to be mentioned (and the interested reader clearly referred to further information about it) in this article. *no* it does not warrant taking up half of the intro, or being mentioned in every section of this article!

in the interest of compromise, i've left the info. in the intro - but even this, in my opinion, is somewhat misrepresentative. i'm sorry, but i cannot accept, and i will continue to oppose, these attempts to make this encyclopaedic article about this religious entity into a mirror of the article about the Tibetan religio-political controversy. Atisha's cook (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Some problems with the lead paragraph

The opening paragraph of the article currently states:

Dorje Shugden (Tibetan: རྡོ་རྗེ་ཤུགས་ལྡན; Wylie: rdo-rje shugs-ldan), "Vajra Possessing Strength", or Dolgyal Shugden (Tibetan: དོལ་རྒྱལ་ཤུགས་ལྡན; Wylie: dol rgyal shugs ldan), "Shugden, King of Dhol" is a deity (Tib. lha) in Tibetan Buddhism, especially its Gelug school, for whom he was regarded as a Dharma Protector or "guardian angel." He is the incarnation of Gelugpa Lama Dragpa Gyaltsen of Drepung Monastery, a contemporary of the Fifth Dalai Lama.

There is a problem with: "..."Shugden, King of Dhol" is a deity (Tib. lha)". Stating that this entity "is a deity" is POV and this should be changed to something like "whom some claim is a deity" since other Tibetan Buddhists obviously do not consiter him to be a deity but rather a mundane protector, worldly spirit, or even a samaya breaking spirit (dam sri) [Chatral Sangay Dorje, Dhonthog Rinpoche etc.]. We might say something like: "some Tibetan Buddhists consider him to be a mundane protector or a worldly spirit while on the other hand his devotees consider him to be a super-mundane protector 'exhibiting the form of a worldly deity'" This is in fact what is stated on page 5 of the translation of Trijang Rinpoche's Music Delighting the Ocean of Protectors - so Shugden devotees should not have a problem with that wording.

Some Dorje Shugden practitioners do not see his aspect as ordinary, there is room for both views. I suggest stet.(Truthbody (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC))

The Tibetan word lha also covers many types of entity which are not "deities" - gods of the desire realm, naga spirits and local spirits like sa dag are also commonly called "lha".

"...a deity in Tibetan Buddhism, especially its Gelug school, for whom he was regarded as a Dharma Protector or 'guardian angel.'" is also problematic. This reads like the majority of Tibetan Buddhists - and especially Gelugpas - regard DS as "a deity". Where is the evidence for this? In fact it is pretty clear that the overwhelming majority of non-Gelug Tibetan Buddhists, as well as Gelugpas who adhere to the views of the DL (possibly now a majority of those who consider themselves Gelugpas?) do not regard DS as any kind of "deity" but as some kind of more mundane spirit. Perhaps this sentance should be changed to read something like: "members of the Gelugpa School who follow the views of Phabongkha Dechen Nyingpo (1878-1941) and Trijang Lobsang Yeshe Tenzin Gyatso (1901-1981) regard Dorje Shugden as a super-mundane Dharma Protector."

[The phrase "guardian angel" also has too much Judeo-Christian baggage to be a useful translation]

I thought "guardian angel" was helpful for newbies who have not idea what a Dharma Protector is. It is used by von Brock, a third-party source. Other sources such as Kay and Dreyfus use the term "guardian deity," so I don't think it's that far off. Emptymountains (talk) 13:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You said it, they are now following the Dalai Lama's politicized views, and have changed their view of Dorje Shugden. Most Gelugpas followed the views of Trijang Rinpoche and Je Phabongkhapa before the Dalai Lama started rewriting history -- much has been written about this by many educated people. Moreover, the Dalai Lama is now found guilty of religious persecution, and these innoble actions follow from his innoble betrayal of his own spiritual lineage. Therefore, I suggest stet. (Truthbody (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC))

Finally the last sentance of the paragraph: "He is the incarnation of the Gelugpa Lama Dragpa Gyaltsen of Drepung Monastery, a contemporary of the Fifth Dalai Lama." is a completley unverifiable statement and so requires qualificatiion. It needs to be either removed or changed to something like "Many consider Dorje Shugden to be an incarnation of the Gelugpa Lama Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen (1619-1656) of Drepung Monastery" ~ though "an incarnation" is probably the wrong word since as far as anyone can tell DS is not physically embodied in this world. Maybe "an emanation of the Gelugpa Lama Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen (1619-1656) a contemporary of the Fifth Dalai Lama (1617-1682)" would be better.

Many people have given valid scriptural reference for this -- see www.dorjeshugdenhistory.org or Heart Jewel etc etc. So, again, I suggest stet. (Truthbody (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC))

These cooments are put forward as an attempt to improve the article. My comments on the rest will follow.
Chris Fynn (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time Chris, even though much of of what you propose is not suitable for the reasons given above and other reasons that can be found elsewhere e.g. in the archives of this talk page. (Truthbody (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC))

Chris - i *still* fail to see the validity of your point. *of course* whether or not Dorje Shugden is a Deity is a matter of POV: surely this is self-evident with respect to ALL objects of religious faith. isn't that one of the main characteristics of religious faith, that it's objects, being primarily objects of mental perception as opposed to objects of the senses, are not universally agreed upon or verifiable by modern scientific methods? this is also the case for Jesus Christ, the Prophet, Lord Krishna, etc., etc., *and doesn't therefore need to be mentioned in their respective WP articles either*. imo, it is completely redundant to bloat this article as you insist. Atisha's cook (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

@Atisha's cook: O.K. then, since you brought it up, let's take a look at the article on Jesus. The opening paragraph of that article says:

"Jesus of Nazareth (c 4 BC/BCE – c 30 AD/CE)-also known as Jesus Christ or occasionally Jesus the Christ—is the central figure of Christianity. Within most Christian denominations Jesus is venerated as the Son of God and as God incarnate. Christians also view him as the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament; however, Judaism rejects these claims. Islam considers Jesus a prophet and also the Messiah while several other religions revere him in some way."

That article does not state tha Jesus is the Son of God or God incarnate but rather reports that he is venerated as such by most Christian denominations. It does not say that Jesus is the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament but reports that "Chistians also view him as" such and that Judaism rejects such claims. A careful choice of words here.

The opening paragraph of the DS article however bluntly states that DS "is a deity in Tibetan Buddhism" when at the very least it should say something to the effect that "many members of the Gelugpa tradition view DS as a deity however many others, including the DL, reject such claims. Other Tibetan Buddhist traditions also reject such claims." Similarly the article states that DS "is the incarnation of Gelugpa Lama Dragpa Gyaltsen" not just that some people view or beleive DS is such.

I am not trying to bloat the article but make it neutral and balanced. If there is some more room required for this I think you will find there is all ready plenty of bloat in the article that can be reduced to make way for this.

This article should not be here to reflect what DS devotees believe - but rather to report what they beleive or what their views are, as well as to report how the majority of other Tibetan Buddhists view this entity. In doing this the article should primarily rely on what Wikipedia caalls "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Chris Fynn (talk) 06:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

this distinction, "reflect" and "report", escapes me - but that's probably just my poor lteracy. i'd agree that WP doesn't (or shouldn't) promote anyone's views, and neither should this article; there may well be improvements that we could make to it toward this aim (edit - i just made one: adding "He is *regarded as* the incarnation..." - this is already cited. AC). however, it's entirely appropriate, imo, for this article to report *primarily* the beliefs and practices of this religious entity's adherents, as opposed to the revisionist views popularised mainly by a separate, political entity: the TGIE following the leadership of the 14th Dalai Lama. do you really disagree? what is the problem with an article about a religious entity which reports its associated beliefs and practices? is that not what most folk referring to an encyclopaedia would be looking for? after all, the separate controversy is properly covered in its own article. Atisha's cook (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that if I write "NKT followers believe DS is XYZ" then I am reporting what they beleive ~ If I simply write "DS is XYZ" then the article is simply reflecting or repeating their POV. Where there are important differing views on a subject views then both sides should be accuratly reported: "NKT followers beleive DS is XYZ but others believe he is ABC". In reporting cases like this whether one side is "wrong" and the other side "right" shouldn't be of much concern if both sides views are properly represented. Chris Fynn (talk) 07:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

ok - of course, i understand the necessity to report views, rather than state them as fact - but this is a side issue. the main point i'm making is that "proper" and appropriate representation of the variety of views about any religious entity involves mainly reporting the beliefs and practices of its adherents and does *not* involve giving much emphasis to non-adherents' views, although these may need *some* representation. how much emphasis is given, for example, to atheist views of Jesus Christ in that article? Atisha's cook (talk) 08:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Atisha's Cook, as you know, i support the approach to largely seperate this article from what is reported in the controversy article. But comments like this one sometimes really make me think if i should rather support e.g. Chris Fynns approach - which is, of course, the one most closely in accordance with WP guidelines - solely for educational reasons. You know, i sometimes really do wonder if you're completely honest with yourself or maybe if your taking on the role of your famous name-giver just a little bit too much ;)

Now to the point, which is, in short - please excuse the non-explicit expletive: Your Jesus Christ/Atheists analogy ****s.

Now the long version:

For an analogy to be instructional i guess at least two conditions have to be fulfilled:

1. The audience would have to agree on their perception/assessment of situation 1 (here: Atheists' views in a Jesus article are largely out of place) and
2. Situation 1 and situation 2 would have to resemble each other very closely.

• ad 1)Atheists' views in Jesus Christ article? I'd say most people indeed would agree that there's little to no justification for including their views - except of course for some scientists' views about the life of the historical person Jesus of Nazareth, but for their view to be included it doesn't even matter of course, if they're christians, atheists, muslims or even hindus - as long as they follow the "rules" of science, are published in peer-reviewed journals etc...no problem at all. But atheists' view like Nietzsches: "God is dead" etc.. NO!

Ok...

• ad 2)As your analogy is meant to justify the exclusion of "differing views" on Dorje Shugden, and as the only persons holding any views at all on Dorje Shugden are Tibetan Buddhists, what you are saying is basically: The relationship between atheists and christians closely resembles the relationship between those Tibetan Buddhists who don't follow the practice of Dorje Shugden and those who do. Well, i really don't know if this needs any further explanation, but: I don't think so!!!

Non-shugden-worshipping Tibetan Buddhists and shugden-worshipping Tibetan Buddhists (or non-tibetan "Tibetan" Buddhists like the NKT ;)) are obviously much closer related than the first pair! Shugden Worshippers and non-shugden worshippers even largely belong to the same (sub-)school of Tibetan Buddhism, AND, to make things worse: Dorje Shugden apparently was regarded as a holy being by significant parts of or even the entire school! Now the spiritual establishment of the school bans the practice...but some individuals (and some small western buddhist gelug groups) continue the practice. I'll tell you an analogy that fits a little better: The pope bans the veneration of Francis of Assisi; some catholic groups keep on worshipping him. Do you really think the fact that the pope has spoke out against the practice shouldn't be prominently featured in the article? You know what? I guess the article would even start by saying something like: "Francis of Assisi is a controversial spirtitual figure that was venerated as a holy man for several centuries before he was posthumously excommunicated and his veneration banned." I actually only found one christian "holy figure" that "officially" lost the status of being an object of veneration: Andreas Oxner. Otherwise, something comparable to the Dorje Shugden Controversy apparently never happened in Christianity...so i guess we're pretty much out of luck here with factual analogies. Andi 3ö (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC).

Hi Andi, even your analogy doesn't work. The Dalai Lama is not the Pope of Buddhism. The Dalai Lama doesn't have any authority to speak on behalf of the whole of Tibetan Buddhism because he's not the head of all Tibetan Buddhist traditions. He's not even the head of one! The Dalai Lama is a politican who is also widely regarded as a Spiritual leader. Because of this confused mixture of religion and politics, when he speaks, it's not clear who is talking and for what purpose. The Dalai Lama has no religious authority to ban anything, yet he has. Furthermore, those who continue to practise Dorje Shugden in the West (principally NKT) are not under his authority and never have been. Even for Tibetans in his own community he's made it clear he doesn't want anything to do with people who are practising Dorje Shugden so from his side, he has no authority over them as he is not their Spiritual Guide. Therefore, the Catholic analogy is a complete non-starter.--Truthsayer62 (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it's not a perfect analogy, but to say it's a complete non-starter is ridiculous. True, the Dalai Lama has no absolut spiritual authority like the pope, not over all Tibetan Buddhists and not even over the Gelug sect. Not on paper, that is, but in reality he very well has! He is the most prominent figure respected by the overwhelming majority of the Tibetan people as their spiritual guide (and after all an incarnation of avalokitesvara himself!). But aside from that, the Ganden Tripa, who infact is the spiritual leader of the Gelug order, also opposes the practice![1] AND there have been "democratic" (i know you will say they aren't) votes in all the monasteries, where apparently over 95% voted to abstain from the practice.... Saying that the whole thing was the DL's idea alone already is somewhat of a WP:POV. To sum it up: My analogy is right in the sense that "normally" Tibetan Buddhists do what the Dalai Lama says. Pretty much in the same way that catholics "normally" do what the pope says. If this behaviour stems from formal authority (like with the pope) or informal (like with the Dalai Lama) doesn't matter much to me. Andi 3ö (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note: This is not the current Ganden Tripa, who has this year authorized Dorje Shugden practitioners at Trijang Buddhist Institute (http://www.tbiusa.org/dedications/gandentripa) to represent the Gelugpa tradition. Emptymountains (talk) 04:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Andi - hey, it was only an analogy! for the record: i don't set out to antagonise, and i'm constantly checking my motivation and actions. i appreciate that my views aren't shared universally, but whose are? i maintain that i'm not here to push my view of Dorje Shugden; i am here to ensure that a valid and accurate view of this subject is presented in the article and that the Dalai Lama's - voluntarily and openly stated - campaign to destroy Dorje Shugden's worship by rewriting history and transforming the perception of this deity to suit his own religio-political ends doesn't succeed here in destroying the accuracy and validity of this WP article. i'm about accuracy and validity.

to state it plainly without any obfuscating analogy: a WP article about an object of religious faith should report primarily the views, beliefs and practices of that entity's adherents, and not be largely, or even equally, given over to those of its opponents, however powerful or influential those opponents may be. where there are sufficient actions by these opponents to create a controversy, especially when this controversy is largely political in nature, being instigated by individuals with no valid spiritual authority to oppose the entity's worship, then this should be dealt with separately, in an article about that controversy. on this point, at least, you and i agree. Atisha's cook (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

AC, please... didn't it ever cross your mind while writng this, not even for a fraction of a second, that your goal to "ensure that a valid and accurate view of this subject is presented in the article" could sound somewhat self-contradictory when the second half of the sentence continues "and [to ensure] that the Dalai Lama's - voluntarily and openly stated - campaign to destroy Dorje Shugden's worship by rewriting history and transforming the perception of this deity to suit his own religio-political ends doesn't succeed [...]" ?!?! Why do you keep changing my neutral wording into your more tendentious version?

Btw, just as an illustration what i think the equivalent of your WP:POV on the other side of the spectrum might look like: Do you know what a lot of people i spoke with think about the whole thing? They think it's a plot by the chinese to undermine the authority of the Dalai Lama and that the NKT, Western Shugden society etc are all paid by them. I'm not saying this is true, but if we would represent all sides as "equal" as you apparently want "your side" to be presented here, we would soon get into the kind of discussions that i (and you as well, i assume) definitely want to avoid. Here's a nice quote i found in that regard:

"The Shugden and the Chinese are obviously allies," the Tibetan prime minister in exile Samdhong Rinpoche said in a recent interview with France 24 TV. "Their cults all over the world are financed by the Chinese."[2]

As you will have noticed by now, i am not at all interested in that kind of back and forth quoting, but i think it is high time for you to accept that your view is not nearly as neutral as you might want to think. To me, frankly, you sound a lot like this obviously extremely biased US TV channel fox news with their "somewhat" audacious slogan "fair and balanced"....sorry :(

But again: Yes, i agree with you that "a WP article about an object of religious faith should report primarily the views, beliefs and practices of that entity's adherents, and not be largely, or even equally, given over to those of its opponents" but please, tell me, where in this article are we even close to anything like "equal" proportions. Right now we have a situation where we have something like 100 sentences maybe and 3 sentences that in a very very very neutral way (or even biased to the adherents' views) describe, not even the views of "opponents" but merely the fact that there are "opposing" views. And even this tiny bit of apparent "heresy" you cannot accept. Please, AC, get real! As you are "constantly checking [your] motivation and actions." i can only urge you to do just that....and keep trying maybe just a little bit harder! Thank you, Andi 3ö (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to illustrate what i mean by saying "we have something like 100 sentences maybe and 3 sentences that in a very very very neutral way (or even biased to the adherents' views) describe, not even the views of "opponents" but merely the fact that there are "opposing" views." Here's the three (ok, it's five) sentences i was talking about, and after reading them i think i actually have to correct myself: they do not appear very neutral to me at all:

In the lead:

Whilst there has been some[really, only some?] debate over Dorje Shugden's precise[really, only his precise nature?] since his appearance in the 17th century, the current Dalai Lama's growing public opposition and subsequent "explicit ban" of the practice has given rise[it's all the Dalai Lamas fault] to the Dorje Shugden Controversy and persecution of Dorje Shugden practitioners.

And waay down in the "nature and current status" section:

A third view is that Dorje Shugden is not a protector at all—whether supramundane or mundane—but merely a spirit. Thus, while supporters of Shugden identify him as a Dharma Protector, detractors claim[supporters identify, detractors claim hmmm....] that he is in actuality a malevolent spirit (Tib. gyalpo). This opposing view[it's the mainstream view actually] is generally organized around[like a conspiracy?] the 14th Dalai Lama, who instigated the current opposition to the worship of Dorje Shugden, which has included signature campaigns and expulsions from monasteries.

OK, now tell me, AC, is this the "accuracy and validity" you are striving for? Andi 3ö (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Andi - i'm not your enemy, and i'm not the zealot you're making out here. let's be clear: the Dalai Lama is the instigator of the current controversy - no question: it simply didn't exist in its current form before he tried to ban the practice in 1996. this isn't a conspiracy theory - i'm not seeing monsters under the bed - it's the clear and verified truth. secondly, there is persecution, as has been extensively documented - see the Controversy article.

Actually, that reminds me: it was this point that got me on that tanget resulting in the re-structure of the Controversy article. We cannot say that the Dalai Lama is the sole instigator of the current controversy: we also have to take into account Zemey Tulku's The Yellow Book. That is to say, the controversy arose with that book and the Dalai Lama's reaction to it.

In comparing the two versions in this diff ([3]), Andi's version does not place sole blame on the Dalai Lama. Instead, it says With the current Dalai Lama's growing public opposition... which is a subtle difference that at least in passing allows for people other than the Dalai Lama to be factored in.

That said, some sources like Kay (citing Dreyfus) attribute the escalation of the controversy (but not the instigation of it) to the Dalai Lama's "extreme reaction" to the book. Even GKG has said that if the DL had just ignored the Yellow Book, we would be having this problem... But then you have to honestly ask yourself: Given his role as political leader, could he have? Emptymountains (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

i repeat - i'm not opposed to any mention of opposing views - you're putting words in my mouth and ascribing to me views that i don't hold. i'm not trying to promote only my own view, either.

please imagine if WP had existed 40 years ago; what would the Dorje Shugden article have said? how would it's intro read? possibly along the lines of "Dorje Shugden is a principal Dharma Protector in the Tibetan Buddhist pantheon, viewed in various ways by Tibetan Buddhists, most commonly by his Gelugpa adherents as an enlightened manifestation of the Wisdom Buddha Manjushri appearing in a wrathful aspect to protect the teachings and practices of Je Tsongkhapa. He is relied upon in the majority of the Gelug monasteries and has many rituals and gompas dedicated to him." this may not be perfect, but i think it's reasonable to suppose it would be something along these lines, don't you?

now, there has been a sustained campaign to destroy this lineage (even to rewrite the history of this reliance) which, while having met with some success, has not succeeded in preventing this entity from continuing to be relied on in the same way, albeit far less widespread. this canpaign - undeniably instigated by the Dalai Lama - is noteworthy, to the point of requiring an entire WP article; yet it is a separate issue to how Dorje Shugden has been and continues to be worshipped. imho, it would be entirely unreasonable to devote much of this article to this new, separate development.

to run with your Francis of Assisi analogy (though it's as flawed as my Jesus Christ analogy!): suppose that a powerful and influential politician and religious teacher were to initiate a campaign against Francis of Assisi and all Franciscans comparable to that we're seeing against Dorje Shugden. i submit that, while needing a mention and link to a separate WP article detailing this issue, it would be inappropriate for the main Francis of Assisi article to change much, especially if Franciscans continued to exist in large numbers and to rely upon St Francis just as they always had. visitors to that WP article would generally be looking for information on St Francis and Franciscans, what they believe and how they practice; those interested about the current controversy could investigate further following the link.

i can't state my views and intentions any more clearly. if you still believe that i'm some kind of unreasonable fanatic, then we're going to find it difficult to collaborate. i disagree with some of your views and edits, but i respect your intention to improve the article and find many of your contributions do just this - i see no reason to fall out. please let's both AGF. Atisha's cook (talk) 08:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanx for clarifying your position again! Of course i don't agree with everything you said, but i will (and have always tried - at times very ;) - hard) to WP:AGF :-) . I once again reassure you that i agree with the general approach of the two-article concept and i definitely will not try to undermine that concept by slowly adding to this article piece by piece about the controversy, if that is what you fear. I do insist on the other hand though, that the core elements that i outlined above remain and aren't removed piece by piece either - or moved to a less prominent place, or hidden among tons of distracting language etc... So as long as the Dorje Shugden practitioners who edit this article agree on not crossing that line, i guess we will get along very well, and have more time for real practice - for the sake of all beings! Andi 3ö (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

well i can't speak for anyone else, but the inclusion and position of any such elements is debatable and will always remain so; no-one can say: "x must always remain where it is now"! i am prepared to debate them, however, as we have been doing, and to abide by a consensus view of the various editors, in accordance with WP tradition. Atisha's cook (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

fair enough! ...anyway: by all our activities - here and anywhere - may the supreme jewel Bodhicitta that has not arisen, arise and grow. And may that which has arisen not diminish, but increase more and more! Andi 3ö (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

on that, we most definitely agree!  :-) Atisha's cook (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The article shouldn't baldly state: «The practice of Dorje Shugden "has been and still is central to the religious life of most Tibetan Buddhists, high and low."» as if this is a fact simply because Dreyfus (or some other authority) said it. Rather the article should only report that Drefyuss says that the practice "has been and still is central to the religious life of most Tibetan Buddhists, high and low." - and his other claims should be treated the same way. Any authorities that contradict a view should be also reported right alongside. If editors could simply report such claims, rather than attempting to prove points (pro or anti) by a kind of battle of (often selective) quotes then the article would be improved. — Chris Fynn (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone could dispute that protector practice or invoking protectors "has been and still is central to the religious life of most Tibetan Buddhists, high and low" and that is quite obviously what Drefyuss is saying - please don't try to make it look like more than that. No scholar could seriously maintain that practice related specifically to the protector Dorje Shugden is or ever was "central to the religious life of most Tibetan Buddhists". Lodru (talk) 10:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Dalai Lama found guilty in Indian Supreme Court of persecuting Dorje Shugden practitioners

This of course is noteworthy, especially in light of the recent discussion on this page where it is insisted that the controversy is brought up in the lead paragraph. Perhaps it should also mention the court's findings in this lead sentence if we have to have that sentence so prominently placed -- though I would still prefer this article to be more about the Deity than about the controversy, as that already is a whole article unto itself (and a long one, at that!) This news of the Dalai Lama's guilt is about to break in the press also and will no doubt create waves of public opinion. It is therefore of interest to the general reader -- it seems where the "controversy" is mentioned, the Dalai Lama's persecution of Dorje Shugden practitioners should be mentioned also from now on? http://www.westernshugdensociety.org/ (Truthbody (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC))

This is an as yet an unverified statement ~ and I'd be cautious since www.westernshugdensociety.org is hardly a diinterested source. Wikipedia does not allow possibly contentious unverified statements about living people and says that such should be deleted immediatly (even your heading of this sub-section is possibly contentious in this regard). Copies of judgements of the Indian courts can be fairly easily obtained and we should wait till we read a true copy of this and it can be directly quoted. Whatever the facts, no one has demanded that mention of the ongoing current controversy be incorporated into the lead paragraph. Rather simply that there the very differing views on the nature of DS amongst Tibetan Buddhists and even amongst Gelugpas and this needs to be made clear from the start. If indeed such a judgemet has been passed some mention probably should be made in the body of the article - though perhaps within a short section summarising the current controversy with more details in the seperate Controversy article. Chris Fynn (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

While true that the Western Shugden Society are not followers of the Dalai Lama and have tirelessly campaigned for religious freedom for thousands of Dorje Shugden practitioners in India, the Supreme Court decision has nothing to do with the Western Shugden Society -- the action was brought by the Dorje Shugden Devotees and Kundeling Rinpoche, and this is the judgment that has been passed. The Dalai Lama has been warned to cease and desist. Lets pray that he does so that this whole sorry mess he started will go away. (Truthbody (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC))

@ Truthbody: Isn't a warning from a court ordering the Dalai Lama to "cease and desist" from some action legally quite different from being "found guilty" of some offence - which is what your heading implies? The Shugden Society website also reports that this was a High Court decision which in India is not the same as the Supreme Court. While it seems likely that a court has made some ruling against the Dalai Lama's position I think we should wait until the actual court decision has been published or at least is reported in a neutral source like one of the respected Indian national papers with a reputation for accuracy before adding things like this to either article so that what is written is accurate and verifiable. It is not that this will take long. If such a ruling has been passed by the court with the Dalai Lama involved it is bound to be reported in the Indian press almost straight away. If the Dorje Shugden Devotees were a party to this complaint they must already have a copy of the court ruling and will undoubtedly be eager to make copies of this available if it indeed supports their contention. Chris Fynn (talk) 06:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This should not be in the Lead, of all places, until reported by a third-party source. Genrally, we should keep primary sources out of the Lead, especially when editors are reporting what it says as fact. Emptymountains (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course it should't be in the lead but -* if verified *- maybe at the end of a short section summarising the current controversy since it needs some context and would be the most recent significant occurence in that chain of events. A more detailed account could go in the DS Controversy article. Chris Fynn (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Current Edits

I notice Atisha's cook and Truthbody have making substantial edits to this controversial article without discussing the changes here first. LodruD (talk) 06:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

well spotted - mea culpa. would you like to discuss any of these constructively here? please go ahead. Atisha's cook (talk) 08:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

TB, you removed a reference at the end, with the edit summary "removed reference because it can't be referring to the protests" because it was "too early" to be talking about the 2008 protests. How do you know this 2004 book wasn't referring to the 1996-1998 protests? Emptymountains (talk) 19:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

EM, I think you got the wrong editor. (Truthbody (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC))

Hi Emptymountains, it was me. I don't know the content of the book, true, so I'll put the reference back. I hope it will still make sense.--Truthsayer62 (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

AC, you recently made an edit to the Lead, saying replaced "persecution"; this is indisputable - we're simply waiting for a citation (about the court case, for example). If the Lead is merely summarizing what is already in the article, how could there be something added to the Lead that needs a citation? Emptymountains (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

erm - hmm... well, yes: maybe this should go - along with all the stuff re. the controversy - to the Controversy article! Atisha's cook (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow... Keeping in mind that the "controversy" is about the Dalai Lama's controversial ban of the practice, I'm surprised you wouldn't want more people to be aware of it. Emptymountains (talk) 04:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, EM, i agree that according to WP:LEAD the lead should summarize what is in the article. So please, all, feel free to expand the lead with summaries of the missing sections of the article. As for the explicit mentioning and explicit link to the controversy page, of course, the reasons given above apply. Andi 3ö (talk) 02:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi EM! Thanks for your once again indeed "very reasonable" ;) [insider joke] edits! Sorry bout the apostrophes, i somehow got confused by the its/it's thing which i generalized to proper nouns... anyway: i have one question left : the word "detractor". My dictionary shows me 5 possible german translations of which 2 are neutral but 3 are quite unfavourable. Those can respectively be translated back as blasphemer, slanderer and mud-slinger. What do you think? Andi 3ö (talk) 08:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I checked two of my favorite dicitonaries: Meriam-Webster's and American Heritage. Both have as an arachic meaning "to speak ill of." Nowadays, the word has a much more neutral use and does not at all elicit the viceral response that blasphemer or slanderer would. It's just that instead of popularizing something, critics have a complaint about it; by detracting from it, they bring attention to an alternative or competing viewpoint. It is often used by the media to describe one side in an argument (i.e., those opposed), especially when the media does not want to appear to take sides. It's as neutral as plaintiff is to defendant since neither term shows favoritism--the verdict can go either way. Emptymountains (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

thanx for checking that! Andi 3ö (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

EM - sorry, i was being a bit flippant! of course, i would like people to be aware of the controversy, and i feel it should be mentioned and linked to here. as i've said elsewhere (a lot) i don't feel it's appropriate for this article to swing too far in the direction of becoming a mirror of the controversy article. my view is that the subjects are distinct, and the two articles, while referencing each other, should remain largely distinct. Atisha's cook (talk) 08:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

"religious orthodoxy" view

to the IP editor 124.183.252.34: g'day! welcome to Wikipedia. i assume you've been editing from 2 or 3 different places recently because it looks like your edits have appeared from 3 different IP accounts? it's a good idea to create a Wikipedia user account, and to log in and use that account for all your editing. editing from several different accounts is not considered proper WP etiquette as it makes it hard for other editors to identify you and discuss your changes with you.

the difficulty with your point here re. religious orthodoxy is that it needs a valid source to make it admissible in a WP article: we can't just write what we think, even if we're correct - we need to back it up with sources. your source was removed by another editor because this is an English language article, and the source was written in German. to include your point, you'll need to find a valid, admissible (generally WP:RS) reference in English. having said that, you may anyway find that other editors disagree and challenge you to argue the necessity of adding this point: but that's Wikipedia! Atisha's cook (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Commenting on deletion: Grammar mistakes can happen to anyone, but I suppose you must be perfect. The deleted sentence is not redundant since it has been removed from the controversy article. I have put a reference/source to connect with so as to make it admissible .As per source The Dalai lama said the practice is not Buddhist in essence so it confirms the argument on orthodoxy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.252.34 (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The Dalai Lama is not the only person who establishes what is and is not Buddhist orthodoxy. That is the crux of the problem. Presumably you are a Dalai Lama supporter and agree with his view on Dorje Shugden and his resulting ban? As you are an anonymous user without a user page, it would be useful to know a little more about your background. (Truthbody (talk) 19:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC))

I am not a supporter( In fact I am a Christian ) . Should I think many of you ( you included ) are pro-Chinese or even Chinese agents ( nobody can say this is impossible in Wikipedia ) just because you keep editing my changes and /or rely on biased sources? Of course not : I am NOT discussing if the Dalai Lama has to establish what is or not in terms of Buddhist orthodoxy . You missed the point . The Shogden is a particular case inside the Dalai Lama Sect , therefore he has the right to issue any opinion on orthodoxy.Hence the paragraph you insist to delete , why ? Sorry my background in Wikipedia is personal and will remain so. My opinion is that the situation was badly managed and by becoming a " prohibition " it gave the Shogden party a power they did not have.

PS: Please show me where this sentence is in another article and a valid reason to delete it and I will stop returning the paragraph . It is important to make the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.17.97 (talk) 00:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

you say you're not an Aussie, and you referenced a German article. are you a German living in Australia? you are in Australia, i assume. if not, why are your IP addresses Australian? as far as i know WP frowns on the use of proxy servers. Atisha's cook (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi all! just a quick comment! I agree that having an account is advisable because it allows building a reputation of a trustworthy editor and establish "relationships" with other editors. But afaik this is not obligatory, which i find a good thing. I edited WP "anonymously" for a couple of years myself before i was convinced that having an account was a good idea and I am quite sure that my edits weren't any less trustworthy at the time... but anyway: one thing i have to say: I strongly object to the idea of anybody here having to disclose any personal background information. Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_anonymous, so If you want to, ok, very good, but if you don't want to, fine as well. After all it's the edits that we should judge, not the editor! And in that regard i have to say that even looking up somebodies IP to find out where he edits from imho is kind of against the spirit of Wikipedia - though of course understandable, because definitely people often abuse the anonimyty of a changing IP like in the case of anonymous WP:sockpuppets. Andi 3ö (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

hi Andi - i agree with you that no one should be *forced* to reveal biographical detail, but that it's a good idea to at least be identifiable via a username - for one thing, to avoid being accused of trying to circumvent WP:3RR or, indeed, a ban. i always look up IP addresses of anonymous editors on articles i'm following as a matter of course, ever since the problems with users Yonteng and Kt66! maybe i'm just paranoid. Atisha's cook (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

hehe...i think everybody here is to a certain extent: i for example sometimes tend to think that you guys are all sitting in the same cosey room somewhere near the Ulverston Golf Club, permanently discussing the best good cop/bad cop strategy to permantly hijack all relevant articles on WP as a first step to complete world domination ;) :D Andi 3ö (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I've never been outside the US. Emptymountains (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

hehe...see: there he is again, the good cop ;) just kiddin!!! you see all the smilies 'n stuff? Also: no need to disclose any biographical details (see above) ;) Have a nice evening - ahm... afternoon i guess :D Andi 3ö (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't make me eat you! Emptymountains (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Andi - i'm nowhere near Ulverston and i don't play golf (golf club??) i edit in my own time, on my own. Atisha's cook (talk) 08:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

just to be absolutely sure there is no misunderstanding here: i was just trying to make a joke (!!) in response to your comment about you maybe being "just paranoid" by creating my own little conspiracy theory. As you can see here the Ulverston Golf Club seems to be near a well-known meditation center that of course plays a central role in my little fictitious (!!) conspiracy plot of Dorje Shugden practitioners' world domination. Sorry for my obviously bad joke-telling capabilities! (i was honestly expecting you to just write something like LOL) Andi 3ö (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

something like LOL  :-) Atisha's cook (talk) 01:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

:-) Andi 3ö (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not interested in world domination... yet... Emptymountains (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Origin story

I very much disagree with Truthbody's edit here: [4], especially with the explanation "moved material back to further down article, as it is not as of great interest to the general reader." I'm positive the general reader would want to know how DS came about in the first place. When I moved this material up, I said in my edit summary that is was so that the article would have a "logical flow." What I mean by this is presenting the sections in a chronological order. This also helps to ease the perception by other editors who feel that this material is being 'buried' at the end of the article. Emptymountains (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

And, regarding [5] and [6], I don't understand why the first one was removed; and, Andi's removal of the 2nd seems to indicate consensus, so now I'm pouting. Emptymountains (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

no time just now to review this, but not sure that i consent! these excisions precis somewhat, which is generally desirable, but maybe too much... Atisha's cook (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

i have no time either...gotta get up again in 4 hours. I liked the version before TBs recent edits a lot as well. Was just unsure if i should blatantly revert his edits, so i rather took the route of telling him to at least be consistent with his edits. Thats why i removed the last bit of the previously moved in content. Andi 3ö (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussing Paragraph

Firstly just to clarify things here : I am as " pro Dalai Lama " as most of you are "pro China" or "pro-Shogden" . This matter is no doubt politically charged and might have been used to suit particular agendas , as I had seen in the " controvery article " , it has been very unbalanced .So as to get to a consensus here I will reproduce the full paragraphs to be discussed: The problem starts here:

"It should also be remembered that when traditions come into conflict, religious and philosophical differences are often markers of disputes that are primarily economic, material and political in nature. (refKay, David (2004).

It is obvious that the origin of the issue is not primarily economic, material and political in nature, but rather religious and issued from a recognised authority on that particular religious group (The Gelug tradition). I will elaborate a bit more on this:The Dalai lama office, which represents the Gelug tradition of the Tibetan Buddhism, has the right to issue official statements on their religious matters. The Shogden , which came after the office of the Dalai lama ( and not the contrary ) and has only 400 years creation, and albeit popular, was seen by the Dalai lama as evil or harmful . It is his right to issue proclamation on its matter , whether one likes it or not. Therefore the dispute is essentially (or primarily if you like) about religious orthodoxy within the Gelug tradition. I thought it might help as a counterpoint to the author, which does not address the matter in particular, being too generalist in it approach , hence the following statement.

" However this dispute is essentially about religious orthodoxy: The Dalai Lama informed in an interview to BBC that " he had not advocated a ban, but he had stopped the worship of the spirit because it was not Buddhist in nature, and added, people were free to protest and it was up to individuals to decide" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.10.68 (talk) 01:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You might want to read the article on the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama is not the spiritual authority representing the Gelugpa sect--the Ganden Tripa is the head of the Gelugpas. Instead of being the spiritual head of the Gelugpas, the Dalai Lama was the Tibetan head of state. Emptymountains (talk) 11:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

However you might also read my post with more attention : I did NOT say the dalai lama is the " spiritual authority representing the Gelugpa tradition " I said that the "Dalai Lama Office represents that tradition" but did NOT say he is the head of the school .

Please read the article on the Gelug : to this day the Ganden Tripa is the " nominal " head of the school, though its most influential figure is the Dalai Lama. Due to the Dalai Lama's influence and knowledge he has the authority to issue proclamations on matters of that tradition.

Then if anything, I would say that the Ganden Tripa's office represents the Gelugpa tradition, not the Dalai Lama. Exerting "much influence" does not equate to having the spiritual "authority" to issue proclamations on matters of that tradition. Individual abbots of monateries do this. Emptymountains (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well the 100th Ganden Tripa apparently supported the Dalai Lama'a POV about this entity - while it appears his successor the 101st Ganden Tripa didn't. So which one's proclamations are authoritative? And what does the present (102nd) incumbent now say? Chris Fynn (talk)

Quoting you :" Exerting "much influence" does not equate to having the spiritual "authority" to issue proclamations "

Begging the question : a typical logical fallacy : Thus you assert he has no spiritual " authority " but do not explain why.

So why has he done proclamations for years or should the definition of Dalai lama ( as per WP ) be wrong ? The definition of Dalai lama ( as per WP ) ends up the question : Jetsun Jamphel Ngawang Lobsang Yeshe Tenzin Gyatso (born Lhamo Döndrub) (...)( is the 14th Dalai Lama, a spiritual leader revered among the people of Tibet. As a spiritual leader he is the one who spiritually leads ,Therefore he has spiritual authority, which means he is "authorised" to issue proclamations on matters of that tradition. Just to remind you:the nominal head of the Gelug tradition is appointed by him.

Oddly enough: Why do you insist on denying it ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.16.60 (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding, "Thus you assert he has no spiritual 'authority' but do not explain why," he does have spiritual authority, but only over his own disciples and at Namgyal Monastery. Being *a* spiritual authority does not mean that he is *the* spiritual authority. If anything, you could say that the Ganden Tripa is *the* spiritual authority, but even then he cannot make unilateral decisions. Simply put, there is not central authority except perhaps one's Guru.

So again, I'm not saying he does not have spiritual authority, just not the authority to issue proclamations or prohibitions over the tradition in general. Even he would deny that! Emptymountains (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, we start to agree at last : I also did not say he is "the" spiritual authority but "an" important and influential spiritual authority, hence his proclamations , it is more or less when you refer to a scholar ( e.g. in WP) you gave him the authority , by his own merits , to issues proclamations on a subject:If his influence was really confined to his monastery then we would not have a Dalai Lama.

with respect, this is quite a difficult situation to fully understand. i'd suggest that it would be a good idea for you to read widely on this topic, and also try to gain some understanding of the underlying issues, such as the institution of the Dalai Lama and the TGIE, and the history of Dorje Shugden practice (especially within the orthodoox Gelug tradition). while i appreciate that your edits are well-intentioned, i think that your time, to begin with, would be well-spent familiarising yourself with the background to this issue before editing a WP article on it. you have every right to edit, of course - i'm just saying that you'll meet with less contradiction and reverting if your edits are well-thought out and well-sourced, and you can argue knowledgeably for their inclusion.

also, please understand - we're not having a go at you by suggesting that you learn how to edit within WP norms - especially, by creating a user account and then signing in and editing from that one account, rather than from various different IPs. this will definitely help you if you ever are accused of edit-warring, etc. (as i well know myself!). WP is a wonderful resource and one of the great open-source projects of our time; learning its etiquette and expected mode of operating helps us all to help each other contribute in the best way: everybody new to WP goes through this, but in the end, again, it is time well spent. Atisha's cook (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but but you are wrong on this .I wonder why you ask me that . The situation is clearly explained in the article and I know the institution of the Dalai Lama, The Gelug, and TGIE and Shugden enough to give my opinions here , otherwise I would have never take the discussion to his point. The issue simply comes down to people being uncomfortable because I do not have a WP ID or an IP address :I would never share my information since my privacy is essential.

And as to me that will suffice : no need to discuss it further: This paragraph has gone too far, my points are well done and the article tends to be more balanced now. That is good for us all.

This is all quite peripheral with regard to the current article, but come on — the claim that the Ganden Tripa has more spiritual authority than the Dalai Lama is I think quite disingenuous. The Ganden Tripa may be the official, titular or nominal "head" of the Gelukpa monastic body - elected by a group of his peers, and the official holder of Tsongkhapa's throne, "official" representative of the Geluk establishment, etc. but in practice he quite obviously currently does not have anywhere near the sort of real authority that the Dalai Lama udoubtedly has over the majority of the greater community of Geluk followers - and the even larger community of Tibetan Buddhists as a whole. The Ganden Tripa may officially have some kind of monastic, administative or scholastic authority over the Geluk establishment ~ but isn't "spiritual authority" something quite different? Doesn't "spiritual authority" come from peoples recognition, devotion and faith? You see many photos of the Dalai Lama on the personal shrines of Gelukpa monks and lay followers, and on the shrines of Tibetan Buddhists of all tradition but OTOH you won't find too many photos of the Gaden Tripa in the same position of veneration. I'll bet there are many followers of Tibetan Buddhism including Gelukpas who don't even know who the current Gaden Tripa is.

The Dalai Lama is also considered the highest ranking tulku in the Geluk tradition, and traditionally the ruler and protector of Tibet and Tibetans. Like it or not, it also has to be admitted that through the force of his personality, plenty of exposure, etc. the current DL has also gained considerable "spiritual authority" of some kind not only amongst the Tibetans but worldwide. The Ganden Tripa, venerable and learned as he may be, and whatever titular authority he has, is quite clearly is not in the same leauge as far as that goes.

That said, I agree with Atisha's cook that most would probably find it helpful if anyone making any serious edits to the article or discussion here created a login and edited under that. I can't quite see how using a pseudo name as most people do results in a loss of privacy - your current IP address is anyway recorded. I don't have a clue as to who "Atisha's cook", "Truthbody", "Emptymountains" "Truthsayer62" and so on actually are - but at least I have some idea as to which of these wrote what - and to which one I'm responding. Chris Fynn (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Archiving the contents of this page

Wikipedia is again reporting: "This page is 101 kilobytes long. It may be helpful to move older discussion into an archive subpage." so it may be getting time to start thinking about moving the current contents of this talk page to another archive sub-page fairly soon. Anyway the discussion page is now once again more than three times as long as the article itself. Does anyone have an objection to archiving the discussion? — Chris Fynn (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Misleading quote.

Don't know who added it, but I've just looked up the quote in Dreyfus' Two Hands Clapping that someone added to the second paragraph [the first sentance of which read: The practice of Dojre Shugden "has been and still is central to the religious life of most Tibetan Buddhists, high and low."]. Though the chapter in Drefyus' book is about the Shukden controversy, in its original context it is quite clear that when Drefyus talks about "a practice that has been and still is central to the religious life of most Tibetan Buddhists, high and low " he is referring to protector practice in general not specifically to the practice of Shukden. This reading that it was DS in particular seemed an exceptional claim to me as I've lived around and amongst Tibetans almost continuously since 1970 and although I know many Gelukpas practicing DS - particularly before the DL came out against it - in my own experience this never amounted to "most Tibetan Buddhists" or even anything like a simple majority of Tibetan Buddhists - which is why I looked up the quote. On examination of the source this appears to be a case of someone using a selective quote to advance a position or view of the subject which is not clearly advanced by the source itself - the source clearly does not support the material as it was presented in the article - and this violates Wikipedia policy.

The paragraph from which the quote was taken reads in full:

In the Tibetan cultural universe, a dispute over propitiating a specific protector is perfectly understandable, though deplorable. It concerns a deity whose followers—through dreams, visions, and states of possession—experience him as real. In that context, using reasoning to discuss the merits of such a deity makes perfect sense, whereas this application of rationality seems incongruous to modern thinkers. This gap underlines the degree to which Tibetan scholastic rationality remains embedded in the order of the world and hence is significantly different from modern rationality. It also demonstrates the inappropriateness of describing Buddhism as “scientific.” The dispute over Shuk-den concerns a practice that has been and still is central to the religious life of most Tibetan Buddhists, high and low. Within a traditional Tibetan context, such a dispute makes sense and can be justified, but it can hardly be said to be scientific!

— Dreyfus, The Sound of Two Hands Clapping p. 304

Taking a few words out of context from the above paragraph and making it look like that it is the practice of DS in particular rather than that of Dharma protectors in general that Dreyfyus is referring to is not acceptible as it is misleading - I have therefore deleted the first sentance of the second paragraph of the article which contained the partial misleading quote. — Chris Fynn (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Where exactly does it mention the practice of Dharma Protectors in general? Emptymountains (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's particularly badly written because, as Emptymountains has pointed out, Dreyfus is not specific.

"The dispute over Shuk-den concerns a practice that has been and still is central to the religious life of most Tibetan Buddhists, high and low."

One reading of this is that Shuk-den practice has been and is central to the religious life of most Tibetan Buddhists, otherwise what "practice" is it referring to? --Truthsayer62 (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is misleading - considering that in practice it is everyone vs the NKT on this issue. 81.187.223.119 (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a very polarised view. It's everyone who is politically allied to the Dalai Lama vs everyone who cherishes the traditional values of the Gelugpa tradition as explained by great lamas such as Je Pabongkhapa and Trijang Rinpoche on this issue.--Truthsayer62 (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Melody of the Unceasing Vajra

thank you to Vinayaholder for adding this prayer. i agree with Emptymountains, however, that for WP purposes, not so much commentary is necessary, but isn't the prayer's colophon pertinent here, clearly and explicitly indicating the DL's view and intention at the time of writing? Atisha's cook (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright Status?

If this prayer was written by the Dalai Lama, depending on when it was first published, the author may hold copyright under the Berne Convention. Since the prayer is quoted in full, has permission been obtained from the copyright holder? I also wonder if the translator had permission to translate and publish it? Chris Fynn (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Propaganda

This article is clearly propaganda from the new kadampa sect with out any neutral points of view. It is so obvious propaganda that any normal person would doubt every line in this article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.81.224.250 (talk) 11:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This article reads like a verbal firefight rather than a dependable encyclopedic article. Neither the practice, nor the diverse distinct opinions of the topic (deity or worldly and harmful spirit), nor the proportional significance of the controversy is really clear; even a quick google and surf of the various pro and con sites gives a more balanced view. Adding phrases and sections will not fix the basic problems with the article imho. UC232 (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Fantasy

The further reading section is a hoax! To advice the reader to read unpublished and highly controversial biased material violates the standards of Wikipedia and WP:links. The WSS book is just ridiculous and does not fulfil any academic standard. Please remove that non-sense. Don't remove the template until this section has been improved. There is enough qualified and reviewed academic research online which can be linked. The link section of Further Reading is a fan-link section which does not lead to reliable material. --91.63.171.36 (talk) 08:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

This book, The Great Deception, is certainly not a hoax and nor does it constitute a fansite, so I have removed that false label. It may not accord with the point of view of this anonymous contributor, but the book is backed up with many valid sources. (Truthbody (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC))

No one can seriously argue that any of the publications listed in the Further Reading section are reliable independent third-party publications. They all appear to be publications from sources directly affiliated with the subject and are being distributed by sources directly affiliated with the subject. IMO, particularly when a subject is controversial, non-independent publications should not be listed in a Further Reading section. If they are then, at the very least, they should be balanced by listing an equal number of publications just as strongly putting forth the "other side" of the case. Probably best to remove the Further Reading section altogether. Lodru (talk) 10:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This article should be re-written from scratch by a neutral editor on the basis of Reliable Sources

Yes, lets not fantasize and pretend — As it stands this article plainly nowhere near meets Wikipedia standards for a good article - it is more like the substance discussed and illustrated here.

Anyone who cares to examine things will find that most of the information cited in the article is from sources that are in one way or another closely connected with the subject.

• As per Wikipedia:Reliable sources these are not a reliable source of information and any future revision should only be sourced from academically accepted reliable third party sources.
  There are now plenty of peer reviewed academic articles and books on the subject available and there is no reason why a good article couldn't be written by a neutral editor based entirely on such sources.

Right now:

• The article is largely based on what amount to self-published sources - instead of accepted reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability
• The topic in large part is treated in a non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
• From its inception the article was the subject of ongoing, and still unresolved, edit wars. Any attempts to re-edit it in line with Wikipedia guidelines seem to be instantly noticed by Dorje Shugden devotees who obviously have the article flagged - and if an edit does not support their POV one or another of them will remove it or undermine it by inserting more quotes from their own "publications".

This article doesn't need further re-editing in the manner that has gone on before. That would be pointless. In the end edits to this article always amounted to seeing who had the interest and stamina to keep re-editing it the longest. In such a circumstance its pretty obvious that those who are literally devoted to the subject of the article will always "win".

Simply put, to meet Wikipedia standards of a good article the whole thing should just be chucked out and re-written on the basis of accepted reliable sources by editors entirely unconnected with the subject at all. After that it should probably be locked from further editing.

One day let's hope someone takes up the challenge.

Chris Fynn (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we make the article in 2 parts that is clearly recognized by the reader. 1 Part from the point of view of the Shugden fans and a 2e part from the critics... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.34.222 (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The undue amount of use of unpublished, self-published and dubious sources, e.g. Bernis

The article still promotes dubious and unpublished sources which are biased and don't follow the WP:RS requirements. At a brief glance over the current article, I recognized that instead of accepted and peer-reviewed academic sources a self-published source like Ursula Bernis is quoted – and this even at the beginning and not in a special controversy section where she and the text belongs to. Bernis tried to publish this text "Condemned to Silence: A Tibetan Identity Crisis (1996-1999)" with its more than 420 pages at Peter Lang Verlag Bern but after the publisher gave the text to two established researchers, they recommended not to publish this text due to its bias and one-sided approach. Peter Lang Verlag Bern nor any other publisher has ever published this text. Instead of using self-published and dubious sources like this one WP:RS should be used. Shugden promoters start to rewrite the history of Shugden by self-published sources, anonymous websites and blogs, these trials shouldn't have a support at Wikiepdia. I made a complete list of established academic research on this subject matter here on my blog:

Shugden research

To use Kay (2004) as a start is best, I think. He summarized the academic results neatly and pretty fair. I flagged the passage with Bernis, don't remove this flag until this issue has been solved. Thank you. – Kt66 (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

BTW, Kay's and von Brücks papers are online, I included both as links in the article:

http://elibrary.ibc.ac.th/files/private/Tibetan%20and%20Zen%20Buddhism%20in%20Britain%20Transplantation,%20Development%20and%20Adaptation.pdf

http://info-buddhism.com/dorje_shugden_controversy_von_Brueck.html

Kt66 (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Further Readings & Fan article

I removed unpublished and dubious sources like Bernis, and Western Shugden Society ("lacks creditability" Prof. Robert J. Barnett) The article is a fan article and doesn't reflect academic research. Kt66 (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)