This is an archive of past discussions about New Kadampa Tradition. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

YontenG's addition of disputed tag

Yonten - please explain what exactly *in the article as it stands* warrants the inclusion of this tag? for an article to be "disputed" there must be some current disagreement amongst editors about its content: what, in the article, is being disputed?

you say "Edoitors from obth sides using Wiki as political tool"; your use of "sides" and "political" here is revealing. what sides? what is disputed?

this article has been worked on by a number of editors for some time to reach its current state. your inclusion of this tag is unwarranted, imo.Atisha's cook (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Come on Atisha, you have been banned repeatedly for editiwarring-you know what this is about-Where has the Lopez quote gone? You editted it out with no expl whatsoever-this is why this page needs the banners. Because fanatics intent on imposing their idealised view of a highly controversial religious movement (thats you;) are intent on confidence tricking the world into believing they are totally legit when in fact there are multiple questions about your history to be answered-Hnece the banners.'this article has been worked on by a number of editors for some time to reach its current state.'?????That should read 'this article has been worked on by a number of(NKT/WSS)editors for some time to reach its current state.' You are blagging/lying/ conning people. have you no morals?

I pity you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonteng (talk • contribs) 11:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

yes, i have been barred - once mistakenly as a "sock puppet" because i was editing from the same IP as another user (this bar was lifted when we explained that we were both attending the same conference, hence the same IP - this explanation was accepted), and once - rightly, and through my own naivety when i started editing on WP - for edit-warring. therefore i know something about it!

it's very clear from your postr above that you have at least as much of an agenda as that you perceive in myself and other editors. those are strong accusations gthat you make. i am not trying to "con" or deceive anyone, or to use WP as a propaganda tool of some sort. i AM trying to keep WP articles on my own special area of interest and knowledge (Kadampa Buddhism etc.) free from the kind of "political" attack that you're here admitting to. your personal views and grievances have no place on WP. this article should be factual and non-contentious. of course, many of those editing it are likely to be NKT practitioners as, clearly, they have the greatest knowledge of this subject. it is unreasonable, however, to accuse them of therefore misusing WP or misrepresenting the subject. the article does not read like promotional material; it is factual and relatively baanced. your motivation, from what you've said, does not appear to be non-partisan or to improve the article, rather, it seems that it's you who wishes to use WP as a propaganda tool!

while there may be some relevance or use for the Lopez quote - this is arguable, at least - i see no need or use for the disputed tag.

please keep your personal crusades to yourself - or, at least, off WP.Atisha's cook (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Dont you have any mirrors?Personal? Look at yourself.Anthing mildlycritical of the NKT is immediately removed without reason by.........you!Yonteng (talk) 12:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

'many of those editing it are likely to be NKT practitioners as, clearly, they have the greatest knowledge of this subject.' This just shows how unfit you are to edit-would scientologists be the best people to edit the scientology page? Bunkum. If you want objectivity, dont ask a subject 'it's very clear from your postr above that you have at least as much of an agenda as that you perceive in myself and other editors.' So, if we are both allowed to speak, this brings balance. But since we are clearly not, neutrality banners are appropriate. I also note that many of the refs are from WSS pages. The WSS is ........the NKT. Supporting your position with your own websites is totally corrupt. Sorry AC but you cant claim neutrality; you are ehavily involved in waging a propaganda war across the web-not on my watch though. Love YontengYonteng (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yonten - everyone is "allowed to speak" on WP, so long as that speech is in the interest of improving factual accuracy and readability of the articles. i try to follow this guideline - not, as you claim, to wage "a propaganda war across the web". on the other hand, you've admitted that propaganda is your intention, and by that admission, you've rather disqualified yourself as an impartial editor.

reasoned contributions are welcomed; where they might prove contentious, it's a good idea to discuss them first here, on Talk. you have a very clear COI here because your intention is to put forward your own view, whereas other editors - NKT and non-NKT - have tried to collaborate to produce something accurate and acceptable. please take your crusade to other forums where they may be more appropriate and leave WP as a simple encyclopedia.Atisha's cook (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

'you've admitted that propaganda is your intention, and by that admission, you've rather disqualified yourself as an impartial editor.'Where? Where has Chris Fynn gone. Or KT66? Answer: they have given up editing because their contributions are invariably edited out without reason (Check their talk pages). Much of the contentious material that apppears here, particularly those critical of the NKT, is edited out without reason.Your assertion that I am into propaganda is just nonsense-All I want is to see two sides of the debate about the NKT featured here-not just pro NKT views. The NKT is HIGHLY controversial, but you wouldnt know it from the article. The page is therefore imbalanced. Why? because, via a team effort, you have bullied anyone who is not willing to see things from your perspective off the page. This must stop-employing the voice of reason while you bully prople off the web is easily seen through. In the case of this article, people have even set up web pages talking about the hypocrisy of NKT editors. So pretend to be neutral all you want; portray me as a neutral blackguard all you want-edit histories/talk pages/ alternative sites prove my perspective. Either be reasonable yourself or expect to be challenged PS Empty mountains-I have the Clatke book and you are wrong-do you have the book? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonteng (talk • contribs) 15:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

just to clarify my accusation - you quoted me and then replied thus:

" 'it's very clear from your postr above that you have at least as much of an agenda as that you perceive in myself and other editors.' So, if we are both allowed to speak, this brings balance."

i said "you perceive" this agenda (propaganda), not that i have such an agenda. i don't. but then you admitted to having such an agenda yourself by saying: "So, if we are both allowed to speak, this brings balance."

you say the NKT is ""HIGHLY controversial". with respect, i disagree. where is all this controversy? where is it reported?

imo, you have a clear personal disagreement with and dislike of this organisation. if you can't keep that dislike out of your editing, then it's unlikely to be a useful contribution to the article. Atisha's cook (talk) 18:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason for the "disputed tag". Yonteng, please give specific reasons for it rather than simply attack other editors. You are behaving unilaterally and, frankly, seem deliberately to be trying to insult other editors. This will not have any good results. (Truthbody (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC))

Then please feel free to raise the issue with the relevant authorities 'where is all this controversy? where is it reported?' Come on-its ALL OVER the web. To deny it is silly-Google NKT controversy for example-thousands of pages 'you admitted to having such an agenda yourself by saying: "So, if we are both allowed to speak, this brings balance."' Where does that say Im into propaganda? I would say I just want both parties to speak freely, no mention of 'propaganda' Remember'Propaganda is the dissemination of information aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of people. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense, often presents information primarily in order to influence its audience.' Sound familiar? Its because that perfectly describes your activities. Come on , report me, lets have it out. Publicly, for all to see. 'you have a clear personal disagreement with and dislike of this organisation.'No, I loath lies, manipulation, deception and THESE are what I will fight against, for the sake of truth, no personal battles. I just cant abide people claiming the moral high ground while lying through their back teeth. Go well YontengYonteng (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I cannot make any sense of what you have just written, who are you talking to? I didn't say any of those things yet you seem to be answering me? In any event, it is clear that only you are the one who are having a problem and adding the tag. This article has been accepted by editors and moderators and has been considered acceptable. You have not given one valid reason for this tag. It is clear from your discussions that you have a bias against the NKT for whatever reason. If you want to edit the article, using reliable sources and not including this bias, go ahead; but this tag is not warranted by the article or anything you have said. By all means ask a moderator for their opinion on your unilateral decision to tag the article, but otherwise expect your tag to be removed over and over. Thanks. (Truthbody (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC))

As you are completely ignoring everyone, I have requested the administrators to step in. You also have a few comments on your talk page talk. (Truthbody (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC))

Yonteng, the onus is on you. Per WP:NPOV dispute, "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies." Emptymountains (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear yongteng, I've removed the tag again as you still have not listed the issues with this article as you see them. Just questioning the neutrality of the page is not enough, you have to say point by point why you believe the article is biased. You claim that you are awaiting input from the moderators but you have made no attempt to contact them. Until there is something more specific to go on, there is no justification for your tag. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 09:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear truthsayer (another member of the NKT gang who edit wars over this issue-independent 3rd parties please check edit history-also accused of suck puppetry alongside others already mentioned on this page I think-please correct me if Im wrong) i have replaced the banners-unfortuantely, I mistakenly placed my reasons on my own talk page so I have posted them here too PS It is emptymountains who has requested exrernal invigilation, not me-He/she is supposedly contacting them (see above)Now read on........

I did? That's news to me! Emptymountains (talk) 12:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Yonteng, you demean the teaching of the Buddha by being so mean and aggressive. I've already explained the reason for the sockpuppet accusation but because you assume bad faith, you don't accept it. I'm asking you again to state the specific instances where you dispute what the article says. Without specific examples and references to back up your assertions there's nothing to discuss and no justification for the tag you posted. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 12:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear all. especially independent editors, Look, at all this stuff below-clear evidence of a propaganda war by the NKT on WP. The assertion above that there is no Anti Dalai war on the part of the NKT???Google NKT Dalai Lama-who co-ordinates attacks on the dalai. NKT founder KG. Who runs demos, NKT leaders. Who populate demos? NKT followers. Who dominates wiki articles NKT members-if this is not a concerted NKT csmpsign to attack the Dalai and establish the NKT as correct, what is?

Many WP editors who followed the WP guidelines gave up: one of them wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_Kadampa_Tradition_(2nd_nomination)

reasons for edit warring over this article

[I've hacked out a large section duplicating User_talk:Yonteng#New_Kadampa_Tradition_banners; see there if interested William M. Connolley (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)]

Hmm, i'm not sure if u are really doing the community a service by removing Yontengs statement here. I found it very enlightening with respect to the edit conflicts here. Especially regarding the conflicts of interest of some of the main editors (apparently being NKT member themselves)of the pages on NKT, Dorje Shugden, Dorje Shugden Controversy and Geshe Kelsang Gyatso.

Although i will have to take a closer look at the current state of these pages, my first impression is that they still hide or at least do not state clearly or prominently enough the multiple controversies surrounding the NKT. My experience in asking people in the western european (mainly Tibetan) Buddhist community about the NKT is: either they don't know them, or they roll their eyes and say something that could best be summarized by something like: "better stay away from them". Of course the rolling eyes of some western Buddhist practitioners might not exactly constitute a WP:RS but i think the reader of a WP article should get a fair chance to know what reputation (if justified or not) this organization has and what the controversies are that this reputation originates from. Andi 3ö (talk) 22:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to add some personal words regarding at least one of the controversies: I myself am a Gelug practitioner as well and am deeply saddened by the whole Dorje Shugden controversy. When i first heard H.H. the Dalai Lama say before a teaching i attended, that Dorje Shugden practitioners could not enter a teacher-pupil-relationship with him and therefore better leave i was confused (as i never heard of that protector before) and shocked that these kind of things happen in the Tibetan Buddhist community. All the more i was confused, when i found out that the author of one of the most precious teachings i know: "Liberation in the Palm of Your Hand", Kyabje Pabongka Rinpoche, had also promoted the practice of Dorje Shugden. I am pretty much torn on this subject and although i still do not fully understand the reasons H.H. took this decision, and in turn why Geshe Kelsang took his decision of not following H.H. advice (with all the consequences ensueing) i certainly at times wish one of them had taken a different decision. For me as a "mainstream" Gelug practitioner the situation of course must be a lot easier than for those of you following Geshe Kelsang. Just be assured: you have my greatest compassion! Neverthesless I think playing with open cards is always the best way to cope with past or ongoing controversies, which there have apparently been quite a few in the young (pre-)history of your organization...

...i will look into the articles hopefully in the next days and see if i can help...

Andi 3ö (talk) 22:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Andi, thanks! If you need help verifying any of the sources to make sure nothing is being misquoted, I have all of them and can send you the quotes in context. Emptymountains (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

YT's statement was far too long and is at least the third duplicate of it. You, in turn, would do this dispute a service by summarising its important points succinctly (if your comment above hasn't laready done so) William M. Connolley (talk) 07:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

[Comment removed on grounds of WP:NPA. User warned William M. Connolley (talk) 07:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)] Atisha's cook (talk) 23:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The banners are there for COI reasons explained on my user talk page-there is also a post there asking you to be a little more civil and not to insult me. best wishesYonteng (talk) 07:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Please add a section to this talk page in which you *succinctly* explain the reason for adding the banner, addressing only the issues that are wrong with the page rather than the abilities of the editors concerned William M. Connolley (talk) 07:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

As explained above, all four dominant editors of this and other pages related to the New kadampa tradition (Dorje Shugden,Dorje Shugden Controversy) are members of that organisation. WP guidelines state that such a situation has the potential to lead to a lack of NPOV.

Independent editor Andi 3ö has pointed out above, on the basis of the named editors memebrship that there certainly appear to be instances of a lack of NPOV. In his words:

'I have been watching the controversies around the NKT and the evolution of the articles on WP for quite some time. In fact, the only reason i ever got to know the NKT, and i assume also the reason most of the people will ever look at their wiki page, IS the host of controversies surrounding them. They are widely considered sort of the black sheep of the (Tibetan) Buddhist community (if justified or not is a different issue). If you look at the NKT page it is evident that the controversies are either not present at all or buried back in the article or in some subordinate clause.'

On top of this, User Kt66, a knowledgeable contributor to this page has resigned from editing In his words, the reason for this is:

'For more than one year now Wikipedia:Reliable Sources, like Dreyfus, Kay, von Brück, Mumford or Nebesky-Wojkowitz, as well as other qualified scholarly papers on the history of Shugden worship (and the Shugden Controversy / New Kadampa Tradition) have been repeatedly deleted or misrepresented on Wikipedia – in almost all cases by a group of engaged NKT editors – or these qualified sources have been blocked by them as being “heavily biased”; and for a long time NKT blogs and anonymous websites made by Shugdenpas replaced Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. Now the academic sources are just not mentioned any more or they are presented only marginally, and in a way that it does not interfere with the World-view of NKT.'

Administrator Chzzz also appears to feel that this issue merits attention (see my talk page). Despite initially blocking/refusing to unblock myself, two further administrators WM Connolley and Ricky 8162 are now suggesting arbitration procedures, demonstratig a recognition that there is an issue here that needs to be resolved.

There are therefore IMO clear issues of CoI/NPoV. This is why I have placed the Neutrality banner on the NKT page and why i have asked adminstrators to consider whether this CoI merits the NKT editors be warned/blocked. Best wishesYonteng (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

1)To be fair: calling me an "independent" editor may, at least from an NKT perspective, not be completely justified. As i am a (western Tibetan Gelug) Buddhist and not a member of the NKT, one could argue that i am part of "the other side". But, on the grounds of this thinking, i'd say it would not be very likely to ever find an editor of the NKT-related pages, who can safely be considered 100% free of suspicion of WP:COI as everyone who is interested sufficiently in the organization and/or it's teacher Geshe Kelsang Gyatso or it's protector deity Dorje Shugden and the associated Dorje Shugden Controversy will 1) be somewhat of a Tibetan Buddhist (at least have read some books or heard some teachings) and 2)either be associated with the NKT or not. The question then would be if the majority of Tibetan Buddhists who are not associated with the NKT, who e.g. follow the advice of the Dalai Lama not to worship Dorje Shugden and from which the NKT has explicitely distanced themselves can be considered neutral or not. I think: no, not competely neutral, but certainly the danger of a direct conflict of interest is much higher with NKT members as they are the minority, (somewhat naturally) feeling cornered by the views of the majority which they have to defend against. The majority on the other hand will not have such strong feelings about the controversies as for them it is not that important, what this small faction thinks and how it is presented on WP.

2)Nevertheless i think simply focusing on WP:COI and banning all the NKT contributors can certainly not be the solution. We certainly have to take their COIs into account when looking at their edits but still WP:assume good faith. Therefore, instead of only attacking the editors i urge you, Yonteng, to bring up (or restate/summarize here)some content-wise claims. What do you think, specifically will have to change on this page in order to be WP:NPOV? (i personally have some ideas but will have to read a bit more in order to compile a comprehensive list).

Andi 3ö (talk) 09:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yonteng, a starting point would be the list you have posted above: a list of accusations the NKT themselves feel thay have to defend against. Which of the accusations do you think is substantiated enough or raised by a sufficient number of people (to constitute a noteworthy controversy) that it should be included in the article and is currently not/or not sufficiently so? What about the controversies section kt66 posted above? Is it accurately sourced? Would you want to put that (back?) in for example? Any other specific changes you suggest?

Andi 3ö (talk) 10:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ouch! well, you certainly seem more neutral than 'the other side' at least.However, I am sure all parties would want a balanced article, in the interests of truth. To go into each individual reference is a little difficult right now as my life gets in the way (!) but i would strongly recommend comparing the existing page to http://info-buddhism.com/#nkt which was what Kt66 claims deonstrates both sides. By comparing the two articles it should be pretty obvious which neutral 3rd party sources have been edited out and what might well need replacing.Personally, I think the editors concerned need a stern warning (you will see why when you compare the two pages) and the NPOV/COI banners should remain as long as there is a dispute.Yonteng (talk) 10:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Is that website GFDL-compliant? Back in December, User:Kt66 created a "Pre-history of the NKT" article, but it was shown that it was like 90% duplicate verbatim content from already established articles like NKT, GKG, and Manjushri Institute, and so the new page was deleted. For example, I note that the Historical background of the formation of NKT section appearing at the top of that webpage now makes up the content of the Manjushri Institute article. I mention this because at first it may seem like the material is simply "gone."

What I learned from User:Kt66 was the importance of citing (only) third-party reliable sources. However, when I got ahold of his sources to verify what they said (e.g., Kay, Waterhouse, Bluck, Cozort), I noticed that he always picked the worst that they had to say about the subject. Kt66 may have claimed to be NPOV simply by citing 3PS's, but it is not NPOV to selectively quote as he does. Emptymountains (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I think if you take a look at the DS page you will see this is exaclty what happened with the Mumford reference in the Nyingma section

You colleagues quoted from Mumford:

There were also Nyingma practitioners of Dorje Shugden. Mumford writes based on his anthropoligical studies in Nepal in the late 1970's: "In Gyasumdo the lamas are Nyingmapa, yet most of them honor Shugs-ldan as a lineage guardian picked up in Tibet in the past by their patriline."

After I checked the quote I found out that Mumford states:

”Tibetans in Kathmandu regard Shugden as a guardian honored by those who adhere to the Gelug sect, while members of the Nyingma sect think of Shugden as their enemy, sent against them by the rival sect. But in the villages these sectarian differences are not well understood. In Gyasumdo the lamas are Nyingmapa, yet most of them honor Shugs-ldan as a lineage guardian picked up in Tibet in the past by their patriline.”

The first quote makes no allusion to the enmity between DS and Nyingmas-it makes it look like the relationship was hunky dory. So your colleagues are responsible for exactly the thing you accuse Kt66 of! Moreover, if you check Kt66s talk page you will see that a neutral observer awarded him a wiki barnstar for his edits. So while you condemn him for bias and selective quotation, independents can see that a) your colleagues are equally biased and b) Kt66 has been awarded for his edits. As a matter of interest, have you or your colleagues got any awards for neutrality/edit quality on your pages?Ive looked but so far i can only find blocks and allegations of sock puppetry???Perhaps i am missing something? Feel free to correct me. Looking forward to a succesful resolution of the problems, with kind regards YontenYonteng (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

(I just posted this on emptymountains talk page... [So don't post it here too. Duplication is evil. Say things once, in one place. Cut William M. Connolley (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)] Yonteng (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

this COI accusation is baseless. i've stated that i'm an NKT practitioner, but that doesn't mean i necessarily have a COI. for example, should no Christian edit articles on Christianity? should no Republican edit articles on the Republican Party? clearly, that would be absurd.

now, if i were using WP to *promote* my party/religion/POV then this accusation would be justified. but i have not done this at any time. just because i am a Buddhist practitioner does not automatically make me a fanboy and nor does it render me incapable of critical thought about my lineage or tradition. this article *does not* read like promotional material. it's actually not a bad article in terms of clarity and factual accuracy. just because it doesn't include information supporting someone's POV does not make it inaccurate!

now, an editor like Yonteng who's stated repeatedly that he believes NKT to have some kind of anti-Dalai Lama agenda, and that many of the other editors on this article are sock-puppets or are acting as a propaganda "team", may well be more likely to have a COI here. this view is similar to one of the "valued contributers" Yonteng mentioned: Kt66. by hs own admission, Kt66 was a disgruntled ex-NKT monk *with a stated intention to "warn the world" about NKT*; he said this. he was the author of several blogs that were highly critical of his former tradition - which he then used as sources (info-buddhism.com is a notable example). but when Kt66's WP contributions were checked (at his request) by neutral editors, a majority of them commented on the strong bias and over-reliance on one, somewhat discredited, academic's PHD thesis as source (Kay). that he had been previously challenged by other editors is hardly surprising. i was one of them, and i have to confess to losing patience with him, too. that was my bad. but challenging such partisan editing is NOT cyber-bullying, nor is it evidence of some kind of dedicated NKT "team" of propagandists. that Yonteng's unjustified inclusion of various banners has been reoeatedly challenged is likewise not bullying!

at last, after many, many requests (from polite through to not so much...) to provide justification, he has finally done so. i disagree with these reasons, as i've stated above. in addition, i would say that to characterise NKT as inherently controversial is just incorrect. controversy does not define NKT, any more than it defines any other religious group. ALL groups have controversies, and their share of detractors. NKT's detractors can be somewhat vocal like Kt66 and Yonteng - largely because of the perceived opposition to the Dalai Lama's policy on Dorje Shugden - but that doesn't mean their POVs are justified.

Yonteng - this is what Talk is for, as i understand it - to discuss and debate the merits of edits. to do so, other editors need to know your reasons. if you back-up your edits with RS and justify and discuss their inclusion then i think you'll find that other editors, NKT or otherwise, will be happy to work with you. Atisha's cook (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Should scientologists be allowed to write the wp scientology article?. The COI allegations and sock puupetry allegations are from multiple users, not me-check the refs above.Your ref to Kay as 'somewhat discredited' is personal opinion=it is only 'discredited' according to Nkt Source-it is a 3rd party academic source considered by many to be the best work so far on the \nkt. The NKT is not 'inherently' controversial, nothing is 'inherently' anything However, talk to most and as Andi says above, when NKT is mentioned, they roll their eyes and groan. The reason for all this is just that-your complete refusla to accept that there is anything controversial about what amounts to the UKs most controversial group. This is obviously NPOV due to your COI. The article is competely lacking in critical info. what is there isburied away-these are the words of others above, not mine=sleep well94.192.139.167 (talk) 23:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

NKT is not the same as Scientology. It says much about your own view that you chose that example rather than another Buddhist tradition. For this reason, I don't believe that those who have a strong negative view of the NKT should be allowed to write the article either, as was the case when kt66 dominated it and would not allow anything positive to be included.

I don't accept the COI that Yonteng sees. Surely Wikipedia articles are written by those who have knowledge of the subject? Who is more qualified to write an article about the NKT than someone in the tradition who is practising it? It's therefore not so surprising that many of the editors are NKT practitioners. I can say that the article as it stands is accurate, factual and already includes controversies. For example, I don't agree with the view of Professor Peter Clarke that NKT is a Tibetan NRM but it's included in the article. I believe that Yonteng could have a possible conflict of interest too, because, otherwise, why would he be pursuing his own view so vigorously? This reveals a big emotional investment and hardly a neutral point of view.

I personally don't want to see a return to an article dominated by quotations from Kay who is only one author and only one point of view, and whose view is outdated. Kay's thesis was written a long time ago. Organizations are not static and the NKT today is a different tradition to the one he wrote about. This is one reason why third party academic references are unreliable when talking about a dynamic tradition. They are okay to portray history if they are accurate, but not suitable to portray an organic, changing organization. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 07:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

does anyone other than Yonteng see a COI here? if so, please explain - we can discuss. if not, then the COI banner is invalid and should go.

I think we all need to WP:assume good faith and stop trying to silence each other by simply stating that those who disagree with us have WP:COI. This feels like playground politics. We need to stay with the facts in the article itself, and simply stick to the five pillars of Wiki, and we can work together on this article. (Truthbody (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC))

does anyone else dispute content in this article? if so, please say what - we can discuss. if not, the POV banner is invalid and should go. Atisha's cook (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The content in this article is well sourced. If people wish to add more material that is also well sourced, that is their prerogative; but right now no specific content has been cited by Yonteng to justify his inclusion of this POV banner. (Truthbody (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC))

Just briefly, for a start: what about the information given above under controversies/criticism of the NKT (apparently from an older version of the article) What's wrong with that info, why isn't it in the article? If true, and as far as i can see it is well sourced, i think much of that info is quite noteworthy. e.g. that Geshe Kelsang was expelled from his home monastery or that the nkt was rejected by some national Buddhist unions... please explain why you think this does not belong in the article. Andi 3ö (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a separate article for Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. Emptymountains (talk) 08:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The reasons for these nbanners are discussed. Independent Admins are now observing this page. Your reasoning is simply a refusal to accept the banners It is not a reasoned argument at all. I have reverted the ganners and will request admins AGAIN if you continue edit warring, particularly when the issue is already being addressed independentlyYonteng (talk) 07:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

i disagree. i don't think they have been discussed. you've provided your POV, that editors here have a COI and that the article is biased, but, with respect, that is simply your own opinion. you've cited a few other previous editors who've shared your view, but once again, certinly wrt Kt66, this doesn't justify the banners. i'll remove the banners now. please understand - there's no conspiracy: this is not some kind of tag-team reverting! i'm acting on my own understanding of the meaning of these banners and their relevance (or lack of it) to this article.

i will ask once again, though, for others to contribute here: is there nyone who shares Yonteng's view that these banners, if included, would be justified, and if so, why? if there are valid reasons, please let's discuss them *before* adding the banners. thanks.

incidentally, i don't think it's at all helpful for our reasoned discussion for you to equate the New Kadampa Tradition with Scientology. that's unjustified and inflammatory. Atisha's cook (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

ahem... you know...i actually still am not too sure about whether these banners are helpful or not, but seeing you taking turns in removing them again and again and also skipping through the history of this article and seeing similar situations before surely does not contribute to convincing me that there is no COI here. Anyway the COI banner imho sohould be a last resort and i don't like it very much because it presents kind of an ad hominem attack.

The POV banner on the other hand seems to be fully justifiable here. The neutrality of this article surely IS DISPUTED like the banner says, no doubt about that.

Why don't you answer the points i raised above about the criticism section? I think most of the points there should be included. Please tell me why not. Simply stating that there is an article about Geshe Kelsang Gyatso dos not suffice, not even for the one point it may apply too, that of him, the founder of the NKT, being expelled from his own monastery. I think that fact is noteworthy here and frankly it will be hard to convince me that it is not.

Same goes for the founding history of the NKT. It has apparently been moved to the Manjushri Institute page without leaving any reference here to the apparently tumultuous times the NKT emerged from after gaining control over the center from the FPMT (another (the first?) western Tibetan Buddhist organisation). Apparently any reference to that struggle and subsequent separation from the FPMT has been removed form here, going so far as to omitting the fact that Geshe Kelsang came to England on request of Lama Yeshe (founder of the FPMT) in the first place. I know it is not untrue what the article states now, that he came on the request of Trijang Rinpoche, but the whole story seems to be that Trijang Rinpoche (his main teacher) only asked him after he himself had been requested by Lama Yeshe to do so (and apparently after having been recommended to Lama Yeshe by the Dalai Lama). This alone of course is not a serious violation of WP:NPOV, but it surely hints at how some editors seem to go out of their way to keep this page free of the controversial issues.

The not very prominent placement of the Dorje Shugden controversy is another one. Also the way it is introduced is pretty telling: "Also, one of the NKT-IKBU's religious practices is of the Dharma Protector Dorje Shugden, but this also is nothing new." In addition, there doesn't even seem to be a link to the Dorje Shugden Controversy at all.

hmm...unless these points (and maybe some others i haven't yet discovered) are quickly fixed i have to admit i feel strongly inclined to put up the POV banner up myself again.

To the NKT affiliated editors i will say that i do not think there is any virtue in hiding the controversies apparently surrounding your organization. Why don't you stand by those issues? Obviously you do not feel that they are a reason not to get engaged with the NKT, or do you? You love your teacher, you love the Dharma, you love Dorje Shugden and you love the way your organization contributes to spreading the Dharma and ultimately working for the good of all sentient beings, right? I personally appreciate that very much as well! Openly discussing the controversial issues surely is a better way of building trust (not only) within the Buddhist community, don't you think? Andi 3ö (talk) 18:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

wrt the reverts, all i can tell you is that i am - honestly - not taking it turns with any other editor to do this, i'm simply reverting an edit that i feel is unjustified. understanding that this is just degenerating into edit-warring i've asked for some reasoned discussion on it - so thanks for adding your opinion.

imo, the point is one of emphasis. there's one viewpoint that this article should prominently feature these "contoversies"; i would say that this seems to be held mostly by those editors (one editor?) who believe that NKT is inherently bad news because it differs from the Dalai Lama and many of its members have joined WSS protests vocally opposing the Dalai Lama's ban on Dorje Shugden. on the other hand, there's a view (that i subscribe to) that says that giving such prominence to these issues would be wholly disproportionate: the NKT is not defined by controversy, it's not what the organisation is about. for some (and let's face it, this is a very small minority of society) these "controversies" seem to have taken on a vastly inappropriate significance. this includes a few NKT people, and a few ardently anti-NKT people. but to say, on this basis, that the article is disputed isn't really valid.

to dedicate an unduly prominent section of this Wiki to these things, or to say that the content is disputed, would be to give an inaccurate view of the subject to Joe or Josephine Public. it would be, imho, akin to devoting a large and prominent section of a Wiki about the Roman Catholic Church to the opinions of certain Christian Fundamentalist activists. certainly, some controversy exists in the RCC, and some might warrant a mention - but that is not the main meaning, function or import of that Church.

that's my view. what do you think? Atisha's cook (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

hmm. i just reread my post above - i didn't mean to imply that anyone whose view differs from NKT's is some kind of crazy fundamentalist - sorry if it reads like that (or maybe i'm just hyper-sensitive now!). anyway - a better analogy might be allowing anti-Christian writers to contribute a lengthy and prominent Controversies section to the wiki on Christianity. it would be inappropriate. Atisha's cook (talk) 18:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

'I don't believe that those who have a strong negative view of the NKT should be allowed to write the article either, as was the case when kt66 dominated it and would not allow anything positive to be included.'

Now re-read that as:

I don't believe that those who have a strong posittive view of the NKT should be allowed to write the article either, as was the case when Truthbody/Emptymountains/Atisha's Cook Truthsayer 62 dominated it and would not allow anything negative to be included.'

Does that sound reasonable to you? If not, you may have a CoI and hold a non-NPOV.

'Who is more qualified to write an article about the NKT than someone in the tradition who is practising it?' This is the classic mistake of a non-academic; the belief that you can see things objectively from an insider perspective. In fact, your membership means you are propbalby less qulified to write on the NKT since you cannot see the imperfections that objective academics can. its a kind of blinded by faith scenario.

'Organizations are not static and the NKT today is a different tradition to the one he wrote about.'

This is a philosophical sophism-It denies that there is any entity called the NKT. The NKT does exist; it may be ever changing, and selfless but a dependent entity still exists and some label that entity as a cult/NRM with numerous controversial attributes, attribute which BTW are not mentioned in the article. I am going to place the banners back as I believe there has been lots of discussion of the CoI/NPOV issue above and you have not explained any valid resons why they should not be there, except for a lot of denials and ad homs-sorry! I am also going to ask admins to step in to resolve this issue. Could you please do the same???Yonteng (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC).

who are you talking to? those aren't my words.

wrt the banners - soory: the onus is on you to reason why they *should* be there! i don't need to give reasons why there shouldn't be a section on Dolly Parton, for example. :-) Atisha's cook (talk) 19:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yonteng - you have yet to make a single, positive contribution to this article. All you are doing is placing banners without making constructive suggestions for changing the article. I don't accept that there is a COI, so I've removed that part of the banner, but I accept that you think the article is NPOV (I disagree). If you think it's NPOV, please make suggestions rather than edit warring. Thank you --Truthsayer62 (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

well i still disagree with this! so far, afaics, only Yonteng's disputing, and then not with much in the way of valid argument. Andi 3ö's offered some valid points on this for discussion, with which i've mostly disagreed - but at least there's some chance to discuss. but for now, still no real dispute, afaics. so is there valid reason for this banner? Atisha's cook (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's only fair to see what other editors come up with and to have a reasoned discussion about it. If there are no constructive suggestions and therefore no justification for the banner then it should be removed after a period of time to be agreed - what do you think? --Truthsayer62 (talk) 05:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

i'm of the opinion that the banner needs to be discussed and agreed *before* its included in the article. i've seen nothing from Yonteng that is sufficient reason to justify it so far - i'm still awaiting a valid example of disputed content. but i'm now on parole for edit-warring with him (which is my bad...) so for now i'd better let it go and wait to see what we all conclude. Atisha's cook (talk) 06:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

does anyone else want to contribute to this discussion? NPOV banner: justified or not? Atisha's cook (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

maybe we should file an "official" request for comments? Andi 3ö (talk) 08:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

At the moment the banner is there to prove a negative -- as yet, neither Yonteng or Andi have made constructive suggestions for improving the article and have just complained about it not having enough controversy in it. If anyone can find third-party sources to justify the inclusion of new material, go ahead, but as yet this has not happened and the banners are just there because Yonteng wants them to be. The banners should be removed until there is some proof that the article lacks neutral point of view as it stands. Vague allegations that people "roll their eyes" in the Tibetan Buddhist world when they hear about the NKT does not cut it on Wikipedia. (Truthbody (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

I'd say there is a host of sourced material that could (not necessarily should of course) be included even if u only look as far as earlier versions of the article, e.g. [this one] Yonteng recommended earlier. Of course you are right: "eyes-rolling" certainly is not sufficient justification for this banner but i think the banner may serve it's purpose well of keeping some pressure in this debate and hopefully attracting some editor's attention to the subject (btw what about my suggestion of filing a request for comments?).

The "eyes-rolling" of course is just a personal observation of mine and as such is not includable as it clearly violates WP:NOR ;-). Neverthesless for me it is an indication that there actually IS/ARE some controversy/ies surrounding the NKT that imho should be given some prominence in this article.

BTW Emptymountains has already put in place some edits adressing two of my earlier points that i highly appreciate. What do you think about them? Are they ok for you? And do you think we could do something similar with the history part/conflict with FPMT which as i stated earlier i thought should be included/referenced Andi 3ö (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you remind me which of Emptymountain's edits you are referring to?

If we add something about NKT history with the FPMT, it would also have to go in the FPMT article. The FPMT Wiki article, BTW, has never come up for any scrutiny or really good Wiki editing or sourcing. I for one have avoided interfering with other Buddhist traditions or being negative about them -- but the favor does not seem to be reciprocated judging by the number of FPMT students who have edited the NKT article over the years! The FPMT article uses a lot of WP:SPS and avoids all hint of any controversy, whereas it has done plenty of controversial things such as the discrimination against allowing other Buddhist practitioners from attending its teachings, the fact that Lama Osel is nowhere to be seen and by various accounts has disrobed, the illegal activities engaged in in the early eighties (of which I know a great deal as I was around to witness what happened during that whole period), and the letter from the senior FPMT monk Sangye Yeshe indicating that the FPMT are on a witch hunt against Shugden practitioners even though Lama Yeshe, the founder of FPMT, was a faithful Dorje Shugden practitioner until the day of his death. Plus the contradictions arising from Lama Zopa trying to have his cake and eat it over the Dorje Shugden debacle, tying himself in knots trying to maintain his faith in Trijang Rinpoche and the Dalai Lama. Over half of the FPMT lineage Gurus were Shugden practitioners, and yet two of them in particular, Trijang Rinpoche and Je Phabongkhapa, are persona non grata with the Dalai Lama, who says they were "wrong, all wrong", and has even called for the removal of their statues in various Gelugpa monasteries. Yet the Dalai Lama is now de facto supreme leader of the FPMT and sits atop all the great lineage Gurus on that page. The gradual change from the FPMT from being a Gelugpa tradition to one that mainly encourages the practice of Rime in accordance with the Dalai Lama's intentions is not mentioned either, even though it is highly significant and, according to Lama Yeshe's original intentions in founding the FPMT, controversial. And so on. Also, the arguments over the future of the FPMT and the succession of power, particularly in the absence of Lama Osel; what will happen when Lama Zopa and the Dalai Lama pass on? (Truthbody (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

I don't think that there is any automatism here. A controversy that is somewhat significant or even defining for one of the parties involved can very well be totally insignificant for another. I am not saying that this is the case here. I don't immediately see any reason why not to add a reference to the conflict around Manjushri Institute to the FPMT article. In fact it sounds like a good idea to me. Please correct me if i am wrong here, but afaics, for the FPMT i'd say it is just that: the conflict surrounding Manjushri Institute. For the NKT on the other hand the invitation to Manjushri by the FPMT is part of the founding history, maybe the conflict subsequently ensueing even constituting a decisive contributing factor in triggering the founding? Possibly something similar could be said wrt the Dorje Shugden controversy?

Some of the other details about the FPMT you mention may as well be interesting for the FPMT article, but i reject the notion that the two issues/articles are somehow connected. Both have to be seperately treated/discussed and both have to be accurate on their very own accord. Andi 3ö (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Guess what i found in the FPMT article's "history" section:

More consequentially, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso and his students caused the Manjushri Institute--the FPMT's flagship center in England--to sever its FPMT ties. At issue was whether the centers and their students ought to identify primarily with Lama Yeshe, local teachers, the Gelugpa tradition, or Tibetan Buddhism as a whole. The FPMT now asks its lamas to sign a "Geshe Agreement" which make explicit the organization's expectations. (Complicating the latter dispute was controversy over Dorje Shugden; the FPMT has accepted the Dalai Lama's ban on the worship of this deity.)

So the balancing measures you demand in case of an addition of "NKT history with the FPMT" are already in place (kind of proactively it seems ;-)) You know, i actually thought about checking the FPMT article before i replied to your comment yesterday. I didn't, because i figured i'd trust you on that. Well, sorry to say that...but i'd guess that's not exactly a plus then on my internal scorecard for evaluating the WP:COI allegations against you (and others) :(

BTW just to make sure i wasn't blaming you for accidentally overlooking what could have been a recent addition to the FPMT article: Here's the [original entry of that passage] dating back to Feb 2008. Even [the very first stub of the FPMT article] already has a reference to the conflict! (which i, as stated above, don't find nearly as relevant for the FPMT as for the NKT article) Andi 3ö (talk) 10:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

And, by the way, there is plenty of "eye rolling" about the Dalai Lama and the FPMT if you mention them in certain circles ;-) (Truthbody (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

hehe, that i can lively imagine :D Andi 3ö (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Which of Emptymountains edits i mean? Well, the recent ones: adding a heading and a proper introductory sentence as well as linking to the main article on the Dorje Shugden controversy, and adding a reference and link to further info on Geshe Kelsang's expulsion from Sera Je. Andi 3ö (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

1RR sanction

Y and Ac are hereby placed on WP:1RR sanction on this page, because I am bored of your edit warring. Reverts made without explicitly including the word "revert" "undid" or "rv" or anything else will result in an extended block William M. Connolley (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

fair enough, i guess. Atisha's cook (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

OK I believe we have definite COI here which has been discussed ad nauseum above. COI results in NPOV issues. I have therefore placed the banners on this.Yonteng (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

i've moved the few posts following this to the section above, where they more properly belong as they concern the "reasons for edit-warring"/banners, rather than the 1RR sanction. i hope that's ok? Atisha's cook (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Meat puppetry?

I've been sent two messages posted recently on the New Kadampa Survivors' group asking for members to get into this discussion to back up Yonten and his banners, at least one of these was posted by a Wikipedia user who has made many edits on this article over the years. Members of that group are apparently discussing strategy on how they can collectively work together to keep up the banners on wp:coi and wp:npov. This seems to be WP:meat? If so, it is not permissible according to Wikipedia guidelines, so I think all editors should watch out for it:

"Do not recruit meatpuppets. It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate. If you feel that a debate is ignoring your voice, then the appropriate action is to remain civil, seek comments and involvement from other Wikipedians, or pursue dispute resolution. These are well-tested processes, designed to avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another."

(Truthbody (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

Do we need to report this to the admins or should we just leave it and see if anything comes of it first? What do other editors think? (Truthbody (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

I think those people getting involved with the article would certainly not be the most desirable thing to happen. On the other hand, the plain existence of such a group doesn't necessarily speak to the non-controversiality of the NKT. I think we should wait what comes up and WP:assume good faith: same as we do with NKT members although i assume that according to some of the "survivors" all the NKT editors are brainwashed cult members totally impossible of a WP:NPOV. Let's face it: it IS a difficult situation. According to WP:COI best thing would be for all NKT members as well as all survivors people and other parties having issues with the NKT staying away from the article. In the consequence, as i stated above, that may even include all Tibetan Buddhists (like me) as one could argue that all non-NKT Tibetan Buddhists are part of "the other side" of the Dorje Shugden controversy (although, as i also argued above, i think it is quite natural to assume that the feelings about the controversy capable of clouding the own judgement may be somewhat naturally be stronger with Dorje Shugden practitioners than with non-practitioners). So that would probably leave us with exactly 0 people editing the article which would be quite unfortunate ;-)

I say: Let's see what comes up. Let's be compassionate and let's WP:assume good faith. Aftre all we're Buddhists, aren't we? We should know how to cope with disturbing emotions clouding the clear and knowing nature of our minds :D Andi 3ö (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Truthbody So, somebody at the site ‘New Kadampa Survivors’ is reading this discussion and suggesting that ex NKT members contribute to the debate (leading to the possibility that someone who holds an opposing view be allowed to comment), That, IMO, is almost as bad as people registering on NKS by pretending to be ex of the NKT and then using information they gather there to influence the content on WP, wouldn’t you agree? (Unless of course we live in a universe where two wrongs make a right?...!)

And you are part of that process? This IMO raises concerns that you may be actively involved in some sort of campaign to procure info that former members are circulating about their actual experiences in the NKT.

NKS rule 2 for prospective members says’ 2. ‘No NKT members/followers/students are allowed.’ On the other hand, the official NKT smear fighting website http://newkadampatruth.org/behind-the-lies/#a4 linked to at the bottom of the WP article says: ’Although the Survivors' group has a membership of 700+ (it’s actually nearer 850 now), it is a reliable estimate that about half of these are NKT practitioners who joined up out of curiosity’. ‘Curiosity’? I’d say that any involvement in that level of internet spying might indicate a possibility that you could have a CoI. Could someone actively engaged in such activities really be capable of expressing an NPOV?

The first two alternatives that spring to mind are you received this information either because: a) You yourself are falsely registered on NKS, or b) People send you this type of info because they know you are part of the NKT propaganda campaign created to counter criticisms of the group Alternatively, it may just be gossip, but word certainly travels fast! When did these mails appear; 48 hours ago?

I see you quote WP meat puppet guidelines which state: “These are well-tested processes, designed to avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another." Is this an implicit admission on your part that someone might be attempting to right a bias in favour of the NKT in the present article? What makes you think that people expressing a view other than your own would want the article to be biased AGAINST the NKT? Maybe some of them just want people to have a balanced picture, manifest as an article written by both insiders and outsiders? Or are you suggesting that the status quo is preserved and the only contributors allowed to put their point of view forward as the ‘truth’ are the NKT editors named and repeatedly featured above and in the edit history (particularly those who suddenly appeared around the same time as the WSS started its internet campaign against the Dalai Lama)? [Remember the sock puppetry scandal at that time and how Lucy James was eventually permanently blocked as a result? Sadly, all one need do to circumnavigate this sanction is set up a new account from a different IP address and carry on one’s campaign as if nothing had happened.]

You ask: ‘Do we need to report this to the admins or should we just leave it and see if anything comes of it first? What do other editors think?’ I’ll tell you what I think. First, read what they have to say and see if any of it is objective truth. I mean what if they say, ‘Well, I was in the NKT and I had a really bad time and yet when I read this article none of the bad things that happened to me are even mentioned. I think the people who are editing this might be a bit biased. MAYBE THEY HAVE A COI AND A NON NPOV’??? If that happens, should we just ignore them and report them as’ meat puppets’??? Personally ‘Truth’ body, I would let the public speak for themselves. If present NKT members are allowed to present the ‘insider’ view of the NKT via WP (and against CoI guidelines), why, in the interests of truth, shouldn’t ex-members be free to contribute the other, ‘outsider’ view of the NKT? Wouldn’t that lead to a balanced article. Isn’t that what you want? Or would it be better if anyone from NKS (thats the 400 or so genuine members who have inside experience of the NKT) who HAS been damaged by their experience not contribute and the article mentions nothing of the controversy surrounding the NKT? Would this produce a balanced and truthful piece?

Third Party Sources

Anyway, below are numerous 3rd party academic resources, almost all of which are not referred to in the article (Or should I say, they were, but were then edited out) Of course, amongst them are some the NKT claim are ‘unreliable’ and written by people who have ‘issues’ and an ‘axe to grind’ (Particularly Kay, widely recognised as the best academic appraisal of the NKT to date). However, they ARE academic and 3rd party so please feel free to place them in a section at the bottom of the page under an appropriate title. The Guardian (http://www.tibet.com/dholgyal/CTA-book/chapter-5-4.html and http://www.tibet.ca/en/newsroom/wtn/archive/old?y=1996&m=7&p=14_1 )and Independent (http://www.tibet.com/dholgyal/CTA-book/chapter-5-5.html ) articles also need to be linked to since they are 3rd party sources. Any claims that theses articles are discredited should be justified by reference to non-NKT sources in the interests of truth.

Bluck, Robert (2006) New Kadampa Tradition in British Buddhism London: Routledge, 129-151
Kay, David N. (1997) The New Kadampa Tradition and the Continuity of Tibetan Buddhism in Transition, Journal of Contemporary Religion 12(3) (October 1997), 277-293
Kay, David N.(2004) Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain, London: Routledge
Chryssides, George D. (1999) Exploring New Religions, Continuum International Publishing Group, 233-243
Cozort, Daniel (2003) Buddhism in the Modern World; Adaptations of an Ancient Tradition, Steven Heine and Charles S. Prebish (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press: 221-248
Waterhouse, Helen (1997) Buddhism in Bath: Adaptation and Authority, Leeds: The Community Religions Project, University of Leeds (Reviewed by David Kay)
Waterhouse, Helen (2001). Representing western Buddhism: a United Kingdom focus in: From Sacred Text to Internet. Religion today: tradition, modernity and change series. Ashgate Publishing Company, pp. 117–160.
Waterhouse, Helen (2005) New Kadampa Tradition in the Encyclopaedia of New Religious Movement, P. B. Clarke ed., London: Routledge

Finally please could you replace the NPOV banners you removed since you are contradicting WP guidelines on this issue. Moreover, 72 hours ago, our colleague AC suggested the banners be debated. 72 hours is not long enough to wait before taking the somewhat draconian decision to eliminate the banners without adequate discussionYonteng (talk) 10:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Kay (1997) is essentially a first-draft version of Kay (2004). You are wasting your money if you get the 1997 version because it does not have anything substantial that was not carried over into the 2004 version.

Bluck (2006) is cited in the article 14 times. Kay (2004) is cited 6 times; this is substantially less than Kt66's version, but only because they were moved to the relevant articles such as GKG and Manjushri Institute. Chryssides (1999) is not cited in the article, but it's not cited at all in Kt66's version either. Cozort (2003) is cited 10 times. Waterhouse (1997) was removed because page number references were never given after 18 months (see talk page); the citations could not be verified; but, I just got a hardcopy of this, and so I can go back and re-add these. There are a couple of references now to Waterhouse (2005), whereas Kt66's version had zero.

By the way, both Waterhouse sources do discredit some of the more sensational things said in The Guardian article. Emptymountains (talk) 11:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Well that leads on to the next question which is the nature of the quotes selected. For example, Waterhise may well be present but I cant find ‘When NKT practitioners engage in the study of these texts, the activity has little in common with study as it takes place within a secular education system. For those on the formal study programmes, to study Geshe Kelsang’s books is to learn them ‘by heart’ so that the teachings are internalized and can be reproduced word for word, without further interpretation…’ from the 2001 paper, or, from the same, ‘Senior teaching monastics may….be maintained by other UK practitioners….many NKT monastics may work full or part-time or, indeed, claim state benefits.’These more controversial though insightful quotes dont appear to be there-or maybe im missing something?? Once we have quotation, we must ensure quotation is not selective, as in the Mumford quote in the DS article which im sure you recall and which, amazingly has not been adjusted back!Yonteng (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I would hardly call rote learning controversial; something criticized hardly makes it a controversy. Possible state benefits absuse, however, may be controversial; but this claim is one of the things Waterhouse (2001) discredits. Emptymountains (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the accuracy of this information; just because Waterhouse said it doesn't make it true. Study is study. Most serious NKT practitioners are on study programmes and these are very rigorous. It is not the purpose of the NKT study programmes to produce students who can simply parrot Geshe Kelsang's books through memorisation, although memorisation is a commitment of study, just as it is in Tibetan monasteries. I would not allow such inaccurate statements to remain in the article, no matter what 3rd party source said them. Such inaccurate information is one reason why 3rd party sources from people who do not practise within in the NKT are extremely unreliable. You may consider them neutral, but they might also be wrong. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 13:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I am somewhat surprised by the speed at which you question the truth of these particular quotes and note that you have not questioned others cited from Waterhouse; reasons?. I recommend we follow a policy of balance. Truthbody above (up there somewhere) intelligently suggests 'keeping critical and supportive links balance' I suggest the same with quotes, rather than debating the validity of each. Surely this is better than endless debates over which 3rd p sources are relaible. Andi and Emptymountains seem to be communicating effectively.maybe we can all learn something from them????(Yes Mikey, thats praise [and an implicit apology BTW]PS isnt anybody from the NKT going to put the banner back to comply with WP guidelines? It would look a lot better if you didYonteng (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC) EM the fact that Waterhouse discredits the Guardian article (where please) should not be a reason for excldig it. If we put together all the different sources and apply reducto ad absurdum (?) We could discredit all refs in turn and wind up with nought!Yonteng (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC).

Yonteng, you said, "Any claims that theses articles are discredited should be justified by reference to non-NKT sources in the interests of truth," and all I said was that I have such references and am ready to add them if need be. Emptymountains (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of POV banner

Truthbody has removed the POV banner again. As i was unsure myself about whether it is justified or not, i read the respective guidelines.

There it says:

It is important to remember that the NPOV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is an ongoing dispute about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not. In any NPOV dispute, there will be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some people who disagree. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved.

and:

Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed.

Sounds like the banner should be put in place again, don't you think, Truthbody?

Anyway, i am going to start making some edits in the next days. After that i will decide if i seriously have to dispute the neutrality of the article myself in addition to Yonteng (and Kt66 before, who apparently has retired specifically over his frustration with the NKT-related articles). The article has issues, as i said before, but especially the quick edits by Emptymountains seem to indicate that progress is possible. Andi 3ö (talk) 02:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Emptymountains Dear What about replacing the banners as a sign of good will (and to comply with guidelines)?See Andi's quote aboveYonteng (talk) 12:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have answered you on my talk page, as you posted your comments about this there as well. From now on, please keep the conversation in one place only as per Wiki guidelines -- ideally on this page so others can see what is going on. Thanks. (Truthbody (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC))

TB You state:'I don't believe I am contradicting WP guidelines. I believe you contradicted them by putting the banners up in a draconian manner in the first place without checking with other editors, and especially without giving any specific article content to back up your unilateral decision. Meanwhile, it seems other editors are making the article even more qualified as we speak, and there is even less call for the banners. Better if you could do your editing work yourself, making your improvements to the article -- those edits will remain if they are backed up by wp:rs and follow other WP guidelines. We should also keep this conversation on the NKT talk page, not have it here.'(So here it is!) I would ask you to read the following which Andi posted from WP guidelines:

Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed.

I still believe the page as it stands lacks neutrality. In light of the above, the NPOV banner should therefore be replaced. I am the second editor to ask you to do this since it was you that removed it after inadequate consultation.

You have also not answered any of the questions concerning your involvement in the spying campaign on NK Survivors. This evasion, which I would suggest is no oversight, also leads me to think that you certainly are involved in a deliberate internet campaign to discredit NKT critics. I would therefore suggest that you appear to have a CoI and are not suited to contribute to this page at this time.Restoring the banners would go some way to addressing this concern though I believe the evidence of involvement you provided in your meat puppetry allegation merit a stage 2 CoI warning which now appears on your talk page. Please replace the banner.Yonteng (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question, I am not involved in any spying or internet campaign. It is no business of yours who chooses to send me messages they have read on survivors or what their motivation might be, and I likewise am free to report on information I receive if it transgresses Wiki guidelines and affects Wiki articles. This does not indicate any form of "campaign" -- you are making a paranoid statement. I deliberately did not name any names as I was reporting an instance of meat puppetry, which is not permitted on Wikipedia, not making personal attacks. Nor was there any evasion -- there is no law that one has to answer every question straightaway (and I do have a busy life), or indeed that one ever has to answer inappropriate questions that invade one's privacy. So far, you have not assumed wp:good faith of other editors. You have made an unwarranted accusation of a personal nature, and you've been warned several times about being uncivil to other editors. (Truthbody (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC))

Macro Organization

Dear Andi et al.,

Can we talk more about the contents of the NKT, GKG, MI, and DS(c) articles? To quote William above (although I don't know if he meant it in the context of article content), "Duplication is evil." I think it's a good idea not to repeat whole swaths of information from one article to another, but rather to link to where more detail can be found. For example, it makes no sense to me to have a section on NKT Ordination in both the NKT and GKG articles; it pertains more to the NKT article, because we are talking about ordination within the NKT, not GKG's personal ordination which would be covered in the GKG article. Also, although GKG's expulsion deserves a mention in the NKT article, that pertains more to him personally than to the NKT as an organization, so the details should be found in the article about him. And also, the "split" from the FPMT was not between it and the NKT (which did not exist in the '80s) or even between it and GKG (see GKG talk page: Separation from the FPMT?), but between the FPMT and MI, which is why that period in history is detailed in that relevant article. However, a "see main article" link (or at least a prominent Wiki link) should of course be made available whenever such a fork occurs.

Kt66 felt that nothing "controversial" about the NKT should be missed, so it was repeated in any and every NKT-related article, which is how they become so rambling/sprawling. What I am suggesting at the outset here is a middle way between not mentioning something at all, and unnecessarily repeating the same information verbatim in each article. To me, such macro organization makes the articles more readable for the readers, and more manageable for the editors. Emptymountains (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think i can almost fully agree to the approach you outline (Middle way somehow always sounds like a good idea to me, hehe :D) Couple of things we have to keep in mind while "macro-organizing" the NKT-related articles are:

1)Avoid POV forking.

2)Spinouts on the other hand are ok.

3)Each article has to be balanced in and of itself and comply with WP:NPOV, specifically WP:DUE. That's why WP:POVFORK explixitely states that "the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking"

Andi 3ö (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Replacing banners

I have asked truthbody to replace the NPOV banner twice now. User Andi30( with an umlaut!) has also done so. I have also asked Atisha's Cook to do the same. Both Andi and I have explained that the WP NPOV guidelines state: ' In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed.' Since we are in such a situation, since ith as been pointed out but ignored, and since no consensus has been reached, it seems appropriate to replace the banner. i am therefore doing so.Yonteng (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

How about this instead: Please explain exactly which sections or sentences of the article are not wp:npov and then we can put the banners back until those parts that offend you are improved. You put the banners up there in the first place with no reference to anything in the article, and have never given any indication as to their justification based on what is in the article. Nor have you added anything yourself to the article or used any third-party sources. Please see the discussions above. We will never be able to reach a "consensus" if you are not prepared to discuss any specifics! And you are making no attempt to improve this article yourself -- you just keep putting a banner up and criticizing other editors on the talk page. Do you find this to be constructive? Meanwhile, Emptymountains has added a large number of third-party sources even since you first put the banners up, and the article is more professional, objective and neutral than ever. (Truthbody (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

You have, once again, removed the banner without consultation. If you read the above i have in fact made a number of suggestions (such as replacing some of the criticla links [Guardian/Independent] at the foot of the page) which have not been acted on. Since we have not discussed this, and since suggestions I have made have been ignored, I would remind you 'you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed'. i am therefore replacing itYonteng (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Yonteng: My comment here is not about the banners but about people ignoring or not acting on your suggestions. Please just keep in mind, we are not here to do your bidding. If you believe something needs to be (re-)added to the article, you could do it yourself. I'm not trying to be snotty, just encouraging you to contribute to the article besides being the banner police. Emptymountains (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

EM I think the response to the Lopez quote is using the article to debate the issue-it is inappropriate to use the article to 'right' the wrongs of those who hold opposing vies in that way I feelYonteng (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

YT, I will work on it. In the last two days, I came across some similar (but different) interpretations by Waterhouse and Chryssides that I will add in by Thursday morning. Let me know what you think then. Emptymountains (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I already stated my opinion that i think the banner is justified and i would indeed highly appreciate if Truthbody would stop removing it again and again (or even better: put it up himself again). On the other hand i don't think the banner as such is all too important as long as improvements towards WP:NPOV are possible. Also there is some truth (sic!) to Truthbody's reasoning as well. Why don't you help in the improvement yourself? Would be much faster then i guess. State some specific points that are not WP:NPOV and present a solution or ask others to help you find one. Yet again i very well understand the point you are making: "All the major editors seem to be NKT affiliated. This article simply can't be neutral." Problem is, that even if there was any truth to that (and looking at the edit history of the article alone there are some indications that there probably is), simply pointing out that fact doesn't help too much on WP. You cannot simply point out a problem and expect others to solve it for you. WP is solely dependent on the voluntary work of its editors. So the one thing that helps most in getting good articles that fulfill the various WP policies is to simply do it yourself. Of course there is an underlying structural problem here: it's only natural: subjects that are of very high interest to a small group of engaged editors and at the same time are of not much interest to the general public (like this one) have an elevated risk of being one-sided. On the other hand, if things get all to ugly, i tend to think that there are always quite a few editors around that are attracted to specifically that kind of subjects and help ring the bell and balance things a bit (like in this case right now e.g. Clay Collier, Asasjdgavjhg.... and yourself... and me of course :)) One last thing: I do think that some of the NKT affiliated editors sometimes go too far here in painting positvely their organization/tradition but i would never go so far as to think that they do that out of any malign intent. They are Buddhists after all!! As i stated earlier: they love the Dharma, they love their teacher, they love their Dharma Protector, they love their Sangha and they love the way their organization and they themselves contribute to spreading the Dharma in order to benefit all sentient beings! And, finally (very last point), my personal opinion is that they would most effectively do so if they allowed for a truly WP:NPOV picture (although we all know that such a thing as NPOV does not exist of course ;-)) of their organization and their beliefs here, because everything else only raises unnecessary/additional suspicion in other people (like me, as i can tell from personal introspection). Andi 3ö (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

OK cool - i'll wait and see if TB puts the banners back. I have already started adding stuff (the two newspaper articles in the critical section) I also think the response to Lopez's quote should go - the section outlines the NKT view, then Lopez questions it, then 'the NKT responds'. Not appropriate IMO. I have said this to EM - let's see what happens (AGF)Yonteng (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Teachers section

Ok...let's start with this section then. For a reader new to the subject the section is somewhat cryptic. It consists almost exclusively of direct quotes so the reader has to extract the info from those loosely connected quotes and maybe even misses the most basic points. I'd say an introductory passage should shortly state the following points:

Geshe Kelsang is the main teacher
(all/most/allmost all ?) other teachers are former (western) students
they are qualified by participation in the Teacher Training Program
they can be lay or ordained

Could someone please help me out on the second point (are there really no (guest) teachers with a Tibetan background or from other traditions) and please feel free to add to the points or object to their respective inclusion. Andi 3ö (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

There are no teachers from other traditions, period, regardless of their nationality. This is part of the NKT's constitution, to preserve and promote the tradition of Je Tsongkhapa. (Truthbody (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

Another way to express this is that only the Three Study Programs (i.e., General Program, Foundation Program, and Teacher Training Program) are taught at NKT-IKBU Centers. Therefore, only Buddhist Teachers who teach one or more of those programs are authorized to teach at NKT-IKBU Centers. Emptymountains (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel like we are starting to balance things out (starting!) It feels best when both sides are apparent-one sided stuff is dodgy!Yonteng (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

One specific point: The article states:

David Kay found that lay people were almost as likely as monastics to be given teaching and leadership roles; and he sees this as an important modern Western adaptation of Gelug Buddhism, again because this includes Tantric practices which Tsongkhapa recommended to those with "a solid grounding of academic study and celibate monastic discipline."[52]

Maybe its just my insufficient understanding of the english language, but the phrase "important modern Western adaptation" in this context seems to have a bit of an (unnecessary) positive connotation to my ears that 2) doesn't quite connect to the second half of the sentence (including the quote at the end). The real message here seems to be (simply put): "Teaching is handled differently than traditionally in Tibet: lay people are allowed to teach, even tantric teachings, which Tsongkhapa recommended only for well trained monks."

This neutral observation should be written out appropriately (understandable to the uninformed reader) and can then subsequently be interpreted by the reader in different ways: Some may say: "Oh the hypocracy...they paint themselves as the keepers of the pure tradition and at the same time disregard the advice of their most prominent lineage lama." Others will say "good for them!" and take it as a sign of realism and flexibility of a dynamic tradition. No need to help the reader with her interpretation...

Any comments? Am i right or have i even totally missed the point? Andi 3ö (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Youre right! can you please ask Truthbody to leave the banner until consensus is reached that the article is neutral??Yonteng (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Andi. Your language is better; I recommend the change. However, I do think that the word important there could go either way; it could be read in the direction pointing out the seriousness of the change, not necessarily implying that it is a good thing. Emptymountains (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I note that, in terms of Highest Yoga Tantra, only the General Spiritual Director (GSD), Deputy Spiritual Director (DSD), and potentially a National Spiritual Director (NSD) can grant this. The two former must be ordained, whereas a NSD may be lay. I do not see any indication in the Internal Rules that anyone else can grant HYT empowerments. However, I do not know if Kay meant just any Tantric empowerment or HYT specifically, or even knew to make this distinction. Emptymountains (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanx for the additional info! I agree about the interpretation of important. Was thinking about replacing it with significant first but think that alone doesn't fix the passage as a whole. Will attempt a rewrite according to what i stated above tomorrow (i hope). BTW how do you like the intro sentence. Please feel free to improve (am not an english native speaker so wording can sometmes still be tricky). Andi 3ö (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Kay continues saying that one possible explanation for the change is that GKG regards the Bodhisattva vows as more important than the Pratimoksha vows (which is confirmed in Joyful Path, p. 255). Of course, then next come the Tantric vows. Emptymountains (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Andi, could you read the above about the banner please?Yonteng (talk) 17:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

please see above section for my answer Andi 3ö (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

balancing the positive and negative

(Moved from above to this section)

Thanks-I added a jones quote in the intro. I feel like we are starting to balance things out (starting!) It feels best when both sides are apparent-one sided stuff is dodgy!Yonteng (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't think that starting with such a "forceful" (if i may borrow that expression from Jones) edit is a good thing to do. The introduction is the most sensible part of any article, so i fully support Emptymountain's revert. Also, there are specific policies concerning the introduction: WP:INTRO. One of them is that the weight certain aspects of the subject are given in the intro should roughly resemble the weight they are given in the article itself. So the reasonable approach is to work from the bottom up. If you want to refer to the alleged agressive recruiting activity in the intro (which imho will hardly be justifiable anyway), then you should certainly put it in the main body first. Which raises the question, where to put it? One of the most difficult questions we will have to answer in the process is if we manage to integrate such critical statements (given they are fulfilling WP:RS criteria of course) into the structure of the article or if we will need an explicit "controversy" section in the end. (will have to think about it, guess there are pros and cons to both solutions) Andi 3ö (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well fine. The main reason i put it in was to see how 'reasonable' my colleagues would be; as you can see both the quote and the banners have gone. What does that say/ To me it says exactly what Kt66 said about bullying and reversion of critical comment. The intor nneds to be balanced-it should give a general overview. To add critical info a that point is to show that, as well as having its share of suppporters, the NKT has critics. But. as Kt66 stated, and Chris Fynn and Rudhy, as soon as you put critical info in, NKT editors edit it out. the proof of the pudding is in the eating and we have just had another serving, Banners? obviously necessary.Yonteng (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry, to me that isn't prooving anything. As i said, imho the removal of that quote was reasonable. Put the info (not necessarily the quote itself, you might as well put it in your own words) in a reasonable place within the article! Then, if it's removed again without a proper reason (e.g. discrediting the source or improper placing) that would be your "proof". Andi 3ö (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

OK lets put the jones quote in the growth and financing section???Yonteng (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not see how Jones is a reliable source. Is this published somewhere? Has it been cited in scholarly sources? Just because it's on the internet does not mean it belongs in Wikipedia. Emptymountains (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I contend with the accuracy of the quote in the first place. Recruitment of new members is not a major activity of the NKT. The NKT doesn't have 'members', it has people who are following the path of Kadampa Buddhism but only if they wish to. An NKT Center will hold meditation classes locally and advertise those classes. People are free to attend or not attend as they wish and having attended, they are free to continue to do so or not. The success of NKT is only because people need Dharma to solve their human problems and they are finding great benefit in Geshe Kelsang's presentation - there's not some proselytising recruitment drive going on. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 06:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, the Jones quote (which you'll find in Kay, page 96), because it is critical, is poo-pood. Why, because TS 62 doent agree with it. So a genuine 3rd party source, quoted in a reliable academic source (which the NKT claim is written by someone with 'issues') is blasted out of the water because it deosnt conform to NKT world view. EM-If youre going to talk the talk, you have to walk the walk-even minded, academic dispassion is absent. One sidedness rules supreme. Where is the banner?NKT editors have shown their true colours instantly a controversial quote is suggested.Can I really be bothered? Can you imagine the effort-insert a valid quote-editted out because NKT editors disagree-try again-editted out etc etc ad infinitum. I am now certain that CoI/NPOV are relevant. I think we should call ask for independent ajudication-reasons why not please.Yonteng (talk) 07:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Yonteng, I disagree with the quote because it's not the truth. Just because something is quoted by a 3rd party academic source it does not mean that it is true. I see many distortions of perception of NKT in the writings of people like Kay and Jones because they don't know Geshe Kelsang's intention and they don't understand how NKT works. Just yesterday I was at a teaching by Geshe Kelsang where he said

"Our common aim is to spread Kadam Dharma throughout the world. Why? It helps people to maintain a peaceful and happy mind all the time and experience a meaningful life. It creates permanent world peace and solves human problems permanently. Through compassion, with a good heart, our aim should be to spread Kadam Dharma"

As I said before, NKT is not trying to increase its membership in order to have power. It's not trying to increase its 'membership' (there is no such thing) at all, just trying to help others. I therefore understand that Jones' comment is misleading but because I refuse to concur with his and your view you think I have POV issues. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 12:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

YT, thank you for showing that he was cited in Kay. (I'll go check it out in a bit.) Please do not misunderstand my intention in asking. I myself wish to include 3 more things from Jones in the article, but before I did I wanted to know if he was a reliable source. Emptymountains (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This is how i see it:

Emptymountain's removement of the quote from the Intro was justified (see my comment above)
Emptymountain's asking whether the quote is a WP:RS is perfectly ok as well.
Truthsayer62's statement is a personal assessment of the NKT's recruitment behaviour and as such should be considered a genuine statement and valuable contribution - be it only for the purpose of informing the discussion here about how an NKT insider sees these things. For the purposes of the article itself on the other hand it is totally irrelevant because it constitutes WP:OR. (not to mention WP:OR from an editor with a clear WP:COI) (But just to be clear: this still in no way implies that Truthsayer62's statement can't be perfectly true anyway; it's just not coming from a WP:RS)
Yonteng, before crying out loud, i'd suggest you re-add the quote (or a description of the critical view in your own words, with the quote referenced in a footnote) in a suitable place within the article proper (not the WP:Intro), as i suggested before. Kay seems to be a WP:RS so i see no reason atm why this view should not be included.

BTW what does Kay himself say regarding this issue? He doesn't simply quote Jones, does he? He must somehow evaluate/frame that quote, use it to make a certain point himself... Maybe that statement then would be even better a basis for a critcal assessment of the NKT "recruitment" behaviour than the Jones quote? Finally, Yonteng, again, i suggest practicing a little patience, there is no reason to get so agitated about this issue. So far, nothing serious has happened: A quote you added has been removed from an unsuitable place, someone legitimately questioned the reliability of the source, someone else (irrelevantly) contested the content of the quote based on his own observations. Now it's your turn to re-add the info in a suitable way. BTW you can also make a concrete proposal on the talk page, so we can discuss it here first and/or help in finding proper wording. (that method regularly even further reduces the risk of being edited out again) Andi 3ö (talk) 13:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I added the Jones quote (along with Waterhouse and Kay) to the Growth and Finances section. I want to add some more Jones quotes, and then if I have time before work, I will add more 3RS references to go along with the Lopez quote. Emptymountains (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I am done now with the Lopez quote. Please note that I changed the name of the section '*Origins* of the name "New Kadampa Tradition" to... *Meaning* of the word Kadampa (i.e., just focusing on the word's etymology), so that discussion of the possible motive behind choosing the name of the organization could be saved for the Separation from Contemporary Tibetan Buddhism section, which now has three sub-divisions: New Kadampa Tradition vs. Gelugpa Tradition, Kadampa Buddhism vs. Tibetan Buddhism, and last but not least, the Dorje Shugden controversy. Emptymountains (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok lets look at how it gets twisted by an insider view (not criticism-just to help demonstrate a point-my comments are in brackets) publicity that according to Jones is comparatively [Jones does not use this term, he simply states it is] "forceful and extroverted" with regard to some other Buddhist groups [again, Jones does not use this comparative terminology, a terminology which almost places the onus on other groups to increase their publicity drive, despite the absentobservation that the Buddha himself actively discouraged proselytizing] , but nevertheless has helped the NKT-IKBU to achieve "a phenomenal increase in membership and centres."

Kay says that Geshe Kelsang's response to any criticisms about its outreach efforts is that "every organization 'tries to attract more people with appropriate publicity.'"[67] Geshe Kelsang Gyatso has explained that the intention of the NKT-IKBU is not to convert people to Buddhism:Our intention in teaching Dharma is........{This is what perturbs me. Is this article a place where we present a) the official party line, then b) the criticisms of 'outsiders' and then, (seemingly invariably, and as with the Lopez quote] the insider response to such criticism? That is not academic dispassion. OK, this is no essay but it MUST be objective to conform to NPOV. It is not a soapbox for the NKT to proclaim the gospel according to them, then include some criticisms to show 'even-mindedness', then completely obliterate that even mindedness by using the article as a platform to refute the views of critics: 'Well, we say this, but our critics say that, but they are wrong because....' Thats how it reads and thats why it is still lacking in neutrality. BTW who removed the banner??Yonteng (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And the Lopez quote plus W'house certainly go some of the way towards neutralizing-well done!Yonteng (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Leaflets tacked onto community bulletin boards is not proselytizing. Rather, it's that Buddhists do not walk up to strangers on the street and hand out tracts, nor try to convert people by going door-to-door.

Jones does not use the word comparatively, but he is making a comparison between the NKT ("forceful and extroverted") and non-NKT Buddhist groups ("modest and introverted").

The Growth and Fincancing section does not start with an (a) section (i.e., "the official party line" as you call it). It is already more of (b) followed by (c) in both paragraphs. Emptymountains (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

can someone please provide the full Jones quote in order for me to weigh in on that one? Andi 3ö (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

A hyperlink is included in the citation. Emptymountains (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is the quote in context-

The traditional UK Buddhist organisation tends to be a rather introverted body of practitioners for whom recruitment of new members and proliferation of new branches is not a primary concern.In the ancient tradition they are available to make the Dharma known to those who take the trouble to inquire (thanks to some modest publicity); it is then up to the newcomer to take his or her interest further. Help is available but quite a lot of persistent personal effort is required, and there is commonly a high fallout rate. By contrast, all three movements (SGI/NKT/FWBO} are forceful and extrovert organisations where recruitment of new members is a major activity. They have a mission. However, even in SGI-UK (with a tradition of forceful recruiting) proselytisation is quite circumspect. Newcomers are simply made very welcome, and the seductive lure of a new identity of the kind offered by all movements, secular or religious, does the rest. Thus the NKT manual quoted earlier warns to "Be very careful not to give the impression it is a recruitment drive...to start with we need to agree with people, to show that we understand where they are at, not to resist them or argue with them. If we have a wild horse the best way to tame it is to mount it, to go with it." Nevertheless when the NKT reached my own little town in West Wales they promised in the local press an "explosion of Buddhism". Using dozens of young quickly trained teachers the NKT has in the last two or three years achieved a phenomenal increase in membership and centres. At the present rate soon every town in England and Wales will have an NKT presence--something quite unprecedented in Buddhist terms, and well ahead of the two other movements.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonteng (talk • contribs) 16:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

thanx both of you! sorry for overlooking the link. dunno if can get to it today...maybe tomorrow. have fun! Andi 3ö (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Atisha's cook seems to be the banner reverter. The same \ac who is not really contributing anything to the debate and who has been fully informed of wiki policy on the banner (ITs up thereA) Please, while there is conflcit over its presence, its presence is prescribed by guidleines-eradication without any discussion is just bad form and lacks AGF.Yonteng (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

EM, I quite agree 'leaflets tacked onto community bulletin boards is not proselytizing'.However, when one looks a those leaflets in any large city, where other groups perhaps run introductory classes one night a week, and one compares thrice weekly classes at several different locations, that IS! Where I live, I can take a 30 minute bus ride, 3 nights a week to 15 different NKT groups-Its hwat Bomber Harris calledblanket bombingYonteng (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

see...and in my german hometown of almost a million people there's not even a single gelug study group, be it nkt or others :( Andi 3ö (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Please dont give too much away-'Today Germany, tomorrow ze verld!' But seriously, in the UK, that could be any city, London, Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester. You cant tell me that a dozen or so centres in 91 in one country to 1100 in 40 countries in less than 20 years is simply a result of 'consumer thirst'(people arent that thirsty)-there is a definite drive to expand here, ok, to 'help others', but, to me the rate of expansion has a somewhat sinister air to it. I always think of force growing seedlings-yes, they grow fast, tall and slim but then they topple because the stem has no substance. The other interesting thing is the 'membership' figure which, while the so called 'centres' (sometimes just a group in a rented hall) number increases, the member numbers hover around a constant number. You can draw you own conclusions about what that means but 'other' UK Buddhist groups in the different traditions are certainly picking up larger and larger numbers of ex-NKT people, particularly after the demos last year.I wouldnt expect people in the NKT to know this because of their isolation.Yonteng (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

EM when you say, youll be including more from Jones, did you mean the NKT..'displays numerous examples of intolerant paranoia. It does not deny, for example, that individuals have been expelled from NKT centres for "spreading disruptive information about NKT". And least one critic has been threatened with legal action in the event of the criticism being published.'? I bet that one doesnt make it in! SmileYonteng (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No, but if it gets inserted, I do have info to add to it to balance it out! Wink Emptymountains (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Right then, I'll add some excessively pro-NKT stuff. I wonder what will happen then??? (Another wink)Yonteng (talk) 05:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Is 'In 1998, the NKT became a member of the British Network of Buddhist Organizations (NBO). Waterhouse notesthat when the NKT joined the British Network of Buddhist Organizations, about thirty percent of the other Buddhist groups identifying themselves with the Tibetan Buddhist tradition left the NBO.'Its from Kay?Yonteng (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC) If not, perhaps in KB v TB???Yonteng (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That is a good point, the word excessively. Do you see some excessively pro-NKT stuff? Not just "positive," but "excessively positive"? I think it's quite alright to have the critical, but I wonder what place sensationalism has in an encyclopedia. I note that Jones is not quoted anywhere else in Kay, so one has to ask why Kay didn't include that bit about "intolerant paranoia" either, as interesting a soundbite as it is.

Another point: we can't get stuck in a time-warp when writing this article. It has been pointed out before during an AfD request that the Guardian piece, for example, is a bit outdated (going on 13 years old). Most of the sensational stuff is from the early- to mid-1990s. One has to question whether these accounts are representative of the organization now. At least, it should be made clear in the article exactly when these things were written about the organization.

P.S. If you do not have a hardcopy of Waterhouse (and are just getting her quotes from Kay), I wanted to point this out for future reference: Wikipedia:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Thanks! Emptymountains (talk) 11:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

EM thanks for pointing out my mistake-I had become used to describing the whole article as 'excessively positive' due to the imbalance of postive v negative quotes but you are quite right, with reference to individual quotes it is an unnecessary tautology.

The age of quotes?Feel free to add 'Writing in 1997...' if you wish, though claims that things have changed must also be justified from relevant sources. The British National party leader Nick Griffin is keen to distance himself from that organisations Neo-Nazi forerunner the National Front of the 1970s; the link however, is still a relevant one. Moreover, if we follow your reasoning, where is the cut off line and who decides it? Furthermore, should we contact Tharpa and tell them to edit out any scriptural references from NKT books as they were all written a long time ago? This argument is often employed by dubious organizations trying to distance themselves from the past 'We are an organic, ever changing mass and thus our former mistakes can not be attributed to who we are at present'. In the case of these dubious religious organisations, it is often an attempt to hoodwink the public by confusing an absolute analysis with a relative one.While the NKT may not be a permanent, inherently existent entity, it certainly is an mpermanent, dependantly arisen one that exists, in that manner, from moment to moment. One might just as easily argue that I cannot be accused of theft as i stole yesterday and the person who stole it no longer exists Finally, thank you for your advice on Wikipedia:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT Yonteng (talk) 08:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You are right; the middle way has two aspects: impermanence and continuity. It is extreme to focus solely on one and not balance/compliment it with the other. So, how to avoid this? I thought it might be a good idea to have a sub-section just on the Guardian piece. Tabloid journalism or not, it started a snowball effect in the press, and its contents were copied in a number of places (e.g., the Critical Reviews links). We could put emphasis on the points that Kay, Lopez, etc. felt worth repeating. And, because some of the more sensational parts have indeed since been discredited by third-party sources, these could also be tackled. Finally, being a Wiki article on the NKT, we can certainly cite the NKT's reaction to the piece on a point-by-point basis. Since the contents of that article are so disputed, I think it would be a good idea to address them all in one place since having the format of tabloid claim by the Guardian, followed by claim discredited by 3RS, followed by claim disputed by NKT, all sprinkled throughout the article would keep tying things down.

My comment about the "time-warp" came because Kt66's version of the article from many years ago was said to rely too heavily on Kay and the Guardian, giving undue weight to the latter, especially when more recent accounts of the NKT have been published. They say that one cannot prove a negative, but it is interesting to note that nothing at all like the Guardian piece has been published in 12 years. Surely, a religious organization that nefarious would keep attracting media attention; not even Bunting herself has revisted the issue! If it got her on the newspaper's front page once... Emptymountains (talk) 10:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

EM

Well for starters, neither the Guardian nor the Independent are considered to be 'tabloid'; both are known, along with the Times and the Telegraph, as reputable 'broadsheets'; the distinctions between the two types of journalism are well known (The Guardian does not as yet carry pictures of semi naked, large breasted women on its front cover or inside page, for example, as do the tabloids). So Im afraid that theory doesnt run. Again, tthat there havent been lot sof articles in the newspapers since the Guardian (which is not ancient history by the way, its fresher than say Nagarjuna or chandrakirti)is no indication that the NKT does not remain controversial. There is a HUGE amount of critical information across the emerging media of the WWW and not all of this can be atributed to Buntings work. The media has changed but the criticism remains, indeed has increased and is now widespread. I think your suggestion of presenting the Guardians points and then refutations would turn the page into an NKT soapbox. It would probably lead to further edit wars, once 'outsiders' started citing their particualr sources which undermine the NKTs refutation, a process which could continue ad infinitum. Yonteng (talk) 10:35, 23 May —Preceding undated comment added 10:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC).

with respect, Yonteng - this whole concept of (your words) "balancing the positive and the negative" - whereby you seem, by your statements above, to feel it necessary to counterpoint every piece of information that you perceive to be "positive" with something else that you perceive to be "negative" - together with the whole idea of (again, your word) "sides" within the WP editors, seems to me to misunderstand entirely the purpose and ethos of WP.

WP isn't about promotion of your views on a topic, be they positive of negative towards any subject. as WP editors we should be interested only in creating and contibuting to encyclopaedic articles with simple, factual, pertinent and important information about topics about which we have some knowledge.

you've said you just want to see a "neutral" article about NKT, and in accordance with WP:AGF i'm trying to assume that this is your intention. so i'd like to suggest that a necessary first step towards that neutrality might be to forget ths idea of positive and negative and be happy with a simple, factually accurate, and *relevant* article about a Buddhist tradition, whatever your, or my, personal feelings about it.

i think "balancing the positive and the negative" is a red herring on WP. Atisha's cook (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear AC thanks for your contribution and your POV, which you seem toassert is the 'WP' view of what an article should be. 'I fully agree the article shoudl be 'factual and accurate' but i am afraid you may not understand that as well as the NKTs many 'positive' qualities, there are also a number of 'negatives' relating to the organization, negatives which are a]facts and b] accurate.

Therefore, I would suggest revisiting your appraisal of the purpose of WP and adding to your excellent definition the words 'reasoned' and 'balanced'. 'Reasoned' argument means facts supported by reasoning. Here, in the context of WP, this can be said to be the supporting of purportedly factual statements with 3rd party verifiable sources. In terms of balance this means presenting a topic in a way which incoroporates two opposing views in a neutral fashion, without taking sides. In an article on buddhist cosmology for example, one might find an explanation of the traditional, Indian explanation of the universe being composed of a central Mt meru and surronding continents for example, followed perhaps by contemporary Buddhist views on the same. A scientific article on Big bang theory, might first dleineate that theory from a closed universe perspective and then add arguments from the Big Crunch, open universe theorists perspective. With respect to the NKT, the article shoud be factual and balanced, presenting the organizations view of itself, backed up by quotation from relevant sources, plus favourable apprasials of the group from an outside perspective, necessarily backed up by clear reference to third party sources. however, facts concerning 'negative' views of the NKT, also need to be included. These might take the form of ex-members testimonials quoted in third party sources (such as the Guardian article) and also negative 'outsider' views, supported y reference to further 3rd party sources. In this way the article will be factual, balanced, relevant and neutral. I would suggest that if you cannot understand this reasoned view, your opinion may be distorted by an excessive adherence to the insdier perspective and that you ought to stay away from the article until you can approach it from a more broad minded perspective.In fact, EM and Andi are making good deal of progress on the article and I must say your absence, as well as TB and TB62s have contributed ot the progress they have made. In short, theyre doing fine now without you baby!(Its a song) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonteng (talk • contribs) 07:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

EMSorry about your having to clean up my mess. i had my own kids so i know what it feels like. Thanks for that. I included the 'intolerant paranoia' quote for a wind-up (I thought it was obvious; my mistake) I too would not include it as it appears highly inflammatory. nevertheless, Jones does justify the quote with reasons. Legal threats (see Jones) and the like seem to be getting a little too frequent in the NKT context (quite topical eh?)though one does not find many other bona fide buddhist groups sabre rattling to the same degree. The nearest thing I can think of as an example of it is the endless political bickering between the sects in pre invasion Tibet. But the NKT, not being a political organisation, has left all that behind I suppose. Anyway, i think youre doing a good job and trying to be as neutral as you can and that is the best thing on offer at the moment so please dont stop. Have a good dayYonteng (talk) 10:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

When I look at Jones' comments about legal threatsss, all I see is that there has been "at least one" (ever since the NKT was founded in 1991!). And then, this one singular verified(?) instance gets pluralized, and then you say (without referring to any additional sources) that legal threats from the NKT are becoming more and more frequent. It sounds like this claim is spinning out of control! You've created a monster. Emptymountains (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are the threats by KG to various newspapers/mags (Washington Post, China Morning Post,Newsweek) then there is the stuff over in the UK that you seemingly dont know about because its 'under wraps'(The Network of Buddhist Organisations were threatened last year when they told the NKT that they were behavingly badly by demonstrating-that is an ongoing scenario;contact the NBO for confirmation if you wish)There is more but to reveal the recipients of those threats would compromise their integrity-I would not therefore utilise those particular instances. No monster on my part! KGs legal advisers are busily perpetuating the beast though thus far its all gums and no teeth.Yonteng (talk) 11:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, you can't fault GKG for threatening legal action when libelous things are said (e.g., claiming the NKT were involved in the murder of Lobsang Gyatso, or claiming the NKT issued death threats to the Dalai Lama). If I remember correctly, all he asked for was a retraction, and he got it, thus no legal action. As far as the other things you mentioned, I guess we'll just have to wait until they are accounted for in 3RS. Emptymountains (talk) 11:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said, legal threats (plural). As you point out, these were issued UNLESS retractions were forthcoming. This does not include the threats of legal action that the NKT was born from during the Manjushri dispute: [1]

So, from this, i think we can see that there is a long history of threats of litigation (justified or otherwise)associated with the organization, from its birth down to the present.The pluralization then, was the NKT's, not mine.Yonteng (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You cited (only) Jones for legal threatsss, but he is talking about only legal action towards one former member, not towards the press. You would fault the NKT for wanting a retraction of bad journalism? As far as that so-called blackmail transcription, it mentions "cvil ... and criminal illegalities" on the part of the FPMT that would merit police investigation. Much more serious even than some bad journalism! Those involved have since clarified that this refers to drug trafficking to fund FPMT Dharma Centers: [2]. You would fault Manjushri Institute for not wanting to be a part of that? So, Manjushri Institute said, "Let us go, or we'll take this information to the Solicitor General's Office," and guess what happened? The FPMT agreed! Litigation might seem inherently bad, at least when the law is not on your side. Emptymountains (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, this has opened a whole can of worms! My personal point is since when was ANY of this stuff on either side in line with how Buddhists behave? You know, patience, non-retaliation and all that stuff. Irregardless of who was right or wrong here, the reality of it is there is whole lot of really nasty vindictive stuff going on that really isnt quite what the Buddha recommended BTW,I think youll find that the 'drug trafficking' allegation is a rather sticky wicket. No proof of anything and AFAIK it is considered HIGHLY inappropriate here or elsewhere to make reference to totally unsubstantiated allegations like that.(although in a desperate propaganda war, things like this sometimes float to the surface, alongside several other smelly brown things) At the end of the day, just check the vibe of the whole thing-does it reallly feel like something you would want your children to be involved in?Not mine thanks-I'd prefer they were a long, long way from such shenanigans. To return to the original point, the suggestion was made that there was, only ever '"at least one" legal threat(ever since the NKT was founded..')I simply disproved that point and all this spews out1 Keep cool EM. You are starting to argue the party line.I do not wish to lose respect for your genuine attempt to be reasonable.Lets just say that the KT has a history of sabre rattling, either apropriately or otherwise.With respectYonteng (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You didn't disprove that Jones only referred to one verified legal threat; you were putting words in Jones' mouth. You then posted a link, and I summarized what it said, for which you now say that I was the one who opened the can of worms? Do patience and non-retaliation mean that one should allow illegal activities to run amock at one's Dharma Center? I see nothing in that so-called blackmail tape that is vindictive. I see people wishing to protect the Dharma. Some have speculated that the spiritual reason for Lama Yeshe's early death is that he voluntarily took on all the negative karma of those involved in the illegal activites, so that the FPMT could survive.

Anyway, if you don't want us to keep going off on these tangents, then I recommend sticking to things that have been reported in 3RS. Emptymountains (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, relax man! No need to get all stroppy. lets keep it light eh? Remember, common goal and all that.I think you might be letting personal stuff get in the way??I could argue with you but Ive seen to much of that on different sites to know that it is A BIG MISTAKE. I think I'll have a break for a couple of days if that will help. But remember (Arnold Schwarzenegger accent) 'I'll be back'. Have a good weekend and sincere best wishesYonteng (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If we are to allow a reference from a guide book on why the NKT is controversial, i think it far more appropriate to allow the NKT to speak for itself on the issue. hence the short addition. If we are to get rid of the Truth reference, how much more so the Wilson one?Yonteng (talk) 11:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC) < material concerning Yonteng's suitability as editor moved to his talk page, per Emptymountains' suggestion below > Atisha's cook (talk) 12:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

balancing the positive and negative, pt. 2

EM and Andi

OK, getting back to editting rather than in-fighting: 1) I moved the tricycle quote to the Gelug section since it seems more relevant their and there was an element of 'soapboxing going on-'Clarke says but Tricycle says...' (Im sure Prof Clarke will be happy to know that he is on an equal footing with Americas foremost Buddhist periodical). I inserted Barrett here because there are a lot of NKT views of itself in the intro: one counter view(with a faulty reasoning -Clarke does NOT use the DS issue as his 'doctrinal issue-the following para eg begins 'another serious bone of contention...is the DS issue)follwed by an immediate response of why this is wrong from the NKT perspective is not balanced editing. As I say, the Trashcycle quote is more relevant in the Gelug section since it demonstrates the clear realtionship between the NKT and the Gelug from which it is derived.

The reason why I expanded on the Clarke quote is that, as it stands now, it kind of leaves the reader hanging. Mentioning the Dorje Shugden controversy is very helpful to the reader, I think, since this is what the NKT is most infamously known for controversy-wise. And I did use the words in large part, which means that I did not try to assert "that THE doctrinal issue is DS." However, it is a doctrinal dispute, and is one of the reasons why the NKT was founded and so why Clarke classifies the NKT as a New Religious Movement.

The Wilson quote is not just about NKT vs. Gelugpa. Besides, the quote is referring to Gelugpa teachings, not to the Gelugpa hierarchy. Rather, it takes a panoramic view of the entire organization, not only putting the DS controversy in context, but showing what the organization has to offer: "the New Kadampa Tradition offers standard Gelugpa teachings based on Geshe Kelsang's books, which present a systematic path to enlightenment." For this reason, I thought it was a good one-line summary of the whole article.

I do not think that it had the same a-b-c structured soapboxing that you complained about before. Instead, it said what the aims of the NKT are: a new organization of an ancient tradition. Then it offered a counter-view by Clarke, saying that the NKT's aims are paradoxical. Then it offered a summary view by Wilson, who put it all together in the larger context.

Let me know what you think. Emptymountains (talk) 11:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. The Wilson quote was not from Tricycle but from a contributing editor and former staff member of the periodical; it's from his own book, not from the periodical. I just looked back, and do not see the "Clarke says but Wilson says..." conjunction. To me, the Wilson quote is more of a continuation of what Clarke says rather than contradiction of it; thus, the Wilson quote is not a counter-view of the Clarke quote. Emptymountains (talk) 11:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Clarke quote, as I say, DOES refer to the DS issue as 'Another serious bone of contention' (in a follwing para) indicating that there is more than one and, as I say, he does not refer to the DS thing specifically in the para talking about the doctrinal issues. It would therefore be misleading to let the reader think that Clarke is simply referring to the DS issue when he speaks of doctrinal issues (although Im not sure what he means, nor am i convinced by his argument-Steve Wass may have tried to invent his own 'tantric doctrine' as KG puts it, but Im afraid it looks like old fashioned immoral abuse of power and position from the outside)

I think the Wislon quote looks good where it is, in context. At the beginning, it seemed more like a straight claim to authenticity.Yonteng (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

So, the DS issue is not a doctrinal one? It is not one of the reasons why the NKT is called a controversial NRM? You seem to think that his opening sentence only applies to the first paragraph, and not to the whole section: One bone of contention was the pre-NKT and the FPMT (representing exclusive and inclusive orientations); another bone of contention is the current DS debate. Both of these together are the doctrinal reasons why the NKT is characterized by Clarke as an NRM.

Then, like I said above, we have a beginning (the NKT's aim), a middle (that Clarks finds this aim paradoxical, and instead refers to the NKT as a controversial NRM), but no end... I say "no end" because just saying that the NKT is controversially doctrinally can be misleading. One has to ask what NKT doctrines are controversial: refuge? bodhichitta? emptiness? ? exclusivism/Dorje Shugden? If only the latter, then it is important to clarify this, which the Wilson quote does: Other than this rather esoteric disagreement, the NKT presents sound Gelgupa teachings. There are already 3-4 quotes to the effect that the NKT presents mainstream Geglug teachings, so this point deserves to be summarized at the beginning. Emptymountains (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I am also a little concerned (feel free to correct me EM) at what appears to be an attemet to include as many positives as possible, particualrly with ref to the Jones article. Jones is widely recogfnised as a piece highly critical of the NKT (its in the critical links)but you APPEAR to be extracting as many positives from it as you can and overlooking the fact that Jones really doesnt seem to like the nKT. I too can find articles that are supportive of the NKT (Waterhouse eg) and drain out the only critical quotes therein ofr the purposes of promoting a non-NPOV. But that is not what we are doing here is it? EM?Andi, please comment and discuss. I am trying to not engage with AC as there is a good deal of sophistry going on, basically attemting to paint me in a negative light. I suspect the poor thing is angry with me. So please, monitor ACs contribs as otherwise we go back to edit warring. With respect to all and a wish for AC in particular to chill out and have some peaceYonteng (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason why I added to the Jones quote is that if you look at the first sentence, he says that the reasons for the NKT's growth are its (a) sound and (b) well-advertised teachings. What was written before only focused on the second reason, discussing how well the NKT markets itself in comparison to the other groups. However, this growth cannot be attributed to publicity alone; there has to be a reason why the NKT does not suffer from the high turnover rate that other groups do. The missing piece of the puzzle is that "newcomers to NKT-IKBU Centers 'receive a grounding in basic Buddhism which is arguably superior than what they might expect from less systematically organised centres.'" Emptymountains (talk) 11:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

As for Jones, well, maybe newcomers to the NKT do 'receive a grounding in basic Buddhism which is arguably superior than what they might expect from less systematically organised centres' However, it should not be forgotten that his view is that the NKT is a 'forceful and extrovert organisation where recruitment of new members is a major activity'Within his article, there is a definite sense that this systematisation can be seen as part of that desire for new members rather than just the wish to promote Dharma.

I mean look, in context and in the same paragraph, it appears alongside the following:

This relative homogeneity arises mainly from an evangelising concern to make all newcomers fully fledged members.... In the NKT...newcomers receive a grounding in basic Buddhism which is arguably superior than what they might expect from less systematically organised centres. The negative features of the movement will not readily be apparent, and new members grow into its ethos.

See what I mean? This is hardly praise of the NKT for its systematic approach. In fact, it seems to be more of a criticism for adhering to a systematic approach driven by the desire for full 'membership' and which conceals the ontroversy surrounding the organisation until people are hooked (one well documented, common feature of controversial movements is this distinction between the insider and outsider message-this, IMO. is what he is pointing to)If Jones' highly critical paper was as praise-filled as you seem to suggest, shoud it really be in the critical views section?Yonteng (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, I did not pick out the quote because it was praiseworthy, but because it expanded upon another point that he made. As with Clarke, not everything in the primary material has to be side-by-side to be considered as part of the context of what he is saying. Emptymountains (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I won't fight your revert of the Jones quote. Emptymountains (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

YT, with respect, we need not a balance between the positive and negative, but a balance between the subjective and the objective. Now, in the summary, we have the NKT's subjective view of itself, followed by an objective view (which is a combination of the Clarke and Wilson quotes). Emptymountains (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I also notice a bit of "black-and-white" perception in your interpretation of these quotes. For example, you previously transitioned into the Clarke quote with "on the other hand," which implied that Clarke disagrees with the NKT's claim fully; rather, he says it is paradoxical. Then, you said that the Wilson quote was saying that what the Clarke quote claimed was wrong; it does no such thing. Wilson says that "Other than this" (i.e., the DS controversy) the NKT presents standard Gelug teachings. Clarke and Wilson are not talking about the same thing, so they cannot be contradicting each other: Clarke is talking about the NKT's controversial elements, while Wilson is evaluating the NKT's non-controversial elements. The article covers both, so the summary should cover both. Emptymountains (talk) 13:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not quote Wilson, you did.In your perception subjective and objective are mixed up with pro and negative. Thats a mistake.You dont fight my revert on Jones because Im right. I agree with your 'in part' insertion. I do not think this is the right place for the quote-put it back to the Gelug section would you? Andi?I dont have much time for mind games at present, im busy. Words will never lead to the state beyond words; Ill be backYonteng (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I never said you quoted Wilson, but above you said that the Clarke quote being "follwed by an immediate response of why this is wrong from the NKT perspective is not balanced editing." Wilson is not saying that Clarke is wrong, and Wilson is not speaking from an NKT perspective. Therefore, this is not a valid reason for (re)moving it.

I'm not into mind games either, so let me clarify. Subjective = SPS. Objective = 3RS. An objective source can say something positive or negative (i.e., critical).

Anyways, I noticed that the Clarke quote has given editors problems before, since Clarke is not too clear on what he means is controversial. I think the Barrett quote is much clearer, so I made them swap places. Hopefully, this will save us a lot of headache in the future in writing the summary. Again, this article covers the controversial and the not-so-controversial, so the summary should reflect both aspects of NKT doctrine. P.S. Notice that in the swap, I also moved the NKT subjective statement out of the summary.

Actually, I would fight the Jones quote on this principle: in the future, rather than simply removing a sourced quote that you believe is taken out of context, why don't you put it into context? Why throw out the baby with the bath water? Emptymountains (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Setting aside the manner in which the Jones quote was selectively presented to create an impression almost completely opposed to the authors original intent (something which Kt66 was a quality of certain individuals and which speaks reams BTW), I cannot find a section where it might be best suited. If you think it should go in, where and how should it be phrased?Yonteng (talk) 11:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Jones himself says that the NKT has positive features as well as misgivings. That the NKT provides superior teachings to newcomers is certainly one of its positive features. That the author intended this to be taken as a positive feature is clear; this statement does not have to be misrepresented to turn it into something positive. In short, not everything Jones (or Kay, or Bunting, etc.) says has to be taken as a criticism.

Being one of the two reasons he gives to explain the NKT's "phenomenal growth," it should go back where it was. However, if you think a misgiving (if any) he has about this is under-represented in the article, feel free to add that. This would be better than simply removing it altogether. Emptymountains (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Im not sure Jones intention was as you state and would suggest you re-read the relevant para (its above) Im also inserting Barrett's reason for controversy 'oppposition to the Dalai Lama' While the barrett article DOES refer to DS, it is much later (para 8)He also cites the DLs eclecticism as a basis of the conflict BEFORE mentioning DSYonteng (talk) 12:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Public opposition to the Dalai Lama for what? Oh.... it's the Dorje Shugden controversy!

There is a major theological dispute between the NKT and the Dalai Lama. The NKT worship a protector deity, Dorje Shugdän, ‘an emanation of the Wisdom Buddha Manjushri’; many Tibetan Buddhists regard Dorje Shugdän as unpredictable, even dangerous. The dispute came to a head when the Dalai Lama declared that public worship of the god cause harm both to himself and to the Tibetan Buddhist cause. In 1996 NKT followers staged several public demonstrations against the Dalai Lama, accusing him of ‘a policy of discrimination against Dorje Shugdän practitioners within the exile Tibetan community’.

That's what attracted the publicity. Therefore, I am reverting your edits. P.S. For consistency, we are using NKT-IKBU throughout this article. Emptymountains (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read the book!before the Ds issue is mentioned, it reads 'While the DL has drawn together teachings and practices from all four Tibetan schools, the NKT focuses on what it sees as the pure teachings of the kadampa tradition.it does not accept the Dalai Lama's authority.' So, to assert that it is just about DS is incorrect (do you have the book?I have it in front of me)94.192.139.167 (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

YT, what is your criterion for deciding when something belongs in the lead summary and when it does not? Why does the Wilson quote have to go but the Barrett quote get to stay? As I mentioned above, the Barrett and Wilson quotes are addressing two different areas of NKT doctrine and practice (the controversial, and the non-controversial, respectively); so, why aren't both being fully represented in the lead summary? Why only the controversial aspects? If the Wilson quote belongs in the Gelug section, then likewise why doesn't the Barrett quote belong in the Dorje Shugden controversy section? Emptymountains (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I think there is plenty of non-controversial stuff in the intro and very little contro.I moved the Wilson quote becuase it did not substantiate the Barrett quote. However, I AGF andBarrett now represented in full and Wilson left in situ, both as you suggest94.192.139.167 (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Please see above, one para94.192.139.167 (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear YT, thank you for explaining your reasoning. My only objection is that not everything about the NKT is controversial, something that Barrett/Clarke quotes on their own fail to clarify. (If only a part is controverisal, saying that the whole is controversial is a logical fallacy called generalizing from particulars. For example, if only your left foot was in pain, why would you say your whole body hurts?) The Wilson quote shows that the greater majority of what the NKT has to offer is not controversial. If only a minority of things about the NKT is controversial, then one would naturally expect there to be "plenty of non-controversial stuff in the intro and very little contro."

The Wilson quote also shows the importance that Geshe-la's books have in the NKT, forming the basis of the 3 study programs. A number of references are quoted in the article stating that the 3 study programs based on Geshe-la's books are the distinguishing feature of the NKT, i.e., what distinguishes it from all other Buddhist groups. Something so important should also be summarized in the lead section. Emptymountains (talk) 12:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

EM You utilise Bunting to assert that the NKT is not guitly of any 'moral failings' Again, look at the whole article. For example, doesnt the below sound slightly immoral? Werent there calls for a government enquiry into the activities. This is certainly not to do with the DS issue, which it would appear, NKT eds are very keen to realte eveything to. There are other issues which are controversial, morally and which you overlook by referencing Bunting in the manner you have done so.

"Given this rate of development, the NKT needs a large income. At the Manjushri Mahayana Centre in Cumbria, virtually all the information pamphlets for visitors include a plea for money in one form or another. Where There's A Will, There's A Way offers advice on how to include the NKT in your will: "Even students who are now relatively poor often stand to inherit houses," it says. The Cumbria Centre has a Pound 1.2 million building program for the new gompa and new accommodation blocks. Donations of up to Pound 1,500 are requested and will "create enormous merits" in future lives, supporters are told.

In many of the pamphlets there are references to supporters giving "interest-free loans". This is one of the NKT's main methods of funding their expansion. One ex-NKT member became concerned when she saw the business plan for the new centre. The nine-bedroom mansion was to be bought with a mortgage of more than Pound 100,000. The deposit of about Pound 25,000 was made up from "loans" from supporters of between Pound 500 and Pound 2,000. But there was no provision to pay back the loans in the business plan; when questioned, the centre involved said they only paid back loans if really pushed.

"But the whole teaching makes you ashamed to push. You give money to gain merit and you're supposed to give willingly to Kelsang. The argument is that if you can afford to give Kelsang then you don't need the money anyway," she says.

"I knew of one person who had got his parents to lend him Pound 2,000. They asked me for Pound 500 and they asked me to take a loan from the bank. They were very insistent; they told me I'd been picked out by Kelsang as a leader - I'd never met him but, of course, he knows everything anyway."

An official statement released by the NKT in response to these and other allegations concerning the organization states that there is only one outstanding loan of Pound 200. Many other loans to individual centres "spiritually joined with the NKT" are listed however in accounts lodge with the Charity Commission. On another occasion this same ex-NKT member was asked for money again: "I was asked to covenant Pound 40 a month along with six or seven others in the group. Kelsang wanted our teacher to come off the dole because she was so high-profile and they wanted us to support her. I was rung up three times and each time I refused because I didn't have the money."

In some centres a substantial proportion of NKT resident members are on income support and housing benefit. Nuns and monks told former NKT members that they took off their traditional Tibetan robes to sign on at the local benefit office. "At the Tara Centre in Derbyshire, they told me that all 24 residents were on benefit except one Swiss nun," says the ex-NKT member."

The renting out of rooms to visitors that were already being paid for by state benefit recipients which the Guardian/Bunting commented on is certainly immoral.I suggest selective quotation is being used to draw attention to the DS issue and hide any other moral failings highlighted by BuntingYonteng (talk) 07:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC) See http://www.tibet.ca/en/newsroom/wtn/archive/old?y=1996&m=7&p=14_1 and http://tibet.ca/en/newsroom/wtn/archive/old?y=1996&m=8&p=18_1 Both by Bunting and, like other sections in the Shadow boxing article, which refer to moral, rather than doctrinal failingsYonteng (talk) 09:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

And yet, given all of that, Bunting still says that there is no material exploitation? I could reference some of those things you mentioned, but then I would have to add Waterhouse (2001, p. 151) where she contacted the Social Security office in Cumbria (home of Manjushri Centre), who "found no substance to the allegations" of benefits fraud. I could also cite Waterhouse (1997, p. 146): "The Guardian suggested that members are coereced into loaning the NKT large sums of money which they are subsequently unable to retrieve. I saw no evidence of this." As I mentioned before, some of the more sensational things in that piece have since been discredited. Emptymountains (talk) 11:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Discredited or contradicted? Remember NPOVYonteng (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC) You seem to be misconstruing these two terms, possibly because of having received a Western academic education and an introduction to classical Tibetan monastic educational methods. Discrediting is akin to 'refuting' (that old debate term), something Tibetans would do by applying logical arguments against an opposing POV and highlighting its flaws. Its something akin to what Trinlay Billman has done with his well-researched, though poorly argued,pseudo academic research on the history of DS (poorly argued and 'pseudo' because his fundamental straw man premise is that Dreyfus claims Pabongka invented the concept of DS as an enlightened being, whereas a brief examination of dreyfus' work shows he never said this)At least Billman TRIES however, despite the fact that the argument he 'refutes/discredits' is his own somewhat deceptive creation. Western academics in this field on the other hand do not rely on this process of analysis and counter argument. Each paper is a stand alone piece of academic analysis. While the Tibetans might have had the b**s to say 'that is garbage because...' Western academics tend to to just hypothesize and present opinions based on their own (self-serving) research. To refer to these researches as 'refutations' which 'discredit' the academic opinions of others is therefore an excessive position to hold. The most one can say is 'A says, but B says' What you are saying is 'A says, then B says,and because B said it after A 9or elsewhere), A's theory is discredited.' This is a false reasoning. The appropriate word is 'contradicted', not 'discredited'.Based on your theory, if something I say in a paper contradicts something stated elswhere or previously, that other statement is 'discredited'. The term then is inappropriate, and the decision to use it could easily be interpreted as political,something which the NKT steers clear of we are toldYonteng (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Would you for instance suggest that Kay's extensive academic work on the NKT and which is critical of the group for a number of reasons is 'discredited' because Wilson's piece in a low grade NY travel guide says the opposite? No, the term is 'contradicted'(Lit says the opposite')Yonteng (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

'The Department of Social Security is effectively subsidizing the NKT’s expansion to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds'-'Call to close sects benefits loophole' The Guardian 13 July 96

'We have no control over what they do with their money once they have been given their entitlement. They could donate every last penny of their benefits to the cause if they wanted.'-Sunday Mirror-'Buddha can you spare dime?'14 July 96 So nothing 'illegal', just 'immoral'-So thats alright then? That money could have paid for schools, hospitals, breast cancer treatment. Instead it paid for the NKT empire's growth. Sorry, Waterhouse may say 'nothing illegal' but it doesnt take a genius to see what is going on here. Since when did Buddha say this sort of behaviuor was acceptable? 'Well, theyd just spend it on weapons' was the party line, as far as I recallYonteng (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC) here's another meaning to 'discredit'. If it agrees with the NKT world view and contradicts critical academic material, it 'discredits' it. If it agrees with the NKT world view and is non-critical academic material it is 'valid research' If it diagrees with NKT world view and is academic research, as long as it is possible to find a single contradictory reference in ANY published material from ANYWHERE (Travel guides etc), it is 'discredited'. Yonteng (talk) 10:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Jeff Wilson is a Professor of Religious Studies at UNC. He is part of Harvard's The Pluralism Project. He is a former staff member of Tricycle, and remains one of its contributing editors. He isn't just the author of a "travel guide," as he has also been published by Wisdom Publications who calls him "A major new voice in Western Buddhism." Emptymountains (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify,'The Buddhist Guide to New York: Where to Go, What to Do, and How to Make the Most of the Fantastic Resources in the Tri-state Area' is hardly the most authoritative academic work on the market when it comes to the DS issue OR the NKT-it is a guide book. If David N Kay's 'Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain' cites multiple reasons for the controversies surrounding the NKT and ASSISTANT Prof Wilson's (who completed his doctoral thesis in only 2007 and is a Japanese Jodo Shinshu buddhist-dont they condone/make money out of abortion? Mizuko Kuyo??Hasn't Buddhism come a long way?) 'Buddhist Guide to New York' says different, who ya gonna call?

BTW Tricycle may be held in high esteem where you are, but I dont know a single Buddhist on this side of the pond that reads it. In general, its reputation here is not an indication of either authenticity or credibility, indeed its often the opposite-eg Stephen Batchelor is a long term contributing editor to the same and he denies the existence of karma and rebirth (Uh? Holding wrong views?). My point on your use of the term 'dicredited' stands. i apologise for expressing my opinion towards your misuse of the term so vehemently. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was employed out of ignorance rather than any deliberate intent to manipulate truth(!)However, I will be keeping an eye out for it in the future. Iwould AGF but your distortion of the Mumford quote in the DS article then the apparent selective quotation of the Jones quote in the NKT article make me suspicious94.192.139.167 (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If we are to allow a reference from a guide book on why the NKT is controversial, i think it far more appropriate to allow the NKT to speak for itself on the issue. hence the short addition. If we are to get rid of the Truth reference, how much more so the Wilson one?Yonteng (talk) 11:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed-it needs to be there. I thoguht it flowed better where it was but if you prefer it there, fine. Thanks for thatYonteng (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, the reader may not follow, not knowing what the words "this rather esoteric disagreement" is referring to.

I am wondering, in "balancing the positive and the negative," what is the ratio you are aiming for? 50:50? Emptymountains (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I just think we shoud present as much of the positive as possible and list the projected negatives (not buried at the end) Im not in for negotiating ratios just making sure we have a full picture. In terms of the intro passage,I think you have achieved a good balance here-entirely neutral followed by short ref to criticism and responses(50/50)[to deny criticism would be to hide truth], followed by Barrett (critical) then Wilson (supportive)Your presentation looks pretty good from here Well done on assuming NPOV on this oneYonteng (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yonteng's bias?

< moved to Yonteng's talk page, per suggestion below > Atisha's cook (talk) 12:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I wish y'all would keep the personal stuff on your own user talk pages. (Remember, argue facts not personalities.) So, please move it, or I'll do it for you. Emptymountains (talk) 11:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for moving the stuff whoever did so> I fully agree with EMs sensible comments YontengYonteng (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Please be aware of the judgement below- http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/29/wikipedia_bans_scientology/Yonteng (talk) 19:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

PS be aware that the name of the organisation mentioned in the ruling is arbitrary and could be substituted with that of any well known controversial relgious organisation. Now read on, inserting the appropriate name at the relevant pointsYonteng (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yonteng - are you seriously attempting to compare Kadampa Buddhism with Scientology?? <-edited: i don't really know anything about Scientology so it's not up to me to comment. nonetheless, your comparison is entirely absurd. > Atisha's cook (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I am hoping people will realise that 'corporate' edit warring and use of the tactics outlined in the article, many of which a small group of dedicated editors have engaged in on this page, can result in permanent blocking. it would therefore be wie to refrain from such behaviour, wouldnt you agree?Yonteng (talk) 07:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

personally, i've had about enough of this from you. who exactly are you accusing of this "'corporate' edit warring and use of the tactics outlined in the article" and where, precisely, is your evidence? you be careful - making such an accusation is bad form unless you're certain and you've the evidence to back it up. Atisha's cook (talk) 09:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear AC i refer you to the response I made to your comments on my talk page, for which i have not reported you. Generally speaking, I would like to compliment User Emptymountains on his restraint and level headedness over recent days, particularly in the face of the apparent volatility sometimes manifest. Truthbody too, has been quite reasonable in accepting an edit of EMs though initially he disagreed with its positioning. The article would certainly benefit from continued level headedness on all our parts. Those who are feeling emotional may need to just rest a little. it does help. A 'driven' editor is an ineffective editor. With respectYonteng (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

um - ok... but you just accused "a small group of dedicated editors" of "'corporate' edit warring and use of the tactics outlined in the article" [that you linked to re. Scientology]. you should back that up, or retract it. Atisha's cook (talk) 10:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Listed above under YontenG's addition of disputed tagYonteng (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

??? er - likewise, all those accusations were responded to and refuted under that heading also. did you not understand? your accusation is a very serious one. i can tell you that i haven't engaged in any kind of "corporate edit-warring", and i see no evidence of, or reason to suppose that any other editors are engaged in such.

once again, i ask you to retract that accusation, or take it to the appropriate Admin. Noticeboard for adjudication (didn't you do that already, and it was rejected?)

failing this, your accusation is just more hot air and bad manners. Atisha's cook (talk) 11:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

AFAIAA Admins are observing the activities of myself and those named, including yourself-see relevant talk pages-no rejection has been issued. Please feel free to continue as you are but, unless there is definite and substantive evidence against my allegation, I will not be retracting anything. Feel free to raise the issue with admins (yet again!), but leave me out of it (you are completely mention my supposed bias, of course, but be aware they will read all concerned's posts, not only mine, and check their edit histories). I am afraid I dont wish to engage with you as many of your attacks are personal, hostile ad homs.It is therefore pointless debating with you. I sincerely hope you feel better soonYonteng (talk) 12:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

"unless there is definite and substantive evidence against my allegation, I will not be retracting anything" what?! it's up to the accuser to provide evidence to prove the allegation, not the defendant to disprove it!

"leave me out of it" are you serious??? the accusation came from you!

anyway - there it is, for all to see. i've nothing more to say to you for now - as you say, it's pointless. Atisha's cook (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

balancing the positive and negative, pt. 3

Please consider this:

Yonteng eats any and all flavors of ice cream.
Emptymountains only eats pure chocolate ice cream.
Therefore, Emptymountains is opposed to Yonteng's choice of ice cream.

Does that make sense? Why does my choice of ice cream flavor have to be a statement about what you've chosen? Sure, our choices can be contrasted, but that does not mean that I am opposed to what you got. Likewise, Barrett contrasts the fact that the Dalai Lama practices 4 traditions while the NKT practices only 1, but it is nothing more than a contrast. Barrett does not say that NKT is opposed to the Dalai Lama being eclectic himself, only that the NKT does not follow his example in this. Geshe Kelsang says:

I already mentioned that the Dalai Lama has freedom to do as he chooses in his own practice. If he wants to stop Dorje Shugden practice and choose other practices through receiving certain indications such as dreams and so forth, then he is free to do so. I am not criticizing him for this reason, but because he is interfering in the freedom of others to worship as they choose.

It's a sublte but definite difference. Emptymountains (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure about your decision to use the term 'pure': I may choose to eat more than one 'pure'flavour.I think i see your reasoning but I would like to include Barretts observations, particularly: The NKTs opposition to the DL; its non-acceptance of his authority; the DS dispute.These are linked and relevant. These are clearly delineated in the relevant passage.The NKTruth site refers tothe other criticisms AND the NKT responses so it seems balanced, Finally, the difference between 'sublte' and 'subtle' is indeed subtle!!!AVaLarf!!Yonteng (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah-ha! "We have never said that here we are pure, whereas others are not pure. The Dharma is the same." –GKG. Emptymountains (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

the DL has never held any authority whatsoever over NKT-IKBU, so there's no non-acceptance of authority. similarly, NKT-IKBU has never opposed the DL: it has disagreed, and many of its members have engaged in protests at his policy re. Dorje Shugden, but NKT-IKBU as an organisation has never, to my knowledge, stated any kind of opposition to Tenzin Gyatso individually, or to the institution of the DL. if they have, please provide ref.s Atisha's cook (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, lets just have a read of this letter circulated to all NKT centres in mid April 2008

My Dear Students,
I need help from you to solve the Dorje Shugden problem created by the Dalai Lama. Right now the Dalai Lama is removing the Tibetan Shugden worshipers from the Buddhist community saying that Shugden worshipers are not Buddhist because they worship an evil spirit - Shugden. At the same time he is preparing to remove western Shugden worshipers from the Buddhist community with the same reasons. His aim is to destroy the pure lineage of Je Tsongkhapa´s doctrine. To stop this evil action, as the representative of the Western Shugden Society, I personally will organise demonstrations against the Dalai Lama directly. I requested Kelsang Pema and Kelsang Thubchen to do this job for me and they have accepted.
Please help Pema and Thubchen with whatever they need.
With much love and prayers
Geshe Kelsang Gyatso

So,organised by KG, led by his 2nd in command (All over youtube), populated overwhwelmingly by NKT followers (as you say above). Your response?'No, that was the WSS, not the NKT. My response? if you take the basis of imputation that constitutes a fit foundation for the apellation 'elephant' and instead call it 'a mouse', is it a mouse or an elephant?

Is that enough?Yonteng (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC) PS Sorry, cant work out how to put pdfs on WP but Im sure youve seen the original;)Yonteng (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

EM re purity-Heres Neil Elliott 1993 Vajravarahi Preston-Its available as a sound file too!

"So therefore, this I would like to say, when Geshe Kelsang says that he established the New Kadampa Tradition so as to preserve and protect the Dharma, that was transmitted from the Wisdom Buddha Manjushri to Je Tsongkhapa, this is what he is talking about, the Mahamudra. This is the actual inner practice of the New Kadampa Tradition, the only practice of the New Kadampa Tradition. And we can say these days, previously you could find the practice of the Mahamudra outside this Tradition; other Traditions held this practice. But these days we can say definitely it doesn't exist outside of our Tradition. Only this Tradition holds the lineage, the pure lineage, of the Vajrayana Mahamudra. So this is what we need to preserve, this is what we need to protect. Geshe-la has carried this entire lineage................................"

What was it KG said? "We have never said that here we are pure, whereas others are not pure.'Urrr?Yonteng (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

This is clarified in Mahamudra Tantra (pp. 71-74). He is referring to the lineage of practice that comes hrough the Ganden Oral Lineage given to Je Tsongkhapa by Manjushri: "Therefore, our uncommon Mahamudra Tantra practice begins with meditating on the central channel of the heart channel wheel. The transmission, teachings and lineage of this uncommon instruction are not possessed by any other tradition." The Kagyupas still have the lineage of Mahamudra Tantra where the practice begins at the navel chakra, which is also shared by the Gelugpas and taught by GKG in Clear Light of Bliss. Emptymountains (talk) 01:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

the WSS protested against "this evil action" - the DL's attempted destruction of a spiritual lineage and division of the Buddhist community. they had no personal agenda against the DL. can't you see the distinction here? also, another distinction: NKT does not equal WSS, but one person can be part of both. a person can be a bowler when he's playing cricket and a goalkeeper when he's playing football: he might be called Bill whatever game he plays, but that does not make a bowler equal and identical to a goalkeeper.

then - your quote above is 16 years old, from someone who has not taught for NKT-IKBU in almost as many years. his views may well have changed in the 16 years since giving this teaching, and in any case just because he said this, it's only one person's words - it does not mean that it was, even at the time, an official position of the NKT.

i said i had nothing more to say to you about your bias, but man oh man! why are you so intent on mudslinging? i really don't get it. why don't you go contribute to articles on topics about which you know something, such as those concerning your own tradition? i promise i won't bother you there.Atisha's cook (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks for that clarification, Emptymountains. i hadn't understood that, but you're quite right - there is nothing incorrect in that quote, nor anything contradictory to Venerable Geshe Kelsang's statement. Atisha's cook (talk) 01:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

where d'you get all this stuff from, Yonteng? trawling through teachings from 16 years ago trying to find something negative... that's some real dedication to neutral editing. Atisha's cook (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Where do we get the buddha's teaching from? By studying things that were first spoken thousands of years ago.16 years hardly invalidates the statement-if it does, ohw much more so the Buddha's teaching?Neil Elliott may not have taught but he still works closely with KG (Check 'Guie to the Bodhisattvas way of life' and helps run the WSS (Check you tube)'neutral'? No. balancing the positive with the negativeYonteng (talk) 08:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC) PS KGs statement "The transmission, teachings and lineage of this uncommon instruction are not possessed by any other tradition." is just plain wrong annd only demonstrates his lack of knowledge of the other Sarma traditions (Obviously Nyingmapas too meditate on Tsa Lun Thigle but use Dzog Chen-one finds tantric Mahamudra in the Kagyu and Sakya, and the Kagyus also teach a disputed form of sutra mahamudra minus the channels winds and drops. Contrary to ACs comment it therefore confirms Elliotts ignorant stance on the doctrinal issueYonteng (talk) 08:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

you're quite wrong there, Yonteng - my comments about the quote being old likewise missed the point. in fact, Neil Elliott was quite accurate: please see Emptymountains' explanation above. Atisha's cook (talk) 08:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

KGs statement 'The transmission, teachings and lineage of this uncommon instruction are not possessed by any other tradition.' is a meaningless and redundant statement since the same can be said of almost any present day teaching in the Buddhist tradition.Your concurrence with Elliot's blatantly sectarian statement, claiming as it does that 'Only this Tradition (the NKT) holds the lineage, the pure lineage, of the Vajrayana Mahamudra.', which by implication directly condemns the Kagyu and Sakya lineages of Vajrayana Mahamudra as impure, is clear and citeable evidence of a definite inability to practice NPOV and consequently your inability to edit the NKT article effectively. Beyond the NKT the comment is widely held to be one of the most outrageously sectarian statements ever to spew forth from the NKTs ex- second in charge, before his rather unceremonious public jettisoning for 'conduct unbecoming'(See 'Sect Disrobes British Monk') Not the type of 'qualified Tantric master' I would follow if I ever chose to practice tantra, despite the hyperbolic advertising and his being 'deeply revered' by the adulant masses.You can fool some of the people some of the time......... http://www.tibet.ca/en/newsroom/wtn/archive/old?y=1996&m=8&p=18_1) Also, your assertion that a statement is invalid because it is 16 years old means KGs Understanding the Mind (first published 1993) is therefore equally invalidYonteng (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"New Kadampa Tradition" = Gelugpa Tradition, at least according to Je Tsongkhapa. Since the time of Je Tsongkhapa, the New Kadampa Tradition (aka the Gelugpa Tradition) has been the sole possessor of the uncommon Varjrayana Mahamudra practice wherein one begins to meditate on the central channel of the heart channel wheel (as opposed to say, the navel channel wheel). Sure, other traditions have their own lineages of Mahamudra, but they don't have this particular one. If that fact is a sectarian statement, then the Gelugpa tradition has been sectarian from the start!

Although originally taught by Buddha Vajradhara in the Ambhidana Tantra, this lineage was eventually lost by all Tantric traditions, until it was passed down again to Je Tsongkhapa through Manjushri (who still held the lineage). So, in Root Tantra of Manjushri, when Buddha Shakyamuni predicts Manjushri's emanation in Tibet as Je Tsongkhapa: "After I pass away and my pure doctrine is absent, you will appear as an ordinary being, performing the deeds of a Buddha and establishing the Joyful Land, the great Protector, in the Land of the Snows," he is referring to this special uncommon (not the common) Mahamudra practice. Buddha himself regarded this uncommon practice as superior to other forms of Mahamudra practice; the reasons are given in Tantric Grounds and Paths (pp. 121, 123).

All of the Mahamudra lineage Gurus of this uncommon practice have been Gelugpas. A handful of the most recent of them have all been Dorje Shugden practitioners. (You can read about some of them on the Dorje Shugden History website.) If they are now no longer regarded as authentic Buddhist Masters (but mere "spirit worshippers"), what happens to the blessings of that uncommon practice lineage? What happens to Je Tsongkhapa's tradition? "And my pure doctrine is absent" once again! Emptymountains (talk) 12:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Well you can spout the party line til the cows come home but that doesnt answer the point that Elliot clearly denies the purity of Kagyu and Sakya mahamudra. All the stuff you write about the special nature of the NKT lineage only shows your scant knowledge of the Sarma traditions on Mahamudra (I suspect you have no experience of Buddhism outside the NKT. otherthan in a junior academic context?). I dont really have time for polemic and sectarian rhetoric (I have a life and many teachers say it is pointless debating with people nowadays). Call it what you want but Elliotts statment is dodgy! Can we stick to the article please!!! This kind of doctrinal dispute is out of place here. I want to continue enjoying working with you if thats ok, so lets stcik to the article and not start arguing over whose pure and whose not;)94.192.139.167 (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"Can we stick to the article please"??? Again, you are the one who opened yet another can of worms by bringing the Mahamudra topic up. I am not sure what you mean by 'party line'. There is both the common and the uncommon Mahamudra practices. The common one is the topic of the Dalai Lama's book The Gelug/Kagyu Tradition of Mahamudra, wherein he also mentions the "uncommon near lineage deriving from the Buddha-form or 'deity' Manjushri, bestowed on Tsongkhapa" (p. 170). I don't see how either the Dalai Lama nor Elliot are "clearly denying the purity of Kagyu and Sakya mahamudra" simply by noting that this uncommon practice does not exist in the Kagyu or Sakya traditions.

But, perhaps you are objecting to Buddha's words "and my pure doctrine is absent"? Is the Buddha being sectarian because he himself said that this uncommon form Vajrayana Mahamudra is his greatest teaching? (When Dzogchen practitioners claim something similar about their practice, why is that not likewise deemed sectarian?) Does not the Dalai Lama also say that if Vajrayana Buddhsim were to die out, there would no longer be a complete form of Buddhism in this world? This is just an extension of that. Anyway, you can check the original Tibetan yourself in Blo bzang 'phrin las rnam rgyal. 'Jam mgon chos kyi rgyal po tsong kha pa chen po'i rnam thar. Varanasi slob ge ldan spyi las khang (2000, p. 27).

But, perhaps you are not so gung-ho with the words pure and supreme, since they might imply that anything else is impure and inferior. I, myself, try not to read Dharma in such black-or-white terms. The Dalai Lama himself says that Je Tsongkhapa's "status as a great scholar and meditator is unparralleled" (The Union of Bliss and Emtpiness, p. 21) and that "his presentation of emptiness in relation to interdependent origination has never been equaled" (Beyong Dogma, p. 163). So, these statements are sectarian if made by an NKT-IKBU Teacher, but not if made by the Dalai Lama? And, what about Prasangika-Madhyamaka being Buddha's highest philosophical view?

P.S. Your suspicions are incorrect. Emptymountains (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"Can we stick to the article please" :-D that's kind of rich, dude, considering it was you who brought this up in the first place! neither Neil Elliott's, nor Venerable Geshe Kelsang's statements in fact imply that other traditions do not possess other pure lineages - Venerable Geshe Kelsang, as quoted above, has said the precise opposite, on several occasions. you just want to read them that way, i fear. Atisha's cook (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the point of this discussion about what Neil Elliott said or didn't say -- there is no proposal by any editor to put this information in the article, and Elliott's words, accurate or not, are by no means officially representative of the NKT view. (Truthbody (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC))

a suggestion

The purpose of this discussion in relation to improving the article is what, exactly? --Truthsayer62 (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that we don't get bogged down in debating doctrinal differences because such things are endless. If Yongteng has suggestions for improving the article, please make them but discussing like this takes time, energy and ultimately doesn't improve the article - Rather, it just creates hostility and bad feeling which makes co-operation between editors more difficult --Truthsayer62 (talk) 12:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

i think we're just trying to establish a basis for unbiased editing. but i agree: doctrinal "debate" here isn't particularly beneficial. Atisha's cook (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks TS62 and welcome back, from me and all your old team mates-its just like the old days! (Ha!) Really, I think your point is a very sensible one (even if I made it myself) The purpose of this page is not to debate doctrinal differences but to ensure the public receive an accurate and objective article about the NKT. If everyone concentrates on that issue we should progress, otherwise it will turn into some sort of E sangha thing-endless partisan rantsYonteng (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

SPA: comment

I'm not sure how relevant the scientology stuff is, but one rather obvious parallel is that you're all WP:SPA's and this is bad. Get out more William M. Connolley (talk) 17:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

in my case, you're right - it's the only area in which i feel qualified to add or edit content, to be honest (well - there are a couple of others unrelated to Buddhism, but there's currently no Wiki on those topics, and my knowledge isn't enough really to *initiate* an article...)

i *am* aware of the potential COI, and i do my best therefore not to promote my own POV to the exclusion of others. having said that, i *do* need to get out more! i might have a go at those other topics after all... Atisha's cook (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I wish you were that 'nice' to me!Yonteng (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

i'll be a lot nicer when you stop accusing me of dishonesty (sock-puppeting), malice ("cyber-bullying"), sectarianism, fanaticism, etc., etc. Atisha's cook (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Intro

EM OK-Barrett does not say the NKT is controverial for its sole reliance on Kadampa Buddhism so I moved that. I took out the quote also because it smells a bit of 'Were being condemned for being pure'.The Wilson went because the assertion that the only problem is DS is untrue-NKTruth lists multiple allegations. So I took that out and left the NKTruth thing at the end. (You said either at th beginning or the end. I left the NKtruth thing in because it lists the allegations AND responses. I think its now neater.I hope you agree. Have a good dayYonteng (talk) 08:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC) It DOES look a lot tidier!08:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonteng (talk • contribs)

You forget that Wilson is only talking doctrinal issues. He says that, besides the Dorje Shugden practice, all other NKT-IKBU teachings are standard Gelugpa teachings. He makes no statement at all about any allegations. But, this is not the reason I originally included Wilson in the intro: he talks about the importance that GKG's books have to NKT-IKBU practice, which is an important part of the article and so should be summarized in the lead section. Emptymountains (talk) 12:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe such info re books should follow in a dedicated section on the study program.As it stands,(Without Wilson) the intro is genrally neutral. Then it points to controversy and says exactly where and how the NKT responds to them-I reckon thats pretty good and pretty neutral. Just checked and indeed it is the perfect place for it since it is a 3PS supporting quote for what is already there)94.192.139.167 (talk) 12:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.139.167 (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Just checked and indeed it is the perfect place for it since it is a 3PS supporting quote for what is already there)94.192.139.167 (talk) 12:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. You say that the Wilson quote "is a 3PS supporting quote for what is already there" in the section on the study programs. What is being said there that doesn't already have a reference? As I mentioned before, there are already a number of references that say the 3 Study Programs based on GKG's books are the distinguishing feature of the NKT-IKBU. Basically, your version of the lead section would mention Gelug history, the controversy/allegations, but nothing about the most important feature of the NKT-IKBU? Emptymountains (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

YT, I think you skipped past my question above. You said that the Wilson quote is wrong in saying that besides DS, all the other teachings of the NKT are standard Gelugpa teachings. If he is wrong, I would like to know what other teachings in the NKT are non-standard? Is there something wrong with the NKT's teachings on refuge, bodhichitta, or emptiness? How about Lamrim, Lonjong, or Mahamudra? Maybe the teachings on the lower realms are incorrect? Again, Wilson is focusing solely on NKT doctrine, which he finds to be in-line with the rest of the Gelugpa tradition (with the exception of the DS debate). But you seem to keep reading other things into it, such as that he is denying that there are non-doctrinal allegations that have been made. In actuality, Wilson doesn't say a word about any non-doctrinal disputes either way. Emptymountains (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Wilson is well placed in the lead section -- he is just stating the obvious and also mentions the heart of the New Kadampa Tradition, the books. With him in the lead, this paragraph is now reasonably balanced and the lead covers all the essential points. (Truthbody (talk) 13:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC))

This is what I mean by 'corporate editing'- NKT editors working together to promote a faovurable view. Also, AC is on 1RR so TB steps in and does it for him after he is reminded-combined effort The point about Wilson is its simply not true (3PS or not!) There are multiple issues and even NKTruth has the balls to admit that-at least I have the good will to point to NKT responses without listing the criticisms specifically. Trying to dupe Joe Public into believing the only problem is DS by using Wilson is disingenuous. I mention one criticism AND allow the NKTs response to criticisms but you want to insert Wilson to hide things-political editing, If you want to use Wilson in the intro, lets have a section on 'other criticisms of the NKT' shall we??Yonteng (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Please Yonteng stop trying to provoke aggravation by accusing other editors of "corporate editing"; these personal remarks are tiresome and inaccurate and smack of a conspiracy theory for which you haven't any evidence. Agreeing with another editor doesn't mean we are "corporate editing" -- and in any case there is nothing wrong with showing assent on a talk page!, and Wikipedia encourages consensus. Please stick to the facts in the article, as you have been requested to do many times, and stop these personal attacks. I have been largely away from my computer and am now joining in again, I wasn't asked by anyone to do so, I work on my own except insofar as I join in dicussions with yourself and other editors on this page. As for your other accusation, I am not "trying to dupe" anyone -- all the sources are there now for Joe Public to peruse. Without a doubt, the Dorje Shugden issue is the main and defining criticism levelled at the NKT. Other criticisms are mentioned in the context of New Kadampa Truth. (Truthbody (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC))

I've reverted your change, Yonteng, because there is no reasonable objection to the inclusion of a 3PS. I can only think that your objection is because the intro doesn't scream 'controversy' loud enough for you. The intro already mentions the New Kadampa Truth site and the reply to the controversies, so with this and the Barrett quote, both sides are included and it's neutral. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 19:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

In intro, Barrett says nkt is controversial-NKTruth lists controversies and replies-thats balance. The point is Wilson is incorrect-even NKTruth shows that. To include it in the intro is disingenuous since it is a} untrue (by NKTs admission)b)disingenuous-it can be seen as an attempt to hide the other allegations. I dont see your problem with this.Both sides are included in the intro without it. Maybe we should rephrase it 'While Wilson says....the NKTruth site refers to multiple controversial allegations' That would include W but it probably wouldnt suit you.In the end, the point is, even if W is 3PS it is confirmed to be inaccurate by the NKTs own resource. I can see no reason for invluding it other than for it to act as a smokescreen to wider allegation94.192.139.167 (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW EM you claim I said 'the Wilson quote is wrong in saying that besides DS, all the other teachings of the NKT are standard Gelugpa teachings.' No, my point is that Wilson says other than the DS conflict, everything else is kosher whereas there are multiple controversies. Most NKT Dharma is obviously standard Gelug fayre94.192.139.167 (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

That "Most NKT Dharma is obviously standard Gelug fayre" is all Wilson is saying. Other than the doctrinal dispute over Dorje Shugden, there are no other doctrinal disputes. Emptymountains (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yonteng - i can't keep up with you! you bring something up, it gets refuted, then you say we shouldn't be discussing it in the first place. you ask for balance, but scream when balancing data are added. you tell me i'm an unreasonable fanatic, but unlike me Emptymountains and Truthbody are reasonable, and then as soon as there's any consensus shown you start accusing everyone who disagrees with you of "corporate editing" (take a look back over this Talk page - does it really look like all this lot agree with me and all my comments/edits?!)

Wilson's quote obfuscates nothing. doctrinally, there simply is *no* major difference from other Gelugpa traditions except the Dorje Shugden issue - and that's all he says. it's a perfectly accurate, and well-placed bit of info. i think the only reason you don't like it is because it's just not derogatory enough for you. well, sorry: you're going to have to accept that this article is never going to reflect your own POV perfectly or exclusively. welcome to Wikipedia. Atisha's cook (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

also, since you reminded me of our 1RR probation (and thanks, btw - i had actually forgotten about that), it's only fair to point out to you that it's no good making "anonymous" reversions to try to get around it: your IP is logged and an Admin can easily see that it's you, i believe. using a mate's connection is frowned on too, and where it's obvious, it often leads to a slap (no, i' haven't ever done this, before you ask!) Atisha's cook (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Well done TB Wilson looks much better there.Wish id done it myself but i think we know what wouldve happened. EM 'obfuscates' You really DO need to get out more!Yonteng (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW it is worth noting how much struggle there has been just over this one quote and how long this has taken, as well as how its been exactly the same old team that Kt66 fought with for so long.FYI I am happy with the intro now. Now for para 2..............Ha!AC What about needlepoint? Or makrame?;)Yonteng (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yonteng - you realise you've made 4 reverts to this page over the last few hours, despite our 1RR probation, and despite demonstrating clearly that you were aware of our probation by reminding me about it? and that you've continued to make unsubstantiated allegations against other editors, oh bringer of balance? keep this up and i'll do something i never normally do ('cos i'm usually some way out of line myself...): i'll report you for it.Atisha's cook (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi all! Sorry for not participating so long. Seems like you made a lot of progress :)) Just wanted to say that i like the intro pretty much now as well. Only problem i still see is that the controversy/allegations/refutations issue (other than doctrinal/Dorje Shugden) is "outsourced" to the newkadampatruth site. It's probably better than not mentioning them at all - and i personally think that it is in fact quite a good solution to point to this site - but it sure enough isn't quite in accordance with WP:RS and also not with WP:INTRO (intro supposed to be summary of article) Anyway...keep up the good work! Maybe i'll manage to contribute a bit myself again... for a start i'm going to put quotation marks around "systematic path to enlightenment" - not because i'd doubt that the books or the NKT as a whole present a full path, but because i think it is inappropriate for an encyclopledic article to make such a claim (hope you agree?). Andi 3ö (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

AC Im sure WMC is watching and I made him aware of NKT editors x 4 capacity to RV 8 times before sanctions as compared to my 1! Maybe that has something to do with it.Embroidery?Yonteng (talk) 07:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Andi, i fully agree that the claim should be placed in speech marks-it is straight from an NKT leaflet after all. Moreover, I think I would preceed it with 'The NKT claims...' since it is a statement from the NKT perspective; all of the Tibetan systems could make the same statement, though there is a very important distinction between the Tibetan system and the NKT one. In the Tibetan traditions, the fully qualified enlightened/experienced teacher prescribes the appropriate methods to the individual disciple in a one to one setting. In the NKT, the exaggerated growth of the organisation now means it is virtually impossible to develop a personal relationship with the teacher in the 'guru-disciple' context (unless the ridiculous and arrogant claim that they have started churning out 'qualified' lamas is going to be made-to be a qualified lama takes a long, long time). The NKT path of graduated study and meditation is therefore more akin to buying clothes 'off the peg' rather than the 'tailored' experience one finds in the Tibetan tradition. NKT teachings may be close in appearance to Gelug one but this central aspect of the teaching, the guru-disciple relationship, is noteable by its absence for the majority of NKT studentsYonteng (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

um, no - it's in quotation marks because it's a direct quote from a 3PS.

and "the guru-disciple relationship, is noteable by its absence for the majority of NKT students". ??? that's a new one... Atisha's cook (talk) 11:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok AC, ' If youre absolutely certain that there are no references to a 'systematic path to enlightenment' (Maybe 'graduated path to enlightenment' [Tib Lam Rim] whats the difference?) in NKT promotional materials,fine. Otherwise, you just validated it as a 3PS so it should go in quotes as Andi suggests anyway Again, tell us if you will how often the majority of NKT students get to sit down with KG on a one to one level and talk about their practice, as is common in Tibetan traditions. Please enlighten us (systematically;)BTW its OM, not UmYonteng (talk) 11:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that AC is absolutely certain that Wilson is not quoting any promotional literature; it is his own evaluation. While Andi had put quotes around some of the material taken from Wilson, actually all of it is directly quoted from Wilson, so it should all appear in quotes--none of it is WP's own wording. Emptymountains (talk) 12:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

i've no idea what you're on about, Yonteng. Emptymountains is right: it's quoting Wilson directly, and i had already moved the quotation mark (without altering the wording) to include more. i thought Andi was quite right to add this punctuation in the first place.

as for your understanding of the Guru-student relationship... ok - i don't think this point of doctrine is a valid topic for discussion here. alls i was saying is that i think you'll find that "the majority" of NKT-IKBU students would be extremely surprised to hear that this relatiuonship is absent for them! certainly all those i know would be. but then i only know a couple of hundred or so, whereas you seem to be familiar with the majority, which must run to several thousands. Atisha's cook (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, try Googling 'systematic' and 'kadampa' and then tell me to what extent the claim to sytematization (a quality of all Tib traditions) does not form part of NKT propaganda-I found over a 1000 references,probably the same refences Wilson read. As to'"the majority" of NKT-IKBU students would be extremely surprised to hear that this relatiuonship is absent for them!' because "the majority" have no experience of the nature of the guru-disciple relationship as Tibetans and Westerners experienced/experience it in the Tibetan traditions. You know what I mean, the kind of relationship Dromtonpa had with Atisha, or Trijang with Pabongka. According to some, what you often get in the NKT is some wrote learned kid with very little experience of life or dharma who, nevertheless, has 'faith and confidence' in KG after having seen him once or twice across a crowded shrineroom (if that) but is avidly reading ALL his books.BIG difference and hardly 'traditional Gelug Buddhism'BTWYonteng (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

A wise man once said, "The purpose of this page is not to debate doctrinal differences but to ensure the public receive an accurate and objective article about the NKT. If everyone concentrates on that issue we should progress, otherwise it will turn into some sort of E sangha thing-endless partisan rants." Emptymountains (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we can put the thing about the lack of guru-disciple relations in the Study Program section then?? Thanks for the compliment BTW;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonteng (talk • contribs) 13:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

"Maybe we can put the thing about the lack of guru-disciple relations in the Study Program section then?" an interesting non-sequitur, but a bad idea, i feel, because we'd then have to add a similar bit to the wikis of most other major spiritual Teachers who have thousands of disciples, such as the Dalai Lama, for example.

anyway: sorry - Emptymountains is right (again!); i'll stop with the doctrinal debate now. if you also don't want any more, Yonteng, please stop bringing these silly things up in the first place! Atisha's cook (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

"Most other major spiritual Teachers who have thousands of disciples, such as the Dalai Lama" Yeah Most of those people who call the Dalal Lama theie guru' nowadays have never met him either,your right, the perfect environment for spiritual development-What a sad imitation of the Dharma we have here in the WestYonteng (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that is just what I am talking about. This whole idea that the majority of NKT followers OR the DLs can claim to be experiencing the Dharma in a genuine and authentic fashion sucks-The very hear of Tibetan Mahayana is the guru disciple relationship. Setting aside the fact that many of the DLs disciples are using Buddhism as some sort of therapy, the truth is only a tiny percentage of even the genuine ones can possibly claim to have anything resembling a proper relationship with him. Ditto the NKT. It is therefore incorrect to liken NKT to Dharma to traditional Gelug since central to that was a relationship that no longer exists for the majority-ditto the DL and the vast majority of his followers. Just because it applies to the DL doesnt make it alright. yet another effect of globalization I suppose-Just a thought, ~~though i not you instantly lept to the conclusion that I wasnt including the DL-Cant think why; can you?~~Yonteng (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone get the feeling this talk page has turned into somebody's blog? I note that at the top of this talk page it says, "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." Emptymountains (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

When all else fails, result to ad homs!Stop being sillyYonteng (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

NB It also says 'Be polite' and 'Avoid Personal AttacksYonteng (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Teachers section Cozort quote

Dear Emptymountains, i don't think we should include this quote and certainly not at the beginning of the section. The section has to begin with stating the most important/basic facts: who are the teachers, how are they qualified/selected. I think the Cozort quote would fit into the kind of discussion AC and YT are having above. In the article it feels a bit like a talking point in a debate ("Western vs. Tibetan teachers") that is not even present (and should not imho). In abscence of that debate i don't think there is any imperative need to sort of preemptively justify the NKT's teachers policy with this quote, and, as i said, certainly not in the beginning of the section. Andi 3ö (talk) 15:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Lopez quote

I moved the Lopez quote on the significance of the name new KADAMPA trad to the section on the name Kadampa. EM RVd-no reason given. Pls xpl? Why is it not more relevant here?Yonteng (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

YT, you moved the quote, only saying that it is "More appropriate/relevant here." How so?

It belongs in either one of two sections: Meaning of the word Kadampa ...or... New Kadampa Tradition and Gelugpa Tradition. The first section just explains the word kadampa (i.e., ka-dam-pa), while the second explains the name New Kadampa Tradition. In other words, the first section just focues on the word's etymology, so that discussion of the possible motive behind choosing the name of GKG's organization could be saved for the Separation from Contemporary Tibetan Buddhism section.

In order to be moved to the Meaning of the word Kadampa section, you would have to show how the Lopez quote helps us to understand the meaning of the word kadampa better. Is his quote not more about the meaning of the name New Kadampa Tradition and what statement this makes about the Gelugpa Tradition? Hence, it belongs in the New Kadampa Tradition and Gelugpa Tradition section. Emptymountains (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

For me this is not an easy question. I agree, in the structure as it is right now (following your description of the purpose of the two sections) the Lopez quote fits much better in the "Seperation..." section. Question is, if the structure you created really is the most appropriate. Two weeks ago or so you created "Seperation from..." and moved all of the material concerning the "New" in "New Kadampa Tradition" to that section. You then renamed the Section "The meaning of the name 'New Kadampa Tradition'" to "The meaning of the word "Kadampa". In that way, the more "controversial" material is moved way down in the article, while the "kadampa" section is left at a very prominent place. I guess that is what Yonteng wants to balance with moving the quote. The NKT sees itself as direct successor/countiunuation of the Kadampas. "Critics" don't. Or, put more simply: one view is: "We are Kadampas" the other view is: "No you are not! You are only using their name." Giving the explanation of the word "Kadampa" such a prominent place (and leaving out the "new" part) implicitly conveys the first point of view. Not sure how to proceed, but simply moving the Lopez quote is not a good soulution imho. Andi 3ö (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That's just the thing. Gelugpas are 'New Kadampas' also. The terms are synonymous. I'd like to meet a so-called Gelugpa who would say, "I am not a Kadampa." For example, check out the name of this FPMT Center: [3]. Are they not Kadampas, or are they just using "their name"?

Actually, when you say that one view is "We are Kadampas," and that the other view is: "No you are not! You are only using their name," who is the they in "their name" referring to? Emptymountains (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting point! BTW: Not to be misunderstood: I like the concept of the "Seperation" section very much. Having that section is a very big improvement and i also like the name; probably as "neutral" as we can get. Just not sure if in this particular case the separation of the material is totally appropriate...will have to think about it some more i guess.... Andi 3ö (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The critics quote from the BBC makes no sense. If the NKT is just using "their name," I would like to know: who are the real Kadampas? Was not Je Tsongkhapa a Kadampa? Therefore, why are not his followers allowed to call themselves Kadampas?

P.S. I would also like to meet an NKT practitioner who would say, "I am not a Gelugpa." After all, this is what is taught in Heart Jewel, Joyful Path, and Great Treasury of Merit.

I can only speak from my own experience here. In the (Gelug) Teachings i have heard the word Kadampa refers to those early Tibetan masters following Atisha and his disciple Dromtönpa that are best known for introducing Lamrim and Lojong teachings to Tibet. I am not sure if many (non-NKT) Gelugpas would refer to themselves as "Kadampas". In the teachings i heard, the old Kadampa masters where often refered to as examples of especially purely practicing, kind of "hardcore", "bad-ass", extraordinarily accomplished masters. My feeling (and i repeat, this is only my feeling from my personal experience with some Gelug teachers and teachings) is that many Gelugpas would hesitate calling themselves Kadampas because they wouldn't want to compare themselves to those accomplished masters. Anyway, of course you are right, that Je Tsongkhapa called the tradition "the new Kadam", which is now Gelug. You could therefore argue that both terms are synonymous, but at least i personally can't recall any of my teachers using that term. Also if they are synonymous, wouldn't that make the name of the NKT even more contoversial? Wouldn't it then say: "We are the Gelug school" which of course could be considered slightly presumptuous. On the other hand again, there are some other names that could be considered at least equally presumptuous then, like "Federation for the Preservation of the MAHAYANA Tradition" e.g. ;) Andi 3ö (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

In Liberation in the Palm of Your Hand, Je Phabongkhapa says "My precious guru has said time and time again that this is the supreme distinguishing feature of the teachings of the old Kadampas and of us New Kadamps" (p. 19). And, "Even so, the original Kadampas and we neo-Kadampas..." (p. 71), just to name a couple. And, what about the Kadam Emanation Scripture, through which we have the uncommon Mahamudra, Lama Chopa, and Ganden Lhagyema practices? Emptymountains (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure i agree, Andi. i think the structure Emptymountains has been shaping has given a far greater clarity and more lucid sequence of the introduction of data and concepts to the article than it had previously, though there's more to be done. i don't see it in terms of promoting or hiding any view, controversial or otherwise - it's simply factual and clear, which will help the general reader gain a good understanding of the subject. i'm uncomfortable with the idea of promotion/burying of controversy or of individual POVs: this is why i'm objecting to much of Yonteng's antics. surely the point about the Lopez quote is that it gives siome background to the name "New Kadampa Tradition", so, as you say, it should remain in the 'New Kadampa Tradition and Gelugpa Tradition' para.

as for whether that para. needs to be moved further up the article: well this is where those who have a strong POV concerning "controversy" are going to need to validate their arguments, i think. to my mind, and the mind of Joe Public who holds no view on the Dalai Lama/Dorje Shugden issue, the relationship between the New Kadampa Tradition and the Tibetan Gelugpa Tradition will be of some interest, surely, but not one of the most important or prominent issues. Atisha's cook (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree on the general structure (see above comment, wrote it at the same time you were writing yours :)). Not sure though about the relevance of the relationship to H.H. the Dalai Lama, to "mainstream" Gelugpa or Tibetan Buddhism as a whole. I think it might be quite important to many people interested in (Tibetan) Buddhism. Most peoples's first contact with Buddhism in the west somehow involves H.H. i guess. They either see "Seven years in Tibet" or see him in the news, or at some point read one of his books. He IS the most prominent figure of Buddhism and is often even associated with Buddhism as a whole. Andi 3ö (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

seeing as we're in agreement re. the position of the Lopez quote, i'll move it back. we can continue to discuss the relative positions of the sections, if there's more to say on it? Atisha's cook (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Andi's quote about burying the Lopez further down in the article is relevant-I believe this may be a reason behind the revert. My point is, if we are going to refer to why the NKT choose to call themselves kadampas, we should immediately know why those outside the NKt think that claim is controversial. I believe my position is therefore more appropriate.

As for 'Gelugpas are 'New Kadampas' also. The terms are synonymous. I'd like to meet a so-called Gelugpa who would say, "I am not a Kadampa."' How many Gelugpas do you know who would happily agree to being called followers of the New Kadampa?-not many. The terms are not synonymous in a contemporary context, tho they may have been previously Few would deny being kadampas, many would reject being called 'new' because of present implications PS AGAIN big struggle over tiny critical quote.Why????Yonteng (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The quote was not moved to "bury" it. There was already a discussion in the Separation from Contemporary Tibetan Buddhism section concerning the name New Kadampa. All I did was merge them together.

I find the Lopez and related quotes to be interesting speculation, but there is one vital piece of evidence missing to support their interpretation: GKG's disavowel of the name Gelugpa. In GKG's writings and interviews, the terms Gelugpa and New Kadampa are used synonymously. In short, anyone who is a follower of Je Tsongkhapa's tradition can legitimately call themsevles a "New Kadampa." That's where the word new comes from: it is not GKG's invented terminology. So, anyone who is happily following Je Tsongkhapa's tradition should happily call themselves "New Kadampas," although they might clarify that they are not part of the NKT-IKBU. The NKT-IKBU does not have a monopoly on the name New Kadampa; that name belongs to all Gelugpas. Emptymountains (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

EM The FPMTs Kadampa Centre looks like it was founded before the NKT became the international concern it is today (1992)Yonteng (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

AC-I am not surprised thay you agree that the controversial aspect of the name should be placed so far down the article. Please, cease using tactics like 'Yonteng's antics' to belittle and demean. It is unbecoming generally and in someone who calls themselves a Buddhist particularly. it is also rudeYonteng (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I never used those words. Emptymountains (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Your darned right, you always try to use appropriate language, bless you94.192.139.167 (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

'So, anyone who is happily following Je Tsongkhapa's tradition should happily call themselves "New Kadampas," although they might clarify that they are not part of the NKT-IKBU.' Uh? Yes, Im a New Kadampa, but Im not a follower of the new Kadampa Tradition. Yeah, that sounds sensible (not)As for: 'The NKT-IKBU does not have a monopoly on the name New Kadampa; that name belongs to all Gelugpas.' You miss the point-no Gelugpa would want to use that name because of the contemporary implications. Why, because the name is politically loaded. So someone comes to the article wondering why and gets told..........zilch. If it is appropriate to place the NKTs claim to the name in such a prominent position in the article, it is equally appropriate that Lopez's quote (which voices an opinion held widely outside the NKT) recieve equal prominence. Its dissavowal, BTW94.192.139.167 (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Gets told "zilch"? I think you don't give readers enough credit; I certainly hope people aren't that fickle. Anyway, if in the end the consensus is to move the Lopez quote back up, then everything related to it needs to get moved back up. Keep it all together. Emptymountains (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Is the word Kadampa (without the "New") also politically loaded, in your opinion? Emptymountains (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It didnt used to be. Recently I heard of a lama visiting the US who intended to give an inititation from the Kadam lineage. When the people who were organising the visit asked him what he intended to give and he told them, they asked him if he might consider giving something else as the name 'Kadampa' might give the group a bad name. I believe the word Kadam WAS non controversial. Times change. I would like to nominate Andi to make the decision on this since he is clearly neutral and understands both viewsYonteng (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

How sad that 'Kadampa', a word that symbolizes a pure practitioner who is putting all of Buddha's teachings into practice. could be considered in any way negative. If this isn't an indication of the crazy, degenerate times we live in, I don't know what is --Truthsayer62 (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

i agree. a heartbreaking sign of the times. happily, that's by no means a majority view, just one very wrong view. the explanation of the term in this article can definitely help to clarify such misunderstanding. Atisha's cook (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thats my point. You seem to think this article is about convincing people of the 'right' viewpoint on the NKT issue. Its actually about providing as many of the different facts and leaving people to make up their own mind. That is why I think Lopez should be back up top, Because you seem to think that the 'majority' view is that everything is rosey (classic insider misconception BTW) whereas lots know about NKT only BECAUSE of the controversy so we just need to mention Lopez as an afterthought. Try Googling New K etc both the second and third sites mention controversy (No 2 BBC even uses the 'c' word, and no.3 is newkadampa.com)So, the balanced way to present things is by providing the insider view and the outside view in a manner that reflects the general overall view. To hide Lopez away at the bottom of the article is deceptively hiding a harsh reality (sure its only an opinion but its a reality-samsara is only a subjective vision after all)I again request that we accept neutral Andi's ajudication on this-he has been very reasonable so farYonteng (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The "New Kadampa Tradition and Gelugpa Tradition" section will really seem 'gutted' if we move the Lopez and related explanatory material out of that section: Emptymountains (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

According to the NKT-IKBU, it is Tibetan in its antecedents and follows the teachings of the historic, "Old" Kadampa and the "New Kadam" Tradition of Je Tsongkhapa, the latter of which became the Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism.^[1]
Critics on the other hand characterize the NKT-IKBU as "a breakaway movement and argue that the New Kadampa Tradition, as it is known today, is not part of the ancient Kadampa Tradition but a split from the [contemporary] Gelug school."^[2]
Of the words, "New Kadampa Tradition," James Belither states that the "word 'New' is used not to imply that it is newly created, but is a fresh presentation of Buddhadharma in a form and manner that is appropriate to the needs and conditions of the modern world."^[3] As explained above, Je Tsongkhapa himself, founder of the Gelug school, referred to his monastic order as "the New Kadam"^[4] (Tib. Kadam Sarpa).^[5] The term Gelug came into use only after his death.^[6] In creating a new synthesis of Buddhist doctrine, ethics and practice, Je Tsongkhapa endeavored "to rid Tibetan [Buddhism] of its pre-Buddhist shamanic elements,"^[7] and the NKT-IKBU sees itself as continuing to keep Tsongkhapa's unique form of Buddhism free of non-Buddhist elements.^[8]
According to Lopez, "For Kelsang Gyatso to call his group the New Kadampa Tradition, therefore, is ideologically charged, implying as it does that he and his followers represent the tradition of the founder, Tsong kha pa, more authentically than the Geluk establishment and the Dalai Lama himself."^[9] In short, Waterhouse says that "the early Gelugpa legacy is one which the NKT wishes to emulate" and that the name of the organization itself makes a statement about its "perceived roots within the 'pure' transmission of [Atisha's] Indian Buddhism into Tibet."^[10]
When asked about the relationship between the NKT-IKBU and the Gelug tradition, Geshe Kelsang explained:

“ We are pure Gelugpas. The name Gelugpa doesn't matter, but we believe we are following the pure tradition of Je Tsongkhapa. We are studying and practicing Lama Tsongkhapa's teachings and taking as our example what the ancient Kadampa lamas and geshes did. All the books that I have written are commentaries on Lama Tsongkhapa's teachings. We try our best to follow the example of the ancient Kadampa Tradition and use the name Kadampa to remind people to practice purely.^[11] ”

According to James Belither, former Secretary of the NKT-IKBU:

Geshe Kelsang first introduced the title 'New Kadampa Tradition' to give the centres under his spiritual direction a distinct identity within the wider Buddhist world. Although the Gelugpas were sometimes referred to as new Kadampas, the name New Kadampa Tradition had never been used previously in a formal sense. Nevertheless, by using this title Geshe Kelsang is making it clear that practitioners of this tradition are principally following the teachings and example of Je Tsongkhapa.... Furthermore, by using the title 'Kadampa', Geshe Kelsang encourages his disciples to follow the perfect example of simplicity and purity of practice shown by the Kadampa Geshes.^[12]

I'm thinking one possible solution would be to leave the "New Kadampa Tradition and Gelugpa Tradition" section as it is and instead of moving the Lopez quote (or even more material) adding a sentence in our own words to the name section that briefly references the potentially controversial/ideologically charged nature of the name and points to the section below for more info on that. I think overall it's the right approach to leave the biggest share of the article to the NKT practitioners' own views as is (and should be imho) done with every other article about religuous groups/faiths (had that discussion extensively at the "Buddhism" article). Although controversial aspects/opposing views should of course be mentioned, i don't think it's necessary to always go into the details right on the spot. I think the discussion about the name is indeed best treated in the context of the relationship to other traditions because only in that context it is potentially controversial. I already have an idea of how the sentence to be introduced to the name section could look like, but i will have to think about it thoroughly again. Now i'm a bit tired... btw, thanks Yonteng for your confidence in my ability to be "neutral"! ...not sure if the others share your view though...i can only say i'm trying very hard :) Andi 3ö (talk) 00:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

then, in accord with what Andi says, i will move JUST the Lopez quote up, and, in accord with Ems suggestion, leave much of the other stuff where it is.Andi can then suggest his short insert when he's rested.Yonteng (talk) 07:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not what Andi said at all. Please re-read his first sentence. You just did the exact opposite. Emptymountains (talk) 08:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

in general, i agree with your idea about how to organise this, Andi - though i'm not completely convinced of the "controversial" nature of the term 'Kadampa'! despite Yonteng's misunderstanding, my intention isn't to promote a "right" or "insider" view - it's to reflect an accurate portrayal of the article's subect. so where there *is* a wrong conception about some aspect of the subject, then i think it should be mentioned *provided that its a sufficiently widely-held misconception*. as i said, at this point i'm not convinced that there's sufficient controversy about the name 'Kadampa' to merit the inclusion of a mention here, but that's just my view and if sufficient others feel that it *is* worth a mention, then i accept. Atisha's cook (talk) 08:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

EM Please ask Andi if this move is alright,if you wish to report me for 3RR. feel free to do so, though i am not aware of having acted in that fashion and have pointed out my reason for moving things above-I have not 'reverted' anything.i have simply moved the quote to where I think was suggested.I included the waterhouse because it continues on from Lopez. If Andi disagrees, please allow him to move it where he sees fit after explaining why.So far, I have suggested two quotes aand faced MONTHS of opposition. AC, thank you for agreeing to abide by Andi's view on this. I do too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonteng (talk • contribs) 09:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

?? i didn't say that (though i've nothing against Andi, per se) - i said i'd accept a consensus. Atisha's cook (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You said you were going to follow Andi's judgment. So, why did you move the quote when Andi explicitly said he was not going to move the quote? He said he was going to add a sentence in his own words that directed the reader to the section where the Lopez et al. quotes already were. He said to give him a chance to do this. Emptymountains (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid i may have misread his words. However, I think writing something SHORT which points to the controversial usage of the name might be difficult; the Lopez quote itself seems succinct enough.However, I am happy to wait for his judgement. I would remind you however of the unbelievably lengthy debate over two short passages that are really relevant. This hostility (including the threats of reporting) speaks reams. NKT editors are clearly desperate to hide any criticism of the group and consider such criticism to be a 'minority' view. Surely the DL has many more followers than the NKT/WSS and amongst these many know of the NKT (Look at the most popular Google sites). Therefore, such an assumption is misinformed. Also, i cannot agree with Andi that the people who write the article should be insiders. Look at the banning of Scientology editors from the SC article. Would catholics want to put anything in their page about long term widespread sexual abuse? No, WP should seem academic at least. Academics must be objectiveYonteng (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

While you also moved the explanatory material that came after Lopez, you neglected to move the explanatory material that comes before Lopez. Otherwise, the "therefore" in the Lopez sentence makes no sense.

But, if you do move the other explanatory material, you effectively gut the section you moved everything from, as was shown would happen above in the quotation box with the strikethrough.

P.S. Giving someone an opportunity to follow consensus and thereby undo their 3RR is not hostility. This would have been the second time I merely warned you about having done 3RR, instead of just reporting you for it. Why would I do that if I was simply out to get you? Emptymountains (talk) 13:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry guys...busy irl right now. Will hopefully make it in the late evening. Regarding my opinion that the article should be mainly about NKT practitioners' views doesn't mean that i think the article should be written by them. Idealy those views should be taken from 3rd party sources of course. I just wanted to say that any article about a faith-based group should give preference to the beliefs of the group itself and not what other people think about their beliefs or practices. In the article about Buddhism e.g. biggest prominence should be given to what Buddhists think Buddha did and taught and not to what historians or even people of other faiths think what he actually did or what his teachings meant.

In the case of the NKT of course the weight might be a bit different because it is mainly about an organisation. Here matters of faith are not that important and it's easier to describe things "objectively". On the other hand, the subject we are talking about, the name of the organisation again is quite a subjective matter. It can mean one thing to a group of people and something different to another group. Here i think biggest prominence should be given to what the group itself thinks it means (without of course omitting controversial aspects/interpretations) Andi 3ö (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

YT, your addition of the word "controversial" is unwarrented; it is not implied by the 3RS it is based on. For example, Lopez says it is "ideologically charged"; Waterhouse also does not say it is controversial. Please cite a 3RS saying the name is controversial. Emptymountains (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

OK we'll use Lopez's own phrase. Since it is ideologically charged in relation to the present gelug, I'll just make that point. (Why we dont just wait for Andi, i dont know) BTW, with respect to all this stuff about the New Kadam being the 'real' name of the Gelug, Gelug being a latter application to a tradition originally referred to as New Kadam, where does Belithers quote below fit? 'Although the Gelugpas were sometimes referred to as new Kadampas, the name New Kadampa Tradition had never been used previously in a formal sense.' ????????94.192.139.167 (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

YT, why you just didn't wait for Andi to work on it in the first place, I don't know. I love how you try to turn things that you start around and try to blame others for instead. Emptymountains (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yonteng - read carefully: the distinction Emptymountains is making (correctly, imo) is between "New Kadampa" as a name referring to all Je Tsongkhapa's followers (who later became known in Tibet as Gelugpas), and "New Kadampa Tradition", which is Geshe Kelsang's name for the worldwide (not just Tibetan) organisation he founded, which is New Kadampa/Gelugpa as it is following Je Tsongkhapa's tradition. Belither refers to this organisation's name "New Kadampa Tradition", which had not been used before; "New Kadampas" most certainly had been used for centuries.

Truthbody - what's wrong with the ref. to the New Kadampa Tradition and Gelugpa Tradition section here? Atisha's cook (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

TB, remember that the criterion for inclusion in WP is verifiability, not truth. Oh, well... I still think it's worth pointing out that GKG regards the terms as synonymous, in accordance with his lineage gurus. For example, see the Liberation in the Palm of Your Hand quotes above. Emptymountains (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ive run out of mud to sling!Yonteng (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok...i see you couldn't wait :)

now we have:

(Click here for further discussion about the ideologically charged implications of the name "New Kadampa Tradition," as it relates to the present-day Gelugpa Tradition.)

It's almost what i had in mind. Not sure if i can come up with something better.... I don't really like the way it says "click here" though and i'd also give it a bit more context. Also: According to Lopez it's not the implications that are ideologically charged, it's the name, or even more precise: the choice of the name. But of course we don't have to stick to that wording slavishly...

ok...(two hours and at least five "final" versions later ;))...what about:

The choice of the name "New Kadampa Tradition" to some observers is a statement in itself. They consider it ideologically charged in the context of the NKT-IKBU's separation from present-day Gelugpa mainstream. (See "New Kadampa Tradition and Gelugpa Tradition" section below for further discussion)

What do you think? Andi 3ö (talk) 01:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

sounds clear to me. "They consider" would need a reference, obviously. Atisha's cook (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

To some observers ((Lopez/Waterhouse ref here) the choice of the name "New Kadampa Tradition" is a statement in itself, it being considered ideologically charged in the context of the NKT-IKBU's separation from present-day Gelugpa mainstream. (See "New Kadampa Tradition and Gelugpa Tradition" section below for further discussion)

I think thats slightly better grammaticallyYonteng (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

One of the alternatives i was thinking about was using "dissociation" instead of "separation". Which one fits better in your opinion? Andi 3ö (talk) 10:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

i think Belither shows that NKT-IKBU definitely seeks to "dissociate" itself from Tibetan cultural identity/hierachy, but not sure about "from present-day Gelugpa mainstream", especially in view of Ven. Geshe Kelsang's statement: "We are pure Gelugpas." so we need to specify that it's dissociation from present-day *Tibetan Gelugpa hierachy*, not the Gelugpa tradition per se. i don't think NKT-IKBU representatives would agree that they are separate from or wish to dissociate themselves from Je Tsongkhapa's tradition.

then, i can't see any grammatical problem with Andi's first version of this sentence, Yonteng; it actually reads better than yours (and i'm not just saying this for the sake of disagreeing with you!)

so i suggest:

Some observers (ref. Lopez) see the choice of the name "New Kadampa Tradition" as a statement in itself. They consider it ideologically charged in the context of the NKT-IKBU's dissociation from present-day Tibetan Gelugpa hierachy. (See "New Kadampa Tradition and Gelugpa Tradition" section below for further discussion.)

Atisha's cook (talk) 11:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

My only observation is that the words "ideologically charged" and "statement in itself" come directly from Lopez and Waterhouse, respectively. I thought that the context should be more in our own words. In a sense, we would be referencing them twice for the same thing, thus creating unwanted duplication, and thereby giving them undue weight. How about:

Geshe Kelsang uses the terms New Kadampa and Gelugpa synonymously,(ref. Heart Jewel) in accordance with his lineage gurus.(ref Libeartion in the Palm of Your Hand). However, there is another possible There is an additional ideological signifance to the name New Kadampa Tradition, given the NKT-IKBU's dissociation from present-day Tibetan Gelugpa hierachy. See New Kadampa Tradition and Gelugpa Tradition section below for further discussion.

What do you think? Emptymountains (talk) 11:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, i think we shouldn't hide the "critics'" view behind another another statement about how GKG sees things. The whole section already gives enough weight to NKT views simply by focusing exclusively on the meaning of the word "Kadampa". Therefore the reference we want to insert should stand well visible in its own paragraph. A little bit of duplication isn't all too harmful here i think. Also: the statement as i suggested it only references the fact that the (choice of) name is viewed as ideologically charged by some. It doesn't say why. Therefore the significance of the preceding GKG view u suggest isn't even clear to the reader imho (he doesn't know the context, which is only explained in the linked section). Andi 3ö (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have struck through that portion, although I think the rest should still be in our own words, which I believe was your original intention, too. I also changed the wording a bit. How does it look now? Emptymountains (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

NO. The omission of the term 'ideologically charged' is IMO, an attempt to hide the fact that the choice of name is controversial. Andi is bang on pointing out the reasons why we shoudnlt use the KG quote-This is not a soap box 'Critics say, but KG says' This is not a place for the NKT to answer its critics. Putting the statement beforehand is just as soapboxy.

i suggest:

Some observers see the choice of the name "New Kadampa Tradition" as an ideologically charged statement in light of the NKT-IKBU's self-conscious disassociation from present-day Tibetan Gelug hierachy. (See "New Kadampa Tradition and Gelugpa Tradition" section below for further discussion.)

I'm pretty sure ive seen the 'self-conscious disassociation' ref in Kay??94.192.139.167 (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, Kay's statement is highly relevant and should be included in the NKT v gelug section. It reads:

David N. Kay comments: "In defining the movement in this way, the organisation is not simply maintaining that it represents Buddhism adapted for westerners; it is also striving to underline its separation from the Tibetan Gelug sect and emphasise the point that the West - via the NKT - is now the guardian and custodian of the pure tradition of Tsongkhapa in the modern world. From an NKT viewpoint, Geshe Kelsang has played a unique role in the transmission of Tsongkhapa's pure teachings, and the organisation and study structures he has created in the West are now believed to protect and preserve a tradition that is all but lost in its indigenous Eastern context." This IMO would look better under the name Kadampa but, it should definitely be in there since it quite clearly expresses Lopez's underlying thought when he employs the temr ideologically charged-I see Kt ^^ used it before but it was edited out. Why?94.192.139.167 (talk) 13:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC) remember that the criterion for inclusion in WP is verifiability, not truth13:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.139.167 (talk) SIGN YOUR POSTS, PLEASE, YONTENG

that's a valid point re. repetition: stating AND referencing would be redundant here - one or the other suffices. so my vote now is for Emptymountains' suggestion, with appropriate ref.s:

There is an additional ideological signifance to the name New Kadampa Tradition, given the NKT-IKBU's dissociation from present-day Tibetan Gelugpa hierachy. See New Kadampa Tradition and Gelugpa Tradition section below for further discussion.

Atisha's cook (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

this wording more accurately reflects all views, in fact, as both Lopez (et al.) *and* NKT-IKBU see ideological significance in this choice of name, which is explained further in the referenced section, and this is not an idea (that there is ideological significance) exclusively held by those critical of NKT-IKBU. it oughtn't, then, to be portrayed as a necessarily "critical" view (though the critical interpretation should be, and is, referenced in the "...and Gelugpa Tradition" section). Atisha's cook (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

(I was writing this in response to EM's last suggestion (after striking out the first part). Some of it (the disaccociation part) may be obsolete after reading AC's latest statements)

Looks good to me :) You're right about my original intention. The reasoning behind my use of the language of the quotes was that the statement could be more easiliy justified/defended in (future) discussions of the passage. I think for that purpose it would nevertheless be useful to add Lopez and Waterhouse as references (footnotes), and possibly Belither.

There are two things left that i'm not fully sure about:

One is the word "disassociation". I'm not that firm in the use of the englisch language maybe, that's why i was seeking your opinion. I was looking for a word that is very neutral and passive in the sense that i only wanted to state the fact that the two (Gelugpa Traddition/mainstream/school/hierarchy - that's my second question btw - and NKT-IKBU) are somehow seperate. I didn't want to say who (actively) disassociated/seperated from whom but give more of a neutral/passive description of the status quo.
Second is "hierarchy". Not sure if that's all that distinguishes the NKT-IKBU from contemporary Tibetan Buddhism and especially the Gelugpa Tradition. Apparently it's a lot more: Only (but certainly most important from a Buddhist perspective) thing that seems to be pretty much the same is Gelugpa doctrine, the teachings and practices themselves (with the exception of Dorje Shugden worship): all teachers self-trained, no other Gelugpa "guest" teachers, own ordination vows, own set of books etc... I intentionally chose the word "mainstream" other than "Tradition" or "School" specifically because it does imply that NKT practitioners consider themselves (and rightfully so imho) Gelugpas as well. "Hierarchy" on the other hand seems to represent a bit too narrow an aspect of the separation. Andi 3ö (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Reading Yonteng's statement and recommendation above regarding the wording "ideologically charged" i now again am not sure which version we should use. Guess i woud be fine with both... Andi 3ö (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

your English is better than my Deutsch! while this is arguable, "dissociation" or "disassocation" probably has a more neutral tone than "separation" (which has negative connotations of divorce, etc.). however, both parties would *wish* to disassociate themselves from the other, i think - it's mutual. "separation" does beg the question "who did the separating?" - which opens up another debate and is therefore best avoided, imho!

"hierachy" refers to institutions such as the Ganden Tripa, the Three Seats, the Dalai Lama, etc. - it refers to the organisations and institutions, rather than the tradition or philosophy. given that NKT-IKBU claims to be following Je Tsongkhapa's tradition, i think that "hierachy" is the more neutral and mutually acceptable term.

English lesson over! Atisha's cook (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

actually, "present-day Tibetan Gelugpa institutions" would work, also. Atisha's cook (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

AC completely overlooks my point about the omission of the ideologically charged phrase-why?. If were going to point to such a comment, the pointer must not try to hide the perspective after all. Andi 'Disassociation' is used in Kay so its verifiable but 'separation' can be passive rather than intentional so could be used. I think the word hierarchy is a bit loaded too, you know 'First theres the D L, then his cronies, then everyone else' Its a subtle condemnation of that system form a Western 'liberal/democratic' perspective (even though it was how the Gelug was founded and run for 500 years.) 'Establishment' would be better if you want to avoid the things you point to. I am putting the Kay quote in the Gelug section since it is verifiable and relevant94.192.139.167 (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC) So, I suggest

"Some observers see the choice of the name "New Kadampa Tradition" as an ideologically charged statement, in light of the NKT-IKBU's separation from the present-day Tibetan Gelug establishment."See New Kadampa Tradition and Gelugpa Tradition

94.192.139.167 (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

"Tibetan Gelug establishment" is also ok, afaics. i dislike the use of "ideologically charged statement" here, though, as it implies that all these observers have a critical view, which is inaccurate (Belither, arguably Waterhouse, etc.)

a more neutral wording would be better, such as:

The ideological significance of the name 'New Kadampa Tradition', given the NKT-IKBU's dissociation from the present-day Tibetan Gelugpa establishment, is discussed below (ref. to New Kadampa Tradition and Gelugpa Tradition section).

Atisha's cook (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

this is also better, imo, because it separates discussion of the meaning of the word "Kadampa" (which is this section's subject) from discussion of the relationship between Tibetan and NKT-IKBU Gelug traditions, which takes place under its own heading. Atisha's cook (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The above two sound very similar to:

There is an additional ideological signifance to the name New Kadampa Tradition, given the NKT-IKBU's dissociation from present-day Tibetan Gelugpa hierachy. See New Kadampa Tradition and Gelugpa Tradition section below for further discussion.

Mine seems more "readable." Emptymountains (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:-) ok by me! Atisha's cook (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The choice of the name "New Kadampa Tradition" to some observers is a statement in itself. They consider it ideologically charged in the context of the NKT-IKBU's separation from present-day Gelugpa mainstream. (See "New Kadampa Tradition and Gelugpa Tradition" section below for further discussion)

and mine is mine ;) maybe we should roll some dice... or does anybody know an oracle ;) Andi 3ö (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

just kidding...but i have to admit i'm a bit exhausted by the debate. Andi 3ö (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The two questions remaining are "ideologically charged vs. "ideological significance" and "dissociation" vs. "separation"; we can agree on "establishment", right? Andi 3ö (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but not on my watch-the decision to dispense with 'ideologically charged'makes it look very much like the referred to section is a non-controversial appendage, an extension of the party line. From within the NKT, the use of the name may not seem contro, but for Buddhists ouside, it is. We have to have insider and oustsider buddhist views here so it needs the usage of that phrase to indicate that all do not agree that the NKTs use of the name (Kay, Lopez Waterhouse)is not a political statement. AC and EM agreeing is hardly anything new, nor surprising. AC-'i dislike the use of "ideologically charged statement" here, though, as it implies that all these observers have a critical view, which is inaccurate (Belither, arguably Waterhouse, etc.)'This is not correct. The link is to point to why the name choice is ideologically charged, Kay, Lopez and W'house all agree on that. Of course Jimbo doesnt aggree it is contro, we know what he does for a living.Nevertheless, his statements about the meaning ALSO demonstrate the way in which it is ideologically charged94.192.139.167 (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)17:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)PS Andiof course you are exhausted,according to numerous previous editors that is the tactic employed here; every issue is drawn out until the opponent fades-i could list 5 editors who have left the NKT eds to their own devices on this article because of it They fight and fight until all critical material is edited out-read KT66 above, see Chris Fynn's comments on Rhudis page-its an old story Im not lying down94.192.139.167 (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

oh for goodness' sake, Yonteng... Atisha's cook (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah well... i can understand you're frustration to a certain extent but regarding the legthiness of the debate i can assure you that i have had similar ones sometimes spreading over even a couple of weeks on a lot less controversial subjects. Andi 3ö (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the term "ideologically charged," except that it should be in quotes and credit should be given to Lopez. Same with "statement in itself." However, I still think it's better when we put things in our own words, especially when we use those direct quotes elsewhere. Emptymountains (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

On the issue of the "ideologically charged" phrase i tend to agree with you, Yonteng. Atisha's Cook, you actually agreed to that wording earlier and suggested this version yourself, so it can't be that bad, can it?:

Some observers (ref. Lopez) see the choice of the name "New Kadampa Tradition" as a statement in itself. They consider it ideologically charged in the context of the NKT-IKBU's dissociation from present-day Tibetan Gelugpa hierachy. (See "New Kadampa Tradition and Gelugpa Tradition" section below for further discussion.)

"Ideologically charged" to me doesn't even sound that "controversial". It mainly points out that the name has been purposefully chosen to make a statement, which apparently is the case (at least according to some observers). It is well sourced and in abscence of a better "own" wording i don't really see any convincing reason not to use it. If we agree on staying with the "ideologically charged", can you, Yonteng then agree on "dissociation" instead of "separation"? My suggestion then would be the following:

Some observers (ref. Lopez, Waterhouse) see the choice of the name "New Kadampa Tradition" as a statement in itself. They consider it ideologically charged, given the NKT-IKBU's dissociation from present-day Tibetan Gelugpa establishment.(ref. Belither) See New Kadampa Tradition and Gelugpa Tradition section below for further discussion.

Yonteng's shorter version of the first half is also an alternative, but sounds a bit harder to me: "Some observers see the choice of the name "New Kadampa Tradition" as an ideologically charged statement" Andi 3ö (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

OK I like (and want)

Some observers (ref. Lopez, Waterhouse) see the choice of the name 'New Kadampa Tradition' as an "ideologically charged" statement, given the NKT-IKBU's disassociation from present-day Tibetan Gelugpa establishment.(ref. Belither) See New Kadampa Tradition and Gelugpa Tradition for further discussion.

Yonteng (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have adjusted the above to accomodate Andis suggestion. I am pretty sure he is therefore in favour of it. I am in favour. Please, AC and EM, can you submit a response so we can move on? 24 hours should be enough.20:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.139.167 (talk)

The "Kadampa Tradition and Gelugpa Tradition" section does not just present outside observers' interpretations of the name. Jim Belither and GKG are also quoted. Therefore, the section cannot be summarized using the words "idelogically charged." I thought that "ideological significance" was more balanced, because it does not favor any one interpretation. Emptymountains (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, i understand, and you're perfectly right with everything you say. The reason why i tend to think it is necessary anyway to use the less neutral language here is that the passage not only has to be seen as reference to and summary of the "Kadampa Tradition and Gelugpa Tradition" section but also in the context of the "Kadampa" section it actually stands in. To leave this section without any reference to the potentially charged nature of the name (of which "Kadampa" clearly is the most important part, as in "Kadampa Buddhism") would leave the reader with the false impression that for the NKT to pick the word/name "Kadampa" for their organization/tradition is without any potential for controversy, which it apparently is not. Remember, it is already kind of a "compromise" (which i am in favor of as you know) to split the discussion of the name in two parts, of which the more controversial is way down in the article). To totally strip the very prominent first section of any reference to controversial aspects of the name would take the idea a bit too far i think. I'm a bit torn on this whole NKT/dorje shugden etc.. issue as i said earlier. I don't want to engage in devisive speach of any kind and i would never want to discourage anyone to get engaged with the Buddhadharma with the help of the NKT-IKBU. I do think though, that it's always best for people to know what to expect. Same goes for those already practicing with the organisation: I am deeply convinced that they can best work for the benefit of all beings when they know and take into account what others think of their organisation as well. So, returning to the current issue: You know that the name is (at least potentially and in the context of the relationship to other Gelugpas) controversial, i know it, Atisha's Cook knows it, Yonteng obviously does and some "reliable sources" do as well. I think then it's only fair for the reader of the article to get a fair chance to know it, too. And lastly, as i said before, i don't think "ideologically charged" is really that negative of an expression, or is it? Andi 3ö (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

EM-you state above 'I'm not opposed to the term "ideologically charged,"' If we dont hve consesnsus now, when?

There's that black-or-white thinking again. In order to not be opposed to something, I have to agree with it 100%? Did I not say that I'm not opposed to the words "ideologically charged" as long as we did not plagiarize them? Emptymountains (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Andi,I think your statement about how important it is for people to have the whole story hits the nail right on the head.Anyone who decides to enter dharma through the NKT has a basic right to know everything, from both the inside and the outside. Anyone who tries to restrict that right needs to ask themselves why. If the NKT are clean and the old addage that truth will prevail is right, they have nothing to worry about.94.192.139.167 (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC) And who moved the banners??RVd 94.192.139.167 (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope we are be able to agree on the wording now. BTW, i just read EM's and YT's last suggestions to my girfriend respectively, because she asked me what i was doing all day :) Her first reaction was that she thought, YT's version was more cautious/neutral because it started with "some observers". I then had to point her to the difference between "ideological significance" and "ideologically charged"...hehe...just a nice little side note...maybe we're overdoing it sometimes :D

To finish this discussion sometime soon... I hope we can settle on "ideologically charged" and, if you all agree i would like to leave the last word to AC and EM: Which version do you prefer? YT's shorter "ideologically charged statement" version or the preceding, longer version with "statement in itself" and "ideologically charged" in two different sentences (with quotation marks as well, of course)? Andi 3ö (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW has anyone found a reference OTHER than Lopez which states that the term NK only came into use after TKPs death? I cant find one (except where pepole appear to have read Lopez)09:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.139.167 (talk)

sorry - only just got back in. i can see that Yonteng's suggestion is kinda close to what i was proposing earlier, but i have to agree with Emptymountains' preference for "ideological significance": it *is* seen as significant by all the referenced observers, but it's *not* seen as negatively so by all, only by Lopez & Kay. i *don't* agree that the potential controversy needs to be discussed *here* - it's fine, imo, for this to be discussed under the later section, where the significance (positive and negative) of the choice of name is discussed. in *this* section, however, it's redundant: this section is *only* about the meaning of the word "Kadampa" - the significance of the choice of this word for the organisation's name comes later, and therefore should be referenced here, but without comment. for that reason, i still prefer (and i'm really sorry for dragging this discussion out longer!):

The ideological significance of the choice of the name 'New Kadampa Tradition', in the context of the NKT-IKBU's dissociation from the present-day Tibetan Gelugpa establishment, is discussed below (ref. to New Kadampa Tradition and Gelugpa Tradition section).

i honestly think that this is more straightforward and neutral than the other suggestions, and that it does the job here. Atisha's cook (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You're doing this in order to give us an opportunity to practice patience, just like the historic Atishas's Cook, right? You're quite good at that...quite good and thank you very much...very wholesome activity! But honestly i do think there comes the time when we will have to move forward. I see two alternatives: either we settle on one of the two versions, long or short, both containing "ideologically charged" or we will simply have to reunite the name section at the top of the article. Andi 3ö (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

sorry! i'm really not trying to be a pain, and i appreciate that there's discussion now. but i disagree that "ideologically charged" is the only way to progress here, for the reasons stated above. Atisha's cook (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry AC, but Em, Andi and myself have all stated that we find the phrase acceptable; even Andi's girlfriend, who is now getting quite fed up with all this, said she didnt think the phrase was that contentious. So, of 5, you are 1.I really think its time to move on.We need to insert the damned thing and start addressing other issues so we can get the banner down (the one that mysteriously disappeared recently)94.192.139.167 (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)YONTENG

i won't block it if i'm the only one who disagrees. no-one has the right to unilaterally dictate what's included, against general consensus. Atisha's cook (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

actually, i just looked again at the present wording: what's wrong with it? does it *need* changing? Atisha's cook (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

hi guys - ok, at the risk of starting all this off again... i've been thinking about this, and i really can't see how this phrase "ideologically charged" is helpful *here* and therefore i'm going to remove it. here's why: this section, 'Meaning of the word Kadampa', appearing right at the beginninng of the article, serves to introduce and explain the term 'Kadampa' for the layman (or woman) who knows little or nothing about the subject (that's why they're here - to find out about the subject). one of their first questions will be "what does "Kadampa" mean?", and so we provide him/her with an answer, here.

now - that the choice of this term for the organisation may have implications beyond the obvious, with various opinions about its suitability, *is* a relevant datum for the article, but its not among the very first thngs that the newcomer will want (or need) to find out about. i agree with Andi (and even with Yonteng!) that he/she ought to be informed about the different views on the choice of this name for this tradition. in that these views are all based on different perceptions of NKT-IKBU's relationship to the Tibetan Gelugpa Tradition and its modern institutions, this discussion should be - and is - explained under that section (and, indeed, Lopez' full quote is given here, including the phrase "ideologically charged"). for the newcomer, however, the finer points of such a discussion may be somewhat arcane - imo, they *are* important, and warrant a mention, but they're *not* critical or more important than, say, the current spiritual activities, or the governing rules of the organisation. therefore, i feel that it's appropriate in this section ('Meaning...') to point to the discussion below, but *without* comment. "ideologically charged", however, carries a definite connotation - it's a charged phrase!

i'm now going to replace it with the more neutral, but still entirely accurate, "ideological significance". "the ideological significance... is discussed below" introduces and refers to the discussion (indicating that there *is* a discussion) but makes no comment, explicit or implicit, about the differing views. Atisha's cook (talk) 08:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

having reread my new wording, i realise that it sounds a little redundant, in that the "significance" is described in this section already. therefore i've changed it to "implications" as i think that this better introduces the discussion referred to: it implies that there *are* implications(!), which is what are discussed below. Atisha's cook (talk) 09:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi all :)) back again, at least occasionally... In order for this discussion not to being totally wasted i have made this out of EMs and ACs versions: this is not to say that i am satisfied with it, and i guess YT is neither, but for the time being it's at least better than what is there now.

There is an additional ideological signifance to the choice of the name 'New Kadampa Tradition', given the NKT-IKBU's dissociation from present-day Tibetan Gelugpa establishment. See New Kadampa Tradition and Gelugpa Tradition section below for further discussion.

Andi 3ö (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Kadampa Tradition and Gelugpa Tradition

Is it just me, or does the order of this section seem more "jumbled" now after YT's changes? I thought Andi's version had a more logical flow. Emptymountains (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I know what you mean but, i think its because the last bit after waterhouse is superfluous. it doesnt rewally say anything more than what has already been said. In short, its too long (!) and I think it would flow better if we lopped the Kg?blitherer stuff off the end. This is a problem with WP, patchwork editing. because so many contribute and chop and change, the flow is interrupted. i think the first bit (pro NKT, which I supplemented with subsequent material) leads into the Ideologically charged bit and it should end there.(like the intro-block of pro then reference to oppoising views) Others thoughts perleeasse12:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)12:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.139.167 (talk) YONTENG

The structure is now:

Summary of NKT view ("According to NKT-IKBU...")
Summary of critics' view ("Critics on the other hand...")
Historic perspective of how New Kadampa / Gelugpa came about (Cozort, Lopez, Chryssides)
Critics' view (Lopez, Waterhouse, Kay)
NKT's view (GKG)

I can understand lopping off superfluous Belither quotes, but if you remove GKG, there is no NKT view at all. Emptymountains (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

That quote from Jim Belither is hardly superfluous! It is an important element of what the NKT has always said about itself and the article will lose something if it is taken out. Please leave it in. (Truthbody (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

If the Belither quote is superfluous, so is Kay. Emptymountains (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

So,without omitting anything, rearrange running order, post it here and we'll take it from there PS I harldy think Kay is superfluous, if anything Waterhouse is overstating94.192.139.167 (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)YONTENG

Uh what happened to discussion? Banner gone, Kay quote gone, ideoligically significant inserted. I though we were discussing? True colours coming out or depressed or something. So, reasonableness didnt work after all-if you want an edit war, i'm gameYonteng (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I cannot believe the complete hijacking that went on today in just a few hours, after we discussed, developed consensus, tried being reasonable. So rude, so typical. keep it up and i will file for deletionYonteng (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It is Lopez who uses the term ideologically charged EMYonteng (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

What is this comment to me about? Emptymountains (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Re. the banners: there is no need to have it in here and there have never been suitable reasons given for it. If you like, Yonteng, feel free to ask a moderator to include the banner if they find the article needs it. Otherwise it is your word against mine -- I believe it is unnecessary, and you want it in there, so who gets to choose? (Truthbody (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC))

253 unknown reverter

253, the content of the page before your revert, for which you gave no reason, is the result of lengthy discussion between NKT members, Atishas Cook,Empty Mountains, Truthbody, truthsayer62, and 'outsiders' with some Buddhist knowledge Andi and myself. You do not identify yourself on your talk page, though your edit history shows a list of SPA edits eradicating critical views of the NKT 9and 1 DS issue); it is therefore clear where your sympathies lie. However, unlike other NKT editors, you bulldoze your way through work that has taken NKT eds and Andi and myself months to produce (months BTW to insert only 3 passages identifying the NKT as 'controversial') Your recent edit eradicated all 3 phrases. Should you continue to edit in this fashion, it is you whose handiwork and vandalism will become the attention of admins, despite yourt threat to the contrary. In short, if you are not prepared to be reasonable and put the hours in, dont involve yourself with the article. NB Please feel free to report me under 1RR, though you should be aware that admin WMConnolly is already watching me and he will certainly be rading this before he takes any actionYonteng (talk) 11:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

== NPOV ==banners problem again

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Please, could all concerned read these guidelines since there appears to be considerable confusion in relation to them in the content of this article.

In particular,there it says:

It is important to remember that the NPOV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is an ongoing dispute about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not. In any NPOV dispute, there will be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some people who disagree. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved.

and:

Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed.

Please bear the content above in mind before attempting to remove the bannerYonteng (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, you are the only one who feels the banner should be there and of course are the one who put it there in the first place. If anyone disagrees with you, you then quote the above at them! But you have not given one single reason based on the text of the article as to why that banner should be there. You have reverted umpteen editors' accounts to remove it and resisted any attempt to give reasons for putting it up there. When will there ever be "consensus" if yours is the carrying vote? And if the "NPOV disputes" are never listed to begin with? You will never consent to have the banner removed until the article is exactly the way you want it, in accordance with your own POV (which, as has now been noted on many occasions for varying reasons, is a biased POV). And when and if the article is just the way you want it, others will have to put the banner up because the article will clearly no longer be neutral then. So, how are we ever to get rid of this banner?! (Truthbody (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC))

You will find numerous comments about the need for the banner if you check the history. Please read the guidelines on NPOV and ad homs before you comment furtherYonteng (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I have read the talk page and guidelines and there is nothing about the text in the article and how it warrants a POV banner. (Truthbody (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC))

nope - just your one-man crusade. one complaining voice does not a controversy make. and, as you know, canvassing for support is meatpuppeting and banned by WP, so you can't do it, in case you're tempted. Atisha's cook (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, hi there AC! Well congrats on reading all egiht pages of edit history in 5 mins TB. i suggest you simply look to who first posted the comments from the POV page above (ie not me!) before you consider this a one man war! You know, the bit that says: 'Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed.'i rest my case.Yonteng (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

And I quote".......The POV banner on the other hand seems to be fully justifiable here. The neutrality of this article surely IS DISPUTED like the banner says, no doubt about that.

hmm...unless these points (and maybe some others i haven't yet discovered) are quickly fixed i have to admit i feel strongly inclined to put up the POV banner up myself again. Andi 3ö (talk) 18:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)" Yonteng (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

BLP violations

Yonteng - i just reported you under WP:BLP. congratulations: i've never been so disgusted that i've felt it necessary to grass someone up before today. Atisha's cook (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you and your NKT cronies have reported me repeatedly (TB is up to a similar chess game at the moment). I am happy to continue my work and recommend any mod/admin to read throgh the above before making any decisions-even if I have to resign, i will make it clear that Im yet another editor who has been bullied off this page by the NKTs dedicated WP team (Blocks, allegations of sock puppetry, you know all the stuff you try to inflict on me for speaking up, are al visible in your edit histories. BTW who remved the banner....again!! Read Andis comment re banners, NPOV page, my commentsYonteng (talk) 08:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you have only been reported for your comments about Jim Belither, whom I'm guessing you are trying to discredit because someone clarified in the article that he was the NKT secretary for 20 years, which is why he is cited multiple times in Bluck, Cozort, and Kay, to mention a few. Emptymountains (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed repeated BLP violations; these statements are not "relevant" to WP if not reported in any 3RS. What it would mean "if this were the case" hardly merits further discussion. Emptymountains (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You also removed the comments concerning the abuse of power of other senior NKT figures, information in the public domain, which demonstrates tha there is a developing history of abus of poition amongst KGs chosen successors and a context fro my comments. That this information contextualised my comments and you have removed it is deceptive and underhand and, once again, I would ask admins to read the comments, now hidden in the edit history or read the newspaper reports concerning Neil Elliotts disrobing for vow breakages ( http://tibet.ca/en/newsroom/wtn/archive/old?y=1996&m=8&p=18_1 )and Kgs letter to Steve Wass at NKTworld on the Lucy page (http://www.nktworld.org/Lucy.html). These show the context Your removal of these is a disingenuous and deliberate attempt to have me banned under BLP, the real reason being i am speaking of uncomfortable facts that the NKT and its dedicated team of WP editors are desperate to play down. Yourself and truthbody are now working well together to hide the truth but WP admins are not so easily duped. You cannot fool all of the people all of the timeYonteng (talk) 07:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear yonteng, I have been keeping away from editing this article, believing that it would be better for a smaller number of NKT and non-NKT editors to come to a consensus, but I have been following the edits with interest. Now I feel bound to say something: I find your recent behaviour of slandering Jim Belither completely repulsive and counter productive to harmony and consensus. There's no need for such aggressive and ugly slander. It's a wikipedia rule that BLP violations should be removed, so what Emptymountains did was correct. I think it's a shame because before you 'went off the rails' it did seem like some progress was being made. However, your recent actions are uncompassionate and un-Buddhist and your aggression indicates that you are unsuitable to edit this article, in my humble opinion. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 07:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Dearest TS-Pure Ad hom-another NKT ed joins in in th war to get me banned for writing valid material that contradicts the party line(Please dont mention JB by name it is inappropriate: X will do.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonteng (talk • contribs) 12:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

edit war over banner

Again we have a revert of the banners by TB. You are aware of the guidelines. This time you claim that, because the other ed who commented on the need for the banners made his coments less than a moth ago and 'there have been many changes since then', the banner is no longer necessary. Firstly, I think we ought to let Andi, the editor in question, decide. Secondly, in an article which repeatedly demonstrates violations of NPOV and COI, the insertion of 2 or 3 comments hardly redresses the imbalance. Again, please read the guidlelines on NPOV, particularly 'Bias

Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence'

The article as it stands is highly biased in favour of the NKT, despite there being considerable criticism of the group in the Buddhist and Anti Cult worlds. The imbalnce should be redressed fully before the banners are removedYonteng (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC) See also

Article structure

"Sometimes the internal structure of an article may require additional attention to protect neutrality and avoid problems like POV forks and undue weight. Although specific article structures are not as a rule prohibited, in some cases the article structure itself may need attention. Care must be taken to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral.

"Segregation" of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents".[6] It may also create a hierarchy of fact: details in the main passage are "true" and "undisputed", whereas other material is "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may be inappropriate.

Be alert to arrangements of formatting, headers, footnotes, or other elements that may unduly favor a particular "side" of an issue, and to structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a neutral reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints."

Ring any bells?Yonteng (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

As you know, I disagree with you. This article is not biased in favor of the NKT. Just because you think it is doesn't make it so -- you have shown very clearly how strong your own personal POV is in almost every comment on the talk page and attack on editors and NKT students. This does not make you a fair judge and jury of this article or the NKT. More editors have also spoken out in favor of removing the banners you unilaterally posted on this article -- you are the only person who is vociferous in keeping them, and Andi made his comment weeks ago and since has worked closely with EM and others to make the changes he wants. You have not indicated any words in the article itself that reveal it to be not neutral. (Truthbody (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

'More editors have also spoken out in favor of removing the banners you unilaterally posted on this article' You mean 'more NKT editors'. Unilaterally means 'one side' Andi said the banners should stay-thats ' multilateral'. Have the guts to wait for him to return and see if he still feels they are appropriate. Stop trying to railroad your views through the article. I also suggest you go through the archives and see the numerous occasions where the banners issue has been raised (and NKT editors have fought tooth and nail to claim the article is not 'biased' and doesnt need the banners-its one of the central topics of the page repeatedly.In the meantime, i will look at the BLP,could you please read the NPOV and COI guidlines. Yonteng (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent addition to Intro

I suggest always discussing changes to the Intro beforehand. I have removed your addition, Truthbody: "Reacting to the charge that the NKT is a 'controversial organization,' Robert Bluck said, "Again a balanced approach is needed here: the practitioner's confident belief may appear as dogmatism to an unsympathetic observer."[6] I don't really see it's value here. Maybe you could explain. Seems like a generic statement in response to a criticism (dogmatism) that was not even stated. Being cotroversial imho is not a "charge", it is a description. It only says that there is a significant number of critics/criticisms. It does not say anything about whether or not those critics/criticisms are correct. Andi 3ö (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

YT, the notion that the NKT-IKBU is a "cult" is a minority opinion (i.e., not the opinion of Bluck, Cozort, Kay, Lopez, or Waterhouse) and so should not be given "undue weight" in the intro. Although Bunting quotes a "Buddhist teacher" who calls the NKT a 'cult', this is not her opinion either. Thanks! Emptymountains (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, Andi. (Truthbody (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC))

You list academics, amongst whom in general, the word cult is not used-your statement is akin to saying the Chinese do not use the english term cult for the NKT-since the word is not part of their vocabulary, they obviously would not do so. The use of the term in relation to the NKT by Anti cult groups such as Rick Ross Institute however, is widespread. In the guardian, the UK CULT Information centre expressed concerns about the organsation, and the word appears frequently in relation to them across the web (Google lists between 3 and 8000 references depending on search terms, though a number are the NKTs own pages arguing against the term) There were also a number questions in the English Parliament about the NKT which alleged 'cultish behaviour' Bunting at http://www.gospel-culture.org.uk/bunting.htm writes of her NKT 'investigation into a campaign by a British Buddhist cult'; your suggestion that the term was used by her only in quoting another is wrong, thoug the buddhist teacher in question DID use the term. The BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/northyorkshire/faith/buddhism/index.shtml describes the NKT as being sometimes seen as a 'breakaway cult'and there is considerable debate over the applicability of the term at Beliefnet (http://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/43851/13315609/New_Kadampa_Tradition) Thus, the debate over whether or not the NKT is a cult is a significant one which is widespread in the public domain. It is hardly a 'minority view' as you suggest, and, as I explained, that view is expressed on the basis of a faulty reasoning. The allegation that the NKT is a cult is something the NKT argues against at length on NK Truth, where it is the FIRST allegation addressed, as well as on the related blog-5 ful pages!) That even the NKT itself devotes so much attention to discrediting the usage of the word in relation to it is clear evidence that the issue is a significant one and a major problem for the NKT-hence the desire for it not to appear in the intro and hence the reason why it should15:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.139.167 (talk)

The lead section should summarize what's in the article. There is no section (yet) on whether the NKT-IKBU is a cult, so how can this help to summarize what is in the article? As Andi suggested way above, you need to work "from the bottom up." Also, please try to reach a consensus here before changing the intro. Emptymountains (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Lead Section states:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies.' That the NKT is a cult is one of the most noteable controversies surrounding the group. I am happy to leave it as it stands OR we can have a full section explaining the cult issue if you like —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.139.167 (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Yonteng, the use of the word "cult" in relation to the NKT began with the Dalai Lama and Robert Thurman using it in relation to Dorje Shugden practitioners and this was later transferred to the NKT specifically by Tenzin Peljor and followers of the Dalai Lama (falsely, I may add). There is no academic, third party reliable view that the NKT is a cult and so such a position should not be included in a neutral encyclopedia article. Quite apart from that, the NKT is a tradition that follows the teachings of Atisha and Je Tsongkhapa so it is not a cult because its substance is pure, Buddhist teachings. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Not all 3PS are academic-the Guardian, the BBC, the CIC to name but a few. Your assertion that it was the DL who coined the phrase in relation to the NKT is baseless, the Guardian employed the term in relation to the NKT long before-I am not sure the DL has even used the term until very recently though the NKTs overt hatred of him (and Uma Thurmans dad) may make that a difficult thing to see; perhaps you could cite an example of where he said this? (with dates) Also, please bear in mind, the 'cult of DS' and the NKT as a 'cult' are two completely distinct phenomena and your attempt to construe the two is somewhat uninformed. The 'cult of DS'(as in group of devoted worshippers) has existed since the late 1700s and its existence is well documented. The use of the 'cult' term in the contemporary critical sense as it is applied to the NKT denotes an entirely distinct phenomena. Your statement re the NKt following the pure teachings of Atisha and TKP is pure NKT advertising talk and highly subjective, Moreover, I am certain that neither TKP or Atisha practiced DS (since both died hundreds of years before the inception of the practice) so that assertion is clearly false.94.192.139.167 (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yonteng, I'm not getting in a long, drawn out and pointless discussion about the cult appelation because that's not the function of this page and its been done to death on numerous blogs; suffice to say I have researched this and what I say is true. If you have reliable, third party evidence that NKT is a cult then you should post it on this page but you won't find any. The Guardian did not employ the term - it was a quote from an unnamed 'Buddhist Teacher' (it's easy to make such claims when you are anonymous, eh?) and the BBC changed its website information at the behest of a certain Tenzin Peljor whose agenda is very clear indeed, so both of these sources aren't as reliable as you'd like them to be. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yonteng - keep it up, son. you're doing a far better job of discrediting yourself than other editors could possibly do.

re. the use of "cult" by BBC, here are the facts: another strongly-opinionated, anti-NKT editor, Kt66, almost single-handedly wrote an extremely biased and ill-sourced version of this article over the course of several months a few years ago; nobody at that time made much effort to correct the misinformation he posted here as fact. the BBC then separately posted a perfectly reasonable and well-sourced article on its Faiths web pages about the NKT-IKBU, which Kt66 saw and took exception to. he wrote several letters to the BBC in which he argued that NKT was a cult, and he cited WP as a reference for this. the BBC, reading his WP article, changed their article to include the word "cult". Kt66 then immediately (and for a verty long time afterwards) cited the BBC as a RS for *his* use of the word in this WP article.

it was behaviour like that that won him so many opponents on WP, both NKT editors and others.

it's behaviour like yours that's doing the same for you, not some conspiracy against you. you're doing it all by yourself. Atisha's cook (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

1)WPRS states 'Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, for example the Washington Post in the United States and the Times in Britain, as well as widely used conglomerates such as the Associated Press.'

2) Whether the Guardian quoted from another source (which is what papers do BTW) is irrelevant, it is a 3PS.

3) The BBC continues to use the term 'cult' at http://www.bbc.co.uk/northyorkshire/faith/buddhism/index.shtml Irregardless of who the info came from, the BBC itself is a 3PS.

4)Your research is inadequate and would not merit a 'pass' at any reputable academic establishment. Self serving 'reasoning' such as 'suffice to say I have researched this and what I say is true' only illustrates ignorance of required academic standards. Imagine 'Its true because I read about it and I know I'm right'-adequate supporting reasoning NOT. I have clearly provided a munber of 3PS. The NKT irself has devoted numerous pages to undermining the prominent claim. All I have said is that some claim the NKT is a cult-Your response ('I say its not') is irrelevant. Say what you want. Some say it is and there is clear evidence of this in 3PS AND NKT literature94.192.139.167 (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

it's - at best - a minority opinion, certainly not necessary or appropriate in the Intro. Atisha's cook (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

If it is a minority opinion, how come it is the 1st issue adressed at NKTruth? How come there are 8000 references to 'Kadampa/cult'on Google, How come there are multiple reliable (eg3PS(BBC/Guardian/Hansards)? All you (NKT editors) are doing is trying to hide this major criticism from the public.Present valid reasons not opinions such as 'its a minority opinion' Its a 'minority opinion' in the NKT, not outside itYonteng (talk) 07:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

So far, in response to my insertion of the 'cult' term, NKT editors have reverted the phrase 4 times. The reasoning given? 'Its a minority opinion', 'I have researched this and what I say is true' and 'discuss this before you insert it' (probably the best reason though how consensus can ever be reached thorugh 'democratic' discussion when the page is continuously dominated by NKT eds with COI issues rendering them incapable of NPoV is beyond comprehension). On the other hand, I have provided multiple reliable 3PS plus reference to the NKts own site which lists this critique as the foremost among many. Whether or not it is true is invalid (verifiability being the important factor on WP, rather than 'truth') It is probably one of the most noteable controversial statements about the NKT and so, in light of WP lead section guidelines (which clearly state that 'noteable controversies' should be included in the intro), reference to it should be included at that point.

Because you are working together and reverting my insertion repeatedly, you can evade detection under the 3RR. I am working alone and therefore cannot. I would ask that you either a) report me under 3 RR so that moderators can examine the underlying issue of multiple reverts by a team of editors as well as their CoI motives in doing so or b) leave the phrase alone or I will continuously revert it until moderators are drawn to this page and examine the background to the issue in depth before proceeding.As I have already stated, I am happy to leave the phrase where it stands as an extension of Barrett's quote. Should you continue this gang warfare however, I will author a full and thoroughly referenced section on 'Cult allegations' and attribute it the prominent place on the page it merits, in accord with the undue weight guidelines on WP NPoV. The decision is yours. Funny how much trouble one little word can cause, isnt it?

Yonteng (I assume it's you - please sign in and sign your contributions), I'm not working with anyone but I do agree with Atisha's Cook that the view that NKT is a cult is a minority view. It seems to be held mostly by Tibetan Buddhists who are angry that the NKT isn't under the control of the Dalai Lama and who are angry that NKT members are actively opposing his oppression of Dorje Shugden practitioners. The article, as it stands, is neutral and factual. If you can find valid 3PS references that the NKT is a cult, fair enough, but an anonymous quote in a biased newspaper article isn't sufficient to include this as a widely held view. Are we supposed to include the view of anyone who has an axe to grind against any organization, no matter how wacky that view might be? --Truthsayer62 (talk) 08:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Like your colleagues, your opinion is entirely persona-'I do agree with Atisha's Cook that the view that NKT is a cult is a minority view.'Like 'Its a minority opinion' and 'I have researched this and what I say is true' this means nothing and is purely personal opinion without any supporting 3PS evidence. You then attribute the opposing view to angry 'Tibetan Buddhists'.Q1) Are there more NKT followers than Tibetan Buddhists? Q2) Are the Rick Ross, Institute, CIC, The Guardian newspaper, M. Bunting and Andrew Brown Tibetan Buddhists? What about Hansards, or the UK House of Commons? Are they too followers of the Buddhist faith?

You then list one 3PS as my sole source. If you look above you will see numerous 3PS confirming the assertion that some have alleged the NKT is a cult. Have a look at New Kadampa Truth where the first 'smear' that the publicity team attempt to refute is 'The NKT is a cult'. So, Tibetan Buddhists, the Anti Cult Movement, the BBC, The Guardian, Hansards, and even the NKT itself acknoweldge that "some have even gone so far as to refer to the group as a 'cult'". Thats my evidence. What's yours? So far, all youve managed to come up with between you is 'I diagree becuase I know' Hardly academic challenge. As I have already stated, I am happy to leave the phrase where it stands as an extension of Barrett's quote, though I will author a full and thoroughly referenced section on 'Cult allegations' and attribute it the prominent place on the page it merits, in accord with the undue weight guidelines on WP NPoV if you wish. The decision is yours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonteng (talk • contribs) 10:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC) PS See Bluck p 188 where after listing 3 groups, the FWBO, SGI and THE NKT he states 'These New Buddhist Movements...are sometimes even referred to as 'cults'. So there's another. This assertion that I rely on one invalid 3PS is boring and obviously untrue94.192.139.167 (talk) 10:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

So if I understand you correctly, Yonteng, your view is that if two or three people say that the NKT are a cult, we are to include this view in the article? You're being unreasonable simply because you want to include something in the article which will support your mission to damage the NKT. I've checked your source on Hansard and Mr John Leech asked the question in parliament about FWBO, NKT and SGI alleged cultish behaviour. Mr Dhanda replies "The Department has received correspondence from a member of the public regarding the alleged cultish behaviour of the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order, New Kadampa Tradition and Soka Gakkai International. No other representation has been received by the Department ." So we are to include a view because one person wrote to a Government Department?

You want to make a great blazing fire out of a tiny match flame. Sorry, but no - the point you are trying to include in the article is a ridiculously small minority view that's not worthy of inclusion. It's also incorrect as far as anyone who actually knows about NKT is concerned. (3PS academic sources, not gossipy scandal sheets) --Truthsayer62 (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

An example of not using an exaggerated media quotation would be in the Wikipedia FPMT article, where no one is suggesting that the full story of Lama Osel, at least as it it recorded by the gossipy Daily Mail and Guardian, is used as a reliable source for his recent repudiation of his old tradition. The quote that Yonteng is trying to use is something from the 1990s and Truthsayer explains succinctly above how that appellation came to be and how it is a minority opinion (in the case of the quote, it originated from an anonymous "Buddhist teacher") and is not backed up by any third-party sources. Plus, it is not reflected in the article itself as there is no evidence for calling the NKT a cult, it is just one of those throwaway cheap insults. The NKT is a Mahayana Buddhist tradition. It is no more a cult than Christianity or the Kagyu sect or whatever. (Truthbody (talk) 10:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC))

Dear TB your comparison of the NKT to Christianity or the Kagyus is an intersting one. I recommend looking at Stark and Bainbridges 'Theory of religion' which breaks groups down into established religious bodies (Christianity) denominations (Kagyu) and newly established 'sects' (the French word for 'cult'.(Stark and Bainbridge is like baby food for those objectively studying cults and NRMs) Generally, sects are NRMs with SOME deviant beliefs. I think you will find that is where you might fit. The good news is that most established bodies like Christianity AND denominations (like Kagyus) started out as 'sects/cults' and S and B recognise that some sects/cults can go on to become established religious bodies (though many fizzle out) So there is hope! Otherwise, your comparison only demonstrates you have no knowledge of objective research into the whole area of cults and NRMs. I have reverted your change since your claim that i have only referred to one unreliable 3PS is refuted outright aboveYonteng (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear YT, it seems we have come full circle with Bluck. If you will recall, you removed my addition of a Bluck quote to the intro, saying that it gives undue weight. Now, you are quoting him to build support for calling the NKT a cult. You said he states that "These New Buddhist Movements...are sometimes even referred to as 'cults'." Actually, it'd be more interesting to know what Bluck himself says about this allegation:

These new Buddhist movements have all attracted hostile criticism from the media and are sometimes even referred to as ‘cults’. They have been described disparagingly as evangelistic, dogmatic, exclusive and intolerant, though the accuracy of such attacks – and the motivation behind them – is sometimes open to question. (p. 188)

Notice anything that you conveniently left out? Bluck does not speak too favorably about Bunting's article, and this quote appearing in the conclusion of his book is certainly a followup to what he had to say about her piece in his chapter on the NKT. Basically, he found her portrayal of the unorganization to be unbalanced. Kay also finds such portrayls by Western Buddhists to be biased and erroneous, based an an inadequate understanding of the group.

Waterhouse reported that all the allegations in the Guardian piece were made by ex-members and members of rival Buddhist groups. Need I remind you of what she found when she followed up on them? In her article, Bunting herself uses the word 'sect', and she quotes only one unnamed Buddhist teacher who says the NKT is a cult. Hardly convincing evidence there! As far as the BBC reference, if you'll notice, this is mentioned merely as an afterthought (again, by unnamed critics), and not even on the BBC's main page about the NKT. Emptymountains (talk) 12:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yonteng - trying to add this to the Intro is silly: it simply isn't a major or an important datum in the article. such allegations *may* be worth a mention, if there are sufficient verifiable examples. but the Intro of an article is not the place - however strongly you feel about the subject - to mention *every* view of the subject, no matter how minor. if you want, propose a new section. if included, it really oughtn't to be "prominent" as you suggest - prominence should be given to widespread and verifiable views on a subject. as is rightly pointed out by others above, the view that NKT is a "cult", whilst unpleasant and damaging enough that the New Kadampa Truth website feels it necessary to rebut, is hardly common or well-supported. your "3PS" so far have all turned out to be refuted, minor or marginal.

this isn't some kind of fan-boy attitude. i have no right to dictate that my opinions are given undue, or exclusive weight on this or any article - but neither do you. the view that you're trying to give such undue weight to now simply doesn't have sufficient currency to warrant "prominent", if any, inclusion, and certainly not in the Intro. this is despite your strong feelings.

also, i was under the impression that both you and i are on 1RR - what happened to that? you've made at least half a dozen reverts today (and just because several editors disagree with you is *not* evidence of an organised anti-Yonteng campaign or tag-team!)

i'm still awaiting some kind of Admin response to the report i filed on you under WP:BLP for the crass and inaccurate remarks you made here about various living persons. i cannot believe such behaviour is acceptable and, if you're not prepared to swear off doing this sort of thing in future then i can only hope you get a ban for it. Atisha's cook (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

By smearing the NKT as a cult, Yonteng is effectively calling all its students cult members. I believe this violates WP:BLP. (Truthbody (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC))

I think youll find what I said was that, (quoting Bluck, the BBC, the Guardian article and Bunting directly (see above) 'some have referred to the NKT as a cult'.I certainly did not say the NKT was a cult.Nobody produced any references that stated the NKT was not a cult, though the NKTs own publicity does! ('We are not a cult'??? An advert for the National Police I saw in Central America once had the tag 'We are not corrupt'; honest?) Steven Hassan writes in 'Combatting Cult Mind Control (p140) 'A person can get driven further into a cult by ....inappropriate uses of words like cultGood job I didn't use it then!The reaction of all was particularly telling.I'll be back! have a nice day now94.192.139.167 (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Who is this mysterious "some" you are referring to? Surely not Bluck, the BBC, nor the Guardian article. Yes, Bunting directly, but she would be the only 3RS to personally make this claim. This is not a claim of Bluck, the BBC, nor the Guardian (i.e., it is not their opinion). So, then, whose opinion is it? An unamed Buddhist teacher? Some unnamed critics? If you read Bluck in context, he says that the media's portrayal of the NKT as a cult is unbalanced. Kay says so as well, but now I'm just repeating myself.

As far as "Nobody produced any references taht stated the NKT was not cult," you are asking people to prove a negative. I already did point out, however, that for the vast majority of 3RS who have researched the NKT such as Bluck, Cozort, Kay, Lopez, and Waterhouse none of them ever refer to the NKT as a cult. To give undue weight to the one reference by Bunting in the intro is not called for (especially since it is not summarizing anything in the article), unless you want to contradict yourself for reverting my addition of the Bluck quote in the intro for the same reason.

In the end, I suggest that you follow the statement at the top of this talk page: "Please discuss substantial changes here before making them." I believe this was Andi's suggestion as well. Emptymountains (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we do that, how come consensus was reached on the Lopez quote in the intro and then it just disappeared? Where did the banners go? RVd without discussion. What I find really sad is that you try to use 'logical' reasoning to assert political points-its almost like turning the Dharma into politics (Oh no, it IS turning the Dharma into politics) Dont worry, all of the 4 NKT eds on this page are now under scrutiny at a very senior WP level and all of your actions in your edit histories will speak for themselves. Shugden practioners are noted for their argumentative intransigence (they used to go round shooting people and smashing Guru Rinpoche statues in Tibet) The location has changed, social mores are different (otherwise who knows how far people would go to get their way) Nevertheless, the mind set remains the same. bullying, intransigence, double standards. It really does bring shame to the Dharma94.192.139.167 (talk) 07:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

When was the Lopez quote ever in the intro? Emptymountains (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Your adversarial stance isn't helping your case here, Yonteng. What you're saying is insulting and outrageous. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 08:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes the truth hurts94.192.139.167 (talk) 08:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Yonteng, if you don't remove your insults and irrelevant additions to this page, I'm going to report you to the Admins for incivility and disruption. I'm sorry it's come to this. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 08:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting perspective from Barrett (who is quoted in the intro), taken from the Cult article: "Other researchers like David V. Barrett hold the view that classifying a religious movement as a cult is generally used as a subjective and negative label and has no added value; instead, he argues that one should investigate the beliefs and practices of the religious movement." Ironic, then, that Yonteng would want to then follow up on Barrett with that "some see the NKT as a cult" quote. Emptymountains (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

More interesting reading in the Sociological classifications of religious movements article: "Sects are newly formed religious groups that form to protest elements of their parent religion (generally a denomination).... The characteristic that most distinguishes cults from sects is that they are not advocating a return to pure religion but rather the embracement of something new or something that has been completely lost or forgotten (e.g., lost scripture or new prophecy)." Emptymountains (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yonteng's comments on Section order

(moved from [4] below, to leave that section free for discussion of content. comparison with Taleban is clearly derogatory, as it was when Thurman made it, and counterproductive.) Atisha's cook (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, go with the Islam one. is there a page for Taliban?94.192.139.167 (talk) 07:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Taleban page goes:

1 Etymology
2 Origin
3 Taliban ideology and its application

   * 3.1 Governance
   * 3.2 Business dealings (Social security,musiuse of charity status by political org here?)
         o 3.2.1 Swat's emerald mines 2009
   * 3.3 Consistency (critcising DL for mixing Dharma with politics, then mixing Dharma with politics??
   * 3.4 Criticism of ideology (See various sources)
   * 3.5 Explanation of ideology (See New kadampa Truth)

4 Life under the Taliban regime

   * 4.1 Treatment of women (Neil/Steve here?)
   * 4.2 Prohibitions on culture 
         o 4.2.1 Buddhas of Bamiyan
   * 4.3 Ethnic massacres and persecution
   * 4.4 Economy
         o 4.4.1 Opium
   * 4.5 Conscription (Push for ordination??)

5 War with the Northern Alliance
6 International relations

   * 6.1 Relations with Pakistan
   * 6.2 Relations with the United States
   * 6.3 Relations with India
   * 6.4 Relations with the United Nations and aid agencies
   * 6.5 Relationship with Osama bin Laden
   * 6.6 Taliban in Pakistan

(Maybe we could have relations with China here??)

7 U.S.-led invasion and displacement of the Taliban

   * 7.1 Prelude to invasion
   * 7.2 Coalition attack

8 Resurgence of the Taliban

   * 8.1 Human rights violations

Many thanks to Bob Thurman for making the comparison (He's a 3PS you know!)94.192.139.167 (talk) 08:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Section order

i've been thinking (painful, i know...) about the order of the sections in the article. it seems to me that John Q. Public, when he looks up this article, is likely to want to know first things like "what is the New Kadampa Tradition, what does it do?", and maybe later "where does it come from? etc." whilst lineage is important for most practising Buddhists, i wonder if we (the editors among us who are Buddhists, which i think is most of us?) are imposing our values onto the general public, the article's intended readership. therefore, should we rearrange the sections, putting 'Spiritual activities...' higher, and incorporating 'Lineage of Teachers' as a subsection under 'Teachers'? what do other editors think? Atisha's cook (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I also think practice is more important, but is there another article you can base a new structure on, so that it doesn't look arbitrary? Emptymountains (talk) 14:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

the Christianity article's first three main sections are: Beliefs, Worship, History & origins; Islam's first four are: Etymology & meaning, Articles of faith, Duties and practices, History. Atisha's cook (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

My rule of thumb is to put what is most important nearest to the top. IMO, who is/was the leader of a Buddhist group is not the most important thing. Bluehotel (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

intention to rearrange

ok - not having heard any objection, i'm going to move the "Lineage..." section lower, and incorporate it into the "Teachers" section. [[User:Atisha's cook|]] (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

further changes

i'm also thinking that "Ordination" should be incorporated under "Spiritual activities", and that "Internal Rules" should be moved above "Growth and financing". i'm also considering whether "Growth and financing" is an accurate title for this section, considering its content - i suggest "Organisation and development" as an alternative. thoughts? [[User:Atisha's cook|]] (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

seem to be the only one around here at the minute! ok - i'll make these changes - please discuss if you think they're no good. [[User:Atisha's cook|]] (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me! Bluehotel (talk) 11:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bluehotel, sorry, but I reverted your recent change because NKT has no connection with the FWBO, Soka Gakkai or the Insight Meditation Society. What was your reason for including them? --Truthsayer62 (talk) 18:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

My reason for including them in the "see also" section is that this is a new Buddhist movement, and it is reasonable in a general encyclopedia to list other such movements. I'm afraid that the reaction to this rather makes me write off this organisation as a sectarian cult. Clearly this entry does not meet NPOV standards, but I can't be bothered...Bluehotel (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not a private page

It is a clear principle of wikipedia that critical facts about individuals or organisations are not merely self-referenced. That this organisation claims such an extraordinary number of centers needs to be confirmed by an independent source. If you don't feel that it right, wiki has procedures by which other editors can be brought in to help. If the number of cenytres for this organisation can be attributed to no indpendent source, it should be made clear that the number is only a "claim".

I should say that this is the second time when perfectly reasonably wiki-style edits by me have been reverted within an hour. This is not a private page to be controlled by the New Kadampa Tradition. Indeed, the editors controlling it appear to me to have a conflict of interest under wiki rules. I know nothing about this organisation, but I am willing to help you really lick it into shape, and to bring in more editors to help resolve any conflicts, if you feel that is a good way forward. Bluehotel (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Correction: both of my perfectly proper edits were reverted in precisely 13 minutes. And that's for an obscure organisation, whose page is edited very infrequently. Most editors, I think, would read something in to that. Bluehotel (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

By your own admission, one of these "perfectly proper edits" contained "inappropriate references to other organisations": compare [5] with [6]. Emptymountains (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I have this evening looked at this organisation's published accounts, and unless there are other companies buried somewhere, it is nowhere near the size of the FWBO, which certainly does not claim to have 1,100 centres. Bluehotel (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

with respect, Bluehotel - i keep an eye on this page and get updates as soon as edits are made. i reverted your previous unilateral addition of a "See also" section because you had, for your own, undisclosed reasons, listed three organisations which are entirely unrelated to the subject of this article. this was a meaningless and redundant edit.

(Correction - in fact, it was another editor who reverted this edit; i reverted your inclusion of NKT-IKBU in the "See also" sections you also added to the articles on those other organisations.) [[User:Atisha's cook|]] (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

this latest i reverted because the article already makes clear that most of the info. you query comes from NKT-IKBU sources - this is clear throughout, i feel. if you check, WP in fact accepts that articles on an institution or organisation may use its own publications as sources where appropriate as these are often the only sources available - so long as doing so doesn't skew the article or misrepresent a subject. it *would* be good to find 3PS for some of these points, and if you'd like to do so then that would be a valuable contribution. i don't agree with you that all these points need a 3PS, however, and when i can find the time i'll review each more carefully to see which do (and therefore, without one, a fact tag).

this isn't a "private page", and i wonder why you say that? in fact, it's the result of a lot of collaboration by many editors with many different viewpoints, in the tradition of WP.

lastly, if you feel that 1,100 centres and groups is hyperbole then you can check their published directory, which gives the addresses and contact details, etc. - although, once again, this is of course a SPS. [[User:Atisha's cook|]] (talk) 00:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Blue hotel, why would you distrust the stated number of Centers? It is a fact that there are 1100 centers and groups, why would editors make that up? Also, you can check www.kadampa.org to see the location and contact details for every one of these centers and groups. If you think all that is made up, you can contact any one of them to see if they exist or not. wp:SPS are fine in Wikipedia as long as they are accurate (and provable), which all these facts are. (87.114.18.172 (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC))

WP:SELFPUB is fine as long as "the material is not unduly self-serving," and in this case the number may appear to be an exaggeration. Instead, it may be good to say, "As of 2003, there were over 500 NKT-IKBU centers and groups in Europe and North America. The organization now claims over 1100 in 40 countries." The first sentence can be verified in a third-party source (namely, Bluck, p. 132), while the figure for the second sentence is from a self-published source. I think this is a good approach: using the latest third-party verified source available (Bluck cites data from 2003), and also the latest numbers reported by the organization itself. Emptymountains (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

have to say i disagree - why could stating the current number of Centers and groups appear to be an exaggeration? because, as Bluehotel says, it's more than the FWBO says it has? what has the FWBO got to do with it? and i'm not sure it's necessary or appropriate to say that this number is "claimed" by NKT-IKBU - that sounds like weasel words to me. as has been suggested, the figure *could* be independently verified, by a person with a telephone and more time on their hands than i've got: i don't think the article really need cast doubt on it. how about "The organisation currently lists over 1,100 in 40 countries."?

anyway, this does seem to me to be somewhat of a storm in a teacup (in finest WP tradition!) [[User:Atisha's cook|]] (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "lists" sounds better than "claims." The NKT-IKBU does publish its Center and branch directory, which is actually what Bluck cites, by the way. What I would like is a breakdown between the number of Centers and the number of branches (e.g., 225+ Centers and 900+ branches), but I don't know any sources for that yet, except as you said to go and count them oneself off the website. Emptymountains (talk) 02:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Meaning of Kadampa

regardless of what i said previously, i now think that the existing wording of this section regarding "ideological significance" is better as it points to the discussion on it, under "Separation..." without going into any detail or taking any position. we cannot say that there "is an additional ideological significance" in fact, because this is debatable and debated! we can point to where later in the article that discussion takes place, and this is what the existing wording does:

"The ideological implications of the use of "New Kadampa" in the organisation's name, New Kadampa Tradition - International Kadampa Buddhist Union, is discussed below under New Kadampa Tradition and Gelugpa Tradition."

this took quite a lot of discussion to produce, and i think it fits the purpose well. therefore, i reverted Andi30's revision. [[User:Atisha's cook|]] (talk) 10:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see much difference between "an additional ideological significance to..." and "The ideological implications of...", so why is one wording debatable and not the other? I actually prefer Andi's edit. Emptymountains (talk) 13:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

thank you , Emotymountains. This is really getting ridiculous at this point. As you know, we have discussed this issue at length above. As you also know, there are reliable sources who not only point to the "significance" but actually state that the choice of the name is "ideologically charged". Leaving the whole discussion of that significance to a seperate section far below in the article is already a huuge compromise. Then i use the almost exact wording that Atisha's Cook proposed - merged with a little bit of yours, which as we also well know, is much weaker than the wording i and other non-NKT-affiliated editors would prefer and he still opposes it. This behavoiur is really not tolerable. Andi 3ö (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Andi - come on, i'm not over-reacting or being unreasonable! you've unilaterally changed wording that was arrived at after, as you say, long debate - and for what purpose? it's not "an additional significance..." that i'm objecting to here, it's "There is..." - this is, *at least* debatable. there may be sources that demonstrate such an opinion exists, but that opinion doesn't correspond with what the organisation gives as its own reasons for this choice of name (about which it says nothing about its separation from contemporary Tibetan institutions but cites tracing its lineage of instruction back through Je Tsongkhapa). you would need to qualify this "There is...", if you wish to use it - according to whom? but then, if you do this, then you end up duplicating the "Separation" section below, which we've all decided many months ago is redundant and therefore undesirable.

i know that you are keen to raise this point re. separation from contemporary Tibetan institutions sooner in the article, but just because i and others disagree with the necessity or value of this doesn't make my behaviour "not tolerable". let's not get into another Yonteg-esque slanging match! there's no need for it. this is a relatively minor point, but, as i've said befre, i do feel that you're mistaken in thinking that there's some pressing need to mention this somewhat obscure point at the start of the article. what improvement or benefit do you hope to bring to the article through this change? i really don't see the need for it myself. surely we're just going over old arguments now.[[User:Atisha's cook|]] (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I like the "Whether there exists..." portion. Earlier, I was trying to figure out how to get the word possible (as in "possible significance") in Andi's edit, but nothing came to mind.

That said, I do like the present version, except the addition of the words "International Kadampa Buddhist Union," since Lopez, Kay, Waterhouse, as well as the quotes from Je Phabongkhapa, the Dalai Lama, and GKG only discuss the words "New Kadampa Tradition." So, it's really only about the NKT part of the name, not the IKBU part. Emptymountains (talk) 02:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

noted - i'll remove it. [[User:Atisha's cook|]] (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

'let's not get into another Yonteng-esque slanging match! there's no need for it' Feels like deja Vu-same issues, same intransigent responses, same editors-but remember, 'there is no dedicated NKT team of editors working on this page'-keep it up lads, soon Andi will have gone because of the perrenial NKT tactics. You hide your own perspective behind the inadequacies of WP guidelines. The distinction between legality and morality is a line that has long been blurred within the NKT-now this spreads to WP.'Official' representations of the 'truth' are often distorted by the subjective. This page is a prime example of that distortion-Yonteng (who cant be bothered with arguing with gangs of online bullies-dont you have any dharma to practice?)94.192.139.167 (talk) 10:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it was the second of June (seven weeks over one word!) that the Lopez quote featuring the assertion that the New Kadampa name was 'ideologically charged' (valid 3PS BTW) The same NKT eds have fought tooth and nail to prevent the 'charged' word since that date (nb even the slightest critical comment is eradicated on this page) Same eds, same tactics. Dont you people even think of logging in as a different user? Read the Scientology page-the edit history will teach you how to sharpen your game up a little94.192.139.167 (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

new religious Movement

Hello, hello,the phrase New relgious Movement has disappeared from the intro, despite the fact that the NKT is universally recognised as one. Why? because its another, more PC name for cult. Hence, it disappears!94.192.139.167 (talk) 08:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear 'yonteng', if you'd like to quote some evidence to support your claim, it would be appreciated. NKT is no more a NRM than the Gelugpa Tradition of Tibetan Buddhism.--Truthsayer62 (talk) 09:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You joker-you have no knowledge whatsoever of the study of NRMs-An overwhelming majority of recent publications on NRMS feature articles on the NKT Barrett, Chrysiddes, Clarke-Didnt Inform (who provide info on NRMs (get it?)run a conference over the summer with an ex NKT speaker?. You have no credibility in the real world-The Gelug tradition is a time honoured one created by the great non-sectarian master Tzong ka pa, not some one man sectarian band, demon worshipper bent on organisational expansion. You need to get out more (or at least do some study of NRM literature). Oh look, its the same old NKT eds coming out of the woodwork SPAs!94.192.139.167 (talk) 09:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear YT, this happened on 25 May 2009. See [7] and [8]. I discussed it with you directly at the time, but maybe you forgot? Emptymountains (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not for me-it is for Wp admins to show how you follow the rules-like your ordination, your deception is immaculate though valueless-you are lying.94.192.139.167 (talk) 07:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about New Kadampa Tradition. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

^ Belither, James. Modern Day Kadampas: The History and Development of the New Kadampa Tradition. retrieved 2008-12-07.
^ The New Kadampa Tradition. BBC. retrieved 2008-12-08.
^ Belither, James. Modern Day Kadampas: The History and Development of the New Kadampa Tradition. retrieved 2008-12-07.
^ Cozort, Daniel (2003). The Making of the Western Lama. Quoted in Heine, S., & Prebish, C. S. (2003). Buddhism in the modern world: Adaptations of an ancient tradition. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 230.
^ An Interview With Geshe Kelsang Gyatso by Donald S. Lopez, Jr. Tricycle Magazine, Spring 1998, Vol. 7 No. 3. p. 74
^ Lopez, Donald S. (1998). Prisoners of Shangri-La: Tibetan Buddhism and the West. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 193
^ Chryssides, George (1999). Exploring New Religions. London: Cassell. p. 237.
^ Chryssides, George (1999). Exploring New Religions. London: Cassell. p. 235.
^ Lopez, Donald S. (1998). Prisoners of Shangri-La: Tibetan Buddhism and the West. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 193
^ Waterhouse, Helen (1997). Buddhism in Bath: Adaptation and Authority. University of Leeds, Department of Theology and Religious Studies. p. 137.
^ An Interview With Geshe Kelsang Gyatso by Donald S. Lopez, Jr. Tricycle Magazine, Spring 1998, Vol. 7 No. 3. p. 74
^ Belither, James. Modern Day Kadampas: The History and Development of the New Kadampa Tradition. retrieved 2008-12-07.

[1] Belither, James. Modern Day Kadampas: The History and Development of the New Kadampa Tradition. retrieved 2008-12-07.

[2] The New Kadampa Tradition. BBC. retrieved 2008-12-08.

[3] Belither, James. Modern Day Kadampas: The History and Development of the New Kadampa Tradition. retrieved 2008-12-07.

[4] Cozort, Daniel (2003). The Making of the Western Lama. Quoted in Heine, S., & Prebish, C. S. (2003). Buddhism in the modern world: Adaptations of an ancient tradition. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 230.

[5] An Interview With Geshe Kelsang Gyatso by Donald S. Lopez, Jr. Tricycle Magazine, Spring 1998, Vol. 7 No. 3. p. 74

[6] Lopez, Donald S. (1998). Prisoners of Shangri-La: Tibetan Buddhism and the West. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 193

[7] Chryssides, George (1999). Exploring New Religions. London: Cassell. p. 237.

[8] Chryssides, George (1999). Exploring New Religions. London: Cassell. p. 235.

[9] Lopez, Donald S. (1998). Prisoners of Shangri-La: Tibetan Buddhism and the West. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 193

[10] Waterhouse, Helen (1997). Buddhism in Bath: Adaptation and Authority. University of Leeds, Department of Theology and Religious Studies. p. 137.

[11] An Interview With Geshe Kelsang Gyatso by Donald S. Lopez, Jr. Tricycle Magazine, Spring 1998, Vol. 7 No. 3. p. 74

[12] Belither, James. Modern Day Kadampas: The History and Development of the New Kadampa Tradition. retrieved 2008-12-07.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]