User talk:CFynn/ArchiveNov2014

This is an archive of past discussions about User:CFynn. 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.

Propose a merger if you wish

Propose a merger if you wish. The new article can simply be called "Shugden".VictoriaGrayson (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Please see

Please see Prasangika37 here and here on the book Heart Jewel.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Draft:David Germano (August 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.

If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Anastasia (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello! CFynn, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!

Wiktionary

Hi Chris, just a kind reminder that you have a new message at wikt:User talk:Wyang#Dzongkha (རྫོང་ཁ) data. Thanks, Wyang (talk) 23:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

1989 Mumford

According to Mumford in 1989, Dorje Shugden is "held in awe and feared among Tibetans because he is highly punitive."VictoriaGrayson (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: This is true - many Tibetans fear to even mention his name. But at the same time, even Tibetans opposed to the practice still believe he is very powerful for gaining wealth, power, success in business, success in monastic debate, etc. Anyway there are a variety of views that should all be fairly represented in the article, if there is a verifiable source. The view that DS is completely harmless because he is a "Wisdom Buddha" seems unique to the NKT though. Chris Fynn (talk) 16:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Also I read that in old Tibet, even the "priest" of Dolgyal would be trembling and scared. I think this may be from Bultrini's book. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Dorje Shugden Controversy. Thank you. Prasangika37 (talk) 11:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Sakya Pandita

In the Sakya Pandita article, should we say Shugden is his rebirth? According to Dreyfus, Shugden predates Dragpa Gyaltsen. Thus the 2 only became related in later "terma".VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: Of course there is no real need in the Sakya Pandita article. But Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen's alleged rivalry with the 5th and the death of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen and whether Shugden is, or is not, his rebirth is absolutely central to both the current Dalai Lama's usual account and the Phabogkha-Trijang-Kelsang Gyatso account of Shugden — and so belongs in an article on Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen (and is perhaps one of the main reasons he is still significant). Of course I'll add something to the effect that others say that Shugden pre-dates Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen (I can't write everything at once though). I think is important that historically there have been several conflicting views and the view that Shugden is a rebirth of Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen is only one of these, and not a universally accepted account. The fact that there was a continuing incarnation lineage after Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen is also evidence that this was not accepted by all. Chris Fynn (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Shugden is also the rebirth of Virupa.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: Well at least according to the latter day re-envisioning of Shugden by Phabongkha. Of course there is no "proof" that anybody or any entity is the rebirth of another - as I pointed out elsewhere the whole idea is regarded by most Buddhist scholars as a conceptual fiction - but perhaps one can't expect people who actually believe in entities like Shugden to understand that. Chris Fynn (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson and Joshua Jonathan: BTW Have either of you yet read Samten Karmay's new book "The Illusive Play: The Autobiography of the Fifth Dalai Lama"? I should think this is likely to clarify a number of things about the Fifth's relationship with Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen and the emergence of Shugden. I know Christopher Bell is also currently doing more research on the early history of Shugden which should prove interesting. There is also a paper by on Shugden by E. Gene Smith that has never been published - but I'm sure will eventually see the light of day. Chris Fynn (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: David Germano has been accepted

David Germano, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 16:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jeff Watt has been accepted

Jeff Watt, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Your onerous intro

The three 37's put your long onerous intro into the article. Don't you think its full of unsubstantiated allegations like "ban" etc.? Monasteries are private intuitions, just like NKT centers. And the Dalai Lama does not control the government of India. JJ's intro was based on the academic POV, not the NKT POV. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

About the Advisor shares article and the COI noticeboard

Thank you very much for responding to my inquiry. I found out about Advisor shares after I read in the news about Phillipe Cousteau Jr. coming to Iceland to film a TV and looked up Phillipe Cousteau's Wikipedia page. UserNameUnderConstruction, the one who I suspect is an employee of Advisor Shares, deleted some information in the section about AdvisorShares and Phillipe Cousteau's partnership. I noticed that this user deleted similar stuff everywhere. I looked at what he was deleting and it was based on reliable legal documents and news article sources. However, the company would have reason to want to hide this because the court cases make the CEO look bad. It seems that UserNameUnderConstruction is edit warring with everyone who tells the truth about what is possibly his company and trying to get them banned from Wikipedia. I don't know how to check his IP address to see if he is a socket puppet, like the comment you responded to alleged.

Just wanted to let you know so that someone else could look into this as well. If it is someone from the company editing away this stuff, I find them to be hypocrites because the company launch a socially responsible investing fund with Phillipe Cousteau and because they claim on their website that one of their main 3 values is transparency. All help in stopping these people from hiding the truth would be really appreciated.Icelandicgolfer (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, CFynn. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

What do you think about this?

Heya Chris. Meant to say on the DS talk page, I don't mean to be antagonistic about the discussion about the expulsion stuff. I really just want to deal with on issue at a time there and its very distracting to take the discussion in different directions. Happy to talk about it here, on my talk page, as a separate issue there, or whatever :) Anyway, I am really curious what you think about this. Hadn't seen this video before and I am pretty confused about what the Dalai Lama is saying between minute 14 to minute 17. Any clarification? @VictoriaGrayson: What do you think about it too? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUedS5qlWUE . He is talking about whether he is the reincarnation of the 13th DL or not. Prasangika37 (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@Prasangika37:Are you one of those people who thinks tulkus are the rebirth of the previous person? Tulkus aren't the rebirth of the previous person. For example, there are bardo procedures for anyone to be reborn as a tulku.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Prasangika37 and VictoriaGrayson: "Rebirth," like "person" is regarded by most Buddhists scholars as a conceptual fiction, a term of convenience superimposed upon a series of causally connected, transitory, impersonal dharmas. This has been the standard position since at least as early as the Questions of Milinda. So Nagasena says to Milinda that the consciousness that is aware of the ripening of a karma is neither identical to nor entirely different from the consciousness that had the karma in the form of the intention to do something. It is not identical, because the awareness-of-ripening has different features from the awareness-of-intention. But it is not entirely different, because the later awareness is causally connected to the earlier awareness.

Vasubandhu's work on abhidharma makes is clear that the idea of rebirth holds weight only as long as the concept of person is taken seriously, because rebirth is essentially a personal category, whereas the actual causal process is entirely impersonal.

In the video the DL talks about being the one who has the qualities and potential to carry out the tasks begun by, and the intentions of, the previous Dalai Lamas. In other words, he is the one who has the causes and conditions to fulfil the actions and intentions of the previous Dalai Lamas.

A problem is western concepts of "soul" inevitably get superimposed when people talk or think about things like Buddhist "rebirth" as we have been programmed to think that way, and the words in our western languages have all those associations. Much clearer when these things are explained in Tibetan - the Dalai Lama is also much clearer when he speaks in Tibetan. Chris Fynn (talk) 10:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I see what you're saying and I think its clear that soul doesn't work here. But he makes a distinction between the second and the first Dalai Lama, no? He says that they have a connection, but he does not. Thus implying his awareness is not causally connected to the previous Dalai Lamas. Its my understanding that this is the general approach to a 'Tulku' and that he is saying that is what he is not. Also, whats the point of the Tulku identification system if its not the same mental continuum? E.g. identifying the bell, vajra, mala, of the previous incarnation...or having someone who is close to them identify them? Or is it just the Dalai Lama's that aren't like this? Prasangika37 (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Prasangika37:It is extremely rare that a tulku is the actual rebirth of the predecessor. You are trying to pick those rare cases. There are procedures for anyone to be reborn as a tulku including you. The picking of the objects is a Gelug thing and purely ritualistic. Does it make sense for rainbow body displayers to be reborn? Of course not. And yet there are tulkus of Dudjom Rinpoche.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't realize that was a common understanding. Most of the reading I have done in the past, other than quotes from the Dalai Lama, imply otherwise. Things like predicting one's own rebirth, etc. Interesting. Anyway, thanks for the point of view. Its a new one to me! :) CFynn is this your understanding too, or are you taking more of the 'the Dalai Lama means that there isn't an inherently existent person being reborn' type line? Prasangika37 (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Also @VictoriaGrayson:, the point about the rainbow body seems a bit faulty, but it depends on your understanding of the bodies of a Buddha. To my understanding, someone who had attained that state could still emanate bodies, and thus be 'reborn'. The rebirth would just be the emanation. That is why they would attain the rainbow body in the first place! Prasangika37 (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Prasangika37: So you believe the Dudjom tulkus are fully enlightened emanations? VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: I don't know they are, honestly nor have I ever heard of them. The point is is that a being who had actually attained the Rainbow Body would be able to emanate other bodies, and therefore 'come back'. This is my understanding. I dont know if the person you're mentioning attained the Rainbow body or not and if he did, if his emanations are recognized as these Tulkus or if they have emanated in other ways. This is because it seems the Tulku system has flaws and can be easily politically motivated and altered/influenced. Prasangika37 (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Prasangika37:See this. Anyone can be reborn as a tulku.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Tibet (1912–51)

Being a contributer to the German WP, I prepared a german version of Tibet (1912–51). My Question: Was there an "official" name besides "Tibet" on governmen documents?--Antemister (talk) 10:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

@Antemister:I think most Government documents would say something like "Ganden Photrang Zhung" or "Government of the Ganden Palace". Really few Tibetans had anything like the modern notion of country or nation state. Not surprising since it could often take many months to communicate from one part of Tibet to another and for most there was no contact with or knowledge of the outside world consequently the government had little day to day control outside of Lhasa (and Chinese control pre-1950 was just a fictional notion). I suspect the only government documents that might have said Tibet or bod-yul (or Tibetan Governmet or Bod Zhung) were treaties with other nations particularly Britain. Anyway I'm not an expert in this matter so don't take this as fact. Someone in Germany who would know is Gregor Verhufen <G.Verhufen@t-online.de> who has spent a few years studying Tibetan government archives in Lhasa. He would surely be a far better source on this particular matter. Chris Fynn (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Chendebji Chorten may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

structures/other-places-of-interests/chorten-prayer-walls/chendebji-chorten/ Chendebji Chorten]] - Bhutan Cultural Atlas

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Should you make a Wikipedia article for Bultrini?

Should you make a Wikipedia article for Bultrini?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

NPOV noticeboard

see here.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Pinging @Montanabw: as well.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson and Montanabw: I'm leaving all the DS related articles alone for a while. I'm too busy with other things to keep up with it. Chris Fynn (talk) 09:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you want to weigh in on this Bon related RFC? See HERE. Basically they don't understand terma.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson and Montanabw: I havn't looked into the Bön part of that article or the discussion but the trouble with the term Bön is that it means different things to different people and so it is used in different ways. Some use it to refer to originally pre-Buddhist religion of Tibet, some to the organised / institutionalised Bön religion which arose as a response to Buddhism and incorporated many Buddhist doctrines and practices. This all gets more confusing because Buddhism or at least strong Buddhist influences may have existed in Tibet quite a long time before the Tibetans now say it did. Srongtsen Gampo's empire encompassed many Buddhist lands and there are historical records of Tibetan abbots of Buddhist monasteries in China and Central Asia - so I think it likely that there was some kind of Buddhism in Tibet before Shantarakshita and Padmasambhava and this could be another source of what is now called Bön. Also I suspect Bön means different things to people from different parts of Tibet depending on what kind of Bön tradition exists locally. In Bhutan there is no organised Bön tradition - though there are a few old temples and a number of families and a few whole villages practice something known as Bön which involves ceremonies with animal sacrifice and has little if anything to do with the Bön of places like Menri monastery in Tibet. (Buddhists are still converting Bönpos to Buddhism here. Some time ago I read in the newspaper of a Bonpo village some lamas had converted to Buddhism.) So I think when you use the term Bön it always needs to be qualified so that the reader knows just what you are talking about. Also some modern adherents of Bön are fine with the notion that Bön is more or less some kind of Buddhism with different terminology and iconography, while others insist it is a completely different and separate religion. Some even claim that Buddhism comes from Bön - and Shakyamuni learnt from Bönpo teachers. Terma can also mean a different thing in the Bönpo tradition - they say that some of their terma texts were buried just to preserve them from destruction and were later discovered by ordinary people. A major portion of the Bönpo canon is said to have been discovered by a shepherd in Paro while taking shelter in a cave and he turned the texts over to a Bönpo lama - no miraculous story there. On the other hand there are some Bön Tertons and terma with stories very much like Nyingma terma and tertons - and some tertons like Dorje Lingpa who revealed both Bönpo and Buddhist texts. Some Buddhists say this was "skilful means" to trick followers Bön into practising Buddhism. HH Dudjom Rinpoche, the former head of the Nyingma tradition criticised Jamgon Kongtrul for including some Bönpo texts in the Rinchen Terdzöd and said that Bönpo Dzogchen and Nyingma Dzogchen were very different and had different outcomes - other lamas like Namkha'i Norbu seem to say the two are very much alike and have a common origin. Anyway although I'm no expert on Bön I've learned enough to realise there are numerous problems with the category, term or concept Bön and getting people to agree on just what it means. (If you want real academic expertise on Bön you should try to join http://bonstudies.ning.com/) Chris Fynn (talk) 21:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This is way over my head. You folks sort it out. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Bon is just Buddhism, specifically analogous to Nyingma. Instead of Garab Dorje, they have Shenrab. Both Garab Dorje and Shenrab are mythological.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson Nowhere near as simple as that though it would be convenient if it were. I'd agree that the Bon in some parts of Tibet and most of the Bon in the Tibetan exile community in India is virtually the same thing as Buddhism at least on the surface. However in other places it is clearly an entirely different thing. Of course some other sects are keen to lump the Nyingma and Bon together but then it turns out that the people saying these things often know little about either Nyingma or Bon. OTOH some of the most notable Nyingma scholars are the ones who say they are very different. Anyway just because you read something in an academic book about Tibetan Buddhism or Bon don't take it for granted. You need to read quite a number of books which will often disagree to form an educated opinion. Also look at the expertise of the academic on the particular subject. A book on Tibetan history or an overview of Tibetan religion has to cover a lot of ground and no one writing a book like that has expertise on more than a few things they write about. I've studied Buddhism for 50 years and lived amongst Tibetans for almost 45 of those years far longer than most of the well known Tibetologists (many of whom are my personal friends). Trust me they often enough do get things wrong or see only a very narrow part of the picture. Tibetan studies in the West is after all really just in it's infancy. The more one studies the more one realizes how much one doesn't know. It is those that have grasped some knowledge that think they know a lot. Even 8-14 years in academic studies doesn't get you very far. The Tibetan cultural region is bigger than Europe and many parts of it have been geographically very isolated - consequently there is huge diversity in language, culture beliefs and traditions. Although from the outside it may appear to have a lot of commonality, although the population was sparse because of that isolation of one part from another Buddhism (and Bon) in Tibet and the surrounding regions is more diverse than Christianity in the whole of Europe. Anyway try to start avoiding making sweeping assumptions and generalisations - or at least keep them to yourself. There are problems in nearly every Tibetan Buddhism article on Wikipedia because people assume they know far more than they do. A bit like an ordinary Tibetan who has spent some months or even years in the West and read some number of books thinking they know all about Western science or history. For a start you won't get very far without becoming really fluent in the language to the point where you can think like a Tibetan. Then you need years of practice. Would you trust an "expert" in many areas with only book knowledge? Understanding Something like Dzogchen is detailed and difficult as understanding sub atomic physics string theory. Most academics don't even know the language when they start their studies so when starting grad school they are virtually at a primary level as far as the topic is concerned from a Tibetan point of view. Sorry if this sounds a little harsh - don't take it that way. Just offering a bit of heartfelt advice based on my own life experience through which I've eventually learned that I don't know very much at all. Chris Fynn (talk) 22:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Dzogchen in India

Any Dzogchen in India, would be in the "Tibetanized" portions of India such as Sikkhim and Ladakh or Indians who received the transmissions from Tibetan lamas.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: One might think so, but in this case no. The person who told me this was Khunu Rinpoche who was from India and, besides studying in Tibet had walked the length and breadth of India like a sadhu. (I stayed with him for a year.) He had also taught Sanskrit in Varanasi and Lucknow. He definitely said this was a separate and independent Indian transmission. He also said that in his lifetime he came across four different transmissions of Buddhist tantra still surviving in different places in India, but outwardly the practitioners looked like Hindu sadhus so almost no one realised they were Buddhists. (Again not talking about any tradition from Tibet, Ladakhh, Sikkim, Arunachel etc - or even a something coming from the Newars.) Khunu Rinpoche considered Hindu doctrines as a complete wrong views - but said outwardly many practices in Hindu and Buddhist tantra were virtually identical but it was the inner meditation view and motivation that distinguished the two - anyway he was most unlikely to confuse the two. He did say that these Indian Dzogchen practitioners were aware of the Tibetan tradition and some came to Dege where he translated for them. This was pre WW2 - so who knows if this tradition still survives. I also once met a Burmese monk who had meditated in the forests of Burma and Assam and he said he met there sadhus practising hatha yoga who were following a Buddhist tradition (again not Tibetan related)this was in the 1960's (I met him in 1973). The late Dr. Rewatta Dhamma whom I knew both in India and Birmingham UK also told me there was some survival of (non Tibet related) Mahayana Buddhism both in Burma and India. I know the idea of this is akin to a species long thought extinct turning up somewhere, but these people were all knowledgeable and trustworthy - totally unlikely to make these things up. BTW I have seen with my own eyes documentation of 18thC and earlier land records in Karnataka for a "Buddhist vihara". It is fairly well known that there are some surviving Buddhists in West Bengal (not converts or people from the Chittagong hills) - but I'm talking about other places as well - and that the Bauls of Bangladesh and WB still continue to sing the doha of Saraha and some other Buddhist siddhas. Anyway not suggesting that such claims belong in a WP article - there are no good published sources - but just keep an open mind on things and I think it is best not to be to be too dogmatic just because some academic has said something. Many things in the realm of Tibetan studies are still frequently subject to change, reconsideration and argument as people explore more and more previously unlooked at material. Chris Fynn (talk) 09:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Bhutan

I understand you live in Bhutan. Do you speak Dzongkha? I had understood that while there is significant influence from Chöke that it does not actually normally have the dental-final vowel shift of Central and Western Tibetan dialects - hence Dzongkha, not Tshongke, and khö versus ghô. This also leads to the shift of "borrowed" Chöke forms like ä > i, ö > e. Can you tell me a little more about this? I know you changed Könchogsum Lhakhang - is that ö actually an ö in colloquial Dzongkha? I dislike the Chöke "educated" forms being accepted as more correct. Ogress _smash! 06:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Ogress - Yes I live in Bhutan - I speak some Dzongkha, but better Tibetan. I actually work for the Dzongkha Development Commission but I am an IT specialist not a linguist - if you want, I can put you in touch with linguists at the DDC.

Re Könchogsum Lhakhang - that is the spelling Dr. Karma Phuntsho uses - he is from Bumthang where that temple is located and his main area of research is the Peling tradition. Kenchosum Lhakhang is also often used in English language Bhutanese Newspapers (I've created a re-direct from that name) and the ILCS Cultural Atlas of Bhutan uses Konchogsum Lhakhang. Ive never seen "Kongchogsaum Lhakhang used anywhere but Wikipedia"). One problem is that people from different parts of the country (native speakers of different languages) pronounce such place names very differently and there is also no standardized list of such place names in Latin script — and often disagreement about the proper Dzongkha or Choke spelling of place names. There are also some pretty significant differences in Dzongkkha pronunciation between people from Ha, Paro, Thimphu and Wanddue and Punakha (and lots of debate as to which is "correct") - and of course with Dzongkha as spoken by Bhutanese who are non native Dzongkha speakers. There is a saying in Bhutan "Dzongkha is spoken By Ngalops, written by Bumtaps and taught by Sharchops". (Dzongkha is of the native language of the west, the people responsible for creating written Dzongkha were from Bumthang - and a large number of the teachers in Bhutan, particularly Dzongkha teachers, are native Tsangla speakers from the east). Chris Fynn (talk) 07:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

No I meant Kenchosum as opposed to Könchogsum. The latter is Chöke, the former what I'd expect from Dzongkha. Ogress _smash! 07:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

OgressYes - but the temple is in Bumthang where the local people don't normally speak Dzongkha. At the time the temple was named, what do you think the language was that the name was given in? Probably either Chöke if it was given by an educated Lama, or (old) Bumtap if it was a name given by the local people. Chris Fynn (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, but Bumthangkha definitely doesn't have ä, ö, ö at all. Another example is Wangdue, which is - officially, I checked - Wangdi. Cite on the page in question. Ogress _smash! 20:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

OgressYes when using Latin script people in Bhutan spell place names and personal names differently, depending on where they come from. Of course if you use Tibetan script it is not such a problem - at least the spelling should usually be the same - though on the highway from Bumthang to Mongar I saw the name of the Thrumshing La pass spelt five different ways in Tibetan script on official road signs. BTW I am helping someone develop a Tibetan script orthography for eastern Bhutanese languages. We are using e.g. ཀྱ ཀྻ , ཀྲ ཀྼ ,་ and two forms of sub-joined la (though that only works with cursive script) for different sounds - and maybe some extra vowel signs. Need to get the extra characters into Unicode though.

My son jokes that it seems you can pronounce any Tibetan word in almost any way you please because inevitably some group, somewhere in Tibet, will actually pronounce the word that way. Chris Fynn (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Ogress George van Driem once came up with a Guide to Official Dzongkha Romanization, that was published by the DDC - but the Bhutanese all seem to dislike this system, so in practice it was never adopted. (He has a similar system for Bumthangkha) Chris Fynn (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Ogress This sort of thing is a nightmare when it comes to government records which are mostly maintained in Latin script - though I've been suggesting to them for years to use Tibetan script to avoid confusion. When some person named ཀུན་ལེགས་རྡོ༌རྗེ goes into a government office the clerk (depending on where he is from and what he happens to think the proper romanization should be) will type it in as Kinley Kunley or Kunleg plus Dorji, Dorje, Dorjee and any combination of the three or more possibilities each part of the name. Then the poor fellow presents the bit of paper he got there at some other office only to be told the letter was issued for someone else because the spelling doesn't match up with his record. Even if his name matches in the records of both offices his village name or father's name won't match. Chris Fynn (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

CFynn Ha! True to that. An adjusted van Driem system replaces the dot with ' or h, which makes sense given the neighboring languages with sounds similar to the uniquely Bhutanese "devoiced muddy" register present in, e.g. gho. North Indian languages have "voiced aspirates" written the same way but they are actually voiced muddy breath, so it's not surprising speakers of dialects with that register use [Xh] forms. Still, the adjusted van Driem system is official: it's government-standard. Ogress _smash! 23:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)