Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:51, 28 March 2014

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Tibet C‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tibet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tibet on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TibetWikipedia:WikiProject TibetTemplate:WikiProject TibetTibet C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Alternative views C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 August 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Archives

Archive 1 - August 2005 Archive 2 - November 2008 Archive 3 - September 2009

Practice, what practice?

The article is incredibly poorly structured. The intro starts of with saying what Dorje Shugden may be (a Dharma Protector or malevolent spirit). Then it and later sections go on to discuss the controversy surrounding the practice. From Dorje Shugden#Function as a Dharma Protector as well as simple logic, I'm guessing the practice is praying to or worshiping Dorje Shugden but I'm not confident enough to add it. This needs to be clarified since it's clearly silly to talk about a practice without actually explaining what practice you're talking about Nil Einne (talk) 08:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Scope of this article

This article should confine itself to the present day controversy (from the 1970's and especially since 1996) over Dorje Shukden which has been very political, widely reported in the westtern media, and involved Western Buddhists - notably members of the NKT- as well as some Tibetans in opposition to the Dalai Lama. Outside of a breif summary to put this controversy in context, most of the historical material regarding the origin of Dorje Shukden, its nature and so on more properly belongs in the main Dorje Shukden article. Lodru (talk) 05:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed! That was a major part of the proposed re-structure (see below). Thanks for bringing this up as it reminded me I needed to do it. Emptymountains (talk) 06:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Re-structure

I've been sitting on the proposed re-structure for far too long. I guess it kind of got forgotten by everyone. I'm sorry, but our "sandbox" page showing my step-by-step edits has since been deleted. I went back to the version I had saved on my computer, and worked through each of the subsequent edits that have been made to this article and incorporated them also.

This was long overdue, but definitely needed! Emptymountains (talk) 06:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's a copy of the proposed structure. I suggest we discuss possible alterations here, so it is transparent to all editors.

• Intro
• History
  • Sourced from news/scholarly sources- no 'view of x' statements, or 'according to y'
  • 1970's statements by DL
    • initial response
  • 1996 Re-emergence
    • Statements by Government in Exile
    • protest by NKT and others
  • 2008 Re-emergence
    • Expulsions from monastery
    • Creation of new Shugden monasteries
• Views on the Conflict
  • Separate views by origin; no in-text rebuttals
  • According to the Dalai Lama and the TGIE
    • Historical views
      • DL/TGIE claims regarding DS @ time of 5th DL, other historical teachers
    • Reasons for abandoning practice in 20th century
  • According to NKT/Pro-shugden sources (how to identify non-NKT pro-Shugden sources?)
    • Historical views
      • Views on lineage of Shugden, historical origin
    • Rebuttals to DL/TGIE rationale for abandoning shugden practice
• Outside Views
  • Views by scholars not connected with DL or NKT- Paul Williams, Martin Mills, etc
  • Views of non-Gelugpa Tibetan Buddhist groups/schools
• Claims of violence/discrimination
  • By the NKT/pro-Shugden groups
  • By the DL/TGIE - death of Lobsang Gyatso

I generally like this structure very much. One issue that i am still not certai of though is the strict separation of the old "debate" about the nature of Dorje Shugden and the newer "controversy" (from 1970s on), the former being integrated into the main article on Dorje Shugden, the latter being discussed in this article here. As a consequence of that

1. the controversy would lack crucial context in this article and
2. the Nature and Function section of the other article would probably have to be significantly expanded. (as already happened as a consequence of moving material from here to there: (diffs) -->

Anyway...i think we're moving in the right direction. Andi 3ö (talk) 12:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Reverted unagreed changes from yellowmonkey and anonymous editor

I've reverted these changes for the following reasons:

1. Yellowmonkey keeps removing the statement about the segregation wall, claiming that it is libel against the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama is not even mentioned in connection with this.

I moved the sentence to the section about the new Shugden monasteries to remove any connection with the previous sentence which did mention the Dalai Lama. Emptymountains (talk) 11:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

2. I don't think that extensive changes from an anonymous editor are acceptable, please get an account and become a Wikipedian if you want to extensively edit these articles and please agree any changes upfront on this discussion page. I do feel that the reasons for changing the article (e.g. Unreliable and biased source from a muslim TV channel) are not only invalid, they are rather offensive to muslims. How could a report by an independent organization (Al Jazeera) which has no vested interest in this controversy be unreliable and biased? They are WP:RS. Surely the only reason for deleting this material is that that the editor doesn't agree with what they are saying which is not a valid reason I'm afraid. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 08:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera

When I said " Muslim" I meant Arab, hence I removed my apologies,since none is necessary . But Al Jazeera is indeed a voice for that highly politicized part the muslim world, it tries to represent it, which is not necessarily in harmony with Bhuddism or even the Muslim religion. As any TV channel it is not free from politics and financial interests specially by airing the negative sides of controversy(they sell better or fit political views of the board of the directors ) and in this particular case it seems to air only one the negative parts of it , hence my judgment of bias.

:Let's not get into the merits or demerits of Al-Jazeera - but just because something is stated without reference on a TV program made by someone who is not an expert in the field does not make it a fact. A good source is one that references sources which can be checked. Chris Fynn (talk) 07:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Shungden Society Website

As to the sources from the Society' s website or those connected with it, one should take them with a pint of salt. A piece of paper or a computer screen will accept anything that is written on it , but it does not mean it is the truth. It seems that just because they are the most vocal and loud people, playing the " victims" and their following "arguments" , they are compromising the neutrality of this article.

I have found interesting articles in there but many of them use the tactics of demonizing an important political and religious figure. ( note the reference 79 the tactics of comparing him to totalitarian regimes or hte Nazi card ) Take a look at the articles such as :

Speeches endorsing the ban, in which the video is in Tibetan with an English translation pasted on the the image, and edited showing the discourses out of the context , or the article :Reting Lama - How he chose the "false Dalai Lama" and get to your conclusions:

Andi3ö's edits (including diffs containing removed material)

hi Andi. thanks for inviting me to comment on your recent edits on my talk page - i'll try to get round to this in detail later as right now i don't have much time. briefly - in general, i think most of your flagging points that need verification etc. is valuable; i disagree with removing quotes from the Yellow Book section, however, even though they're flagged for checking. did you check them before removing them? Atisha's cook (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi all! As i pointed out on Atisha's cook's talk page "I am right now going through the article, top to bottom, esp. looking at the sources and flagging those with issues. along the way i do some quick edits where i feel something is wrong. My feelings of course can sometimes be wrong themselves :) So please feel free to improve my edits or even revert them if u think they are inappropriate and let's discuss them then."

I have removed the following statements that were flagged since a long time. I list the diffs here in order to encourage editors to find reliable sources and put them back in the article:

to be continued (?) Andi 3ö (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's some material, User:Emptymountains tried to move from this article to the other. It has been subsequently removed there by User:Truthbody and will have to find a place somewhere:

• Andi 3ö (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It should remain in the other article. I moved it because it is not "scholarly views" about the 20th century Controversy at all, but about the origin and nature of DS. And, I thought we had all agreed to keep the two articles pretty much separate along those lines. Emptymountains (talk) 21:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

primary sources template

I just want to restate a general concern here that i briefly included in the edit summary of my addition of the template:

It seems we have A LOT of primary sources in the article. We are therefore in constant danger of violating WP:SYN and parts of the article might therefore constitute WP:OR and/or violate WP:NPOV. The problem with relying too heavily on primary sources or even in taking specific quotes from secondary sources is that their meaning depends heavily on how you put them in context. Simply adding one (more or less) well-sourced statement after the other (esp. primary sources) bears the danger of either loosing the bigger picture or implicitly (if intentionally or unitentionally) advancing a specific WP:POV. I found this advice from WP:SYN helpful in that regard: "Best practice is to write Misplaced Pages articles by researching the most reliable published sources on the topic and summarizing their claims in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim."

I'm taking a break now...till monday at least. Happy editing! :) Andi 3ö (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC) P.S.: Got through with the first three sections of the article (including "History") looking at the sources, flagging those witch i think have issues and removing a few i found obviously not reliable Andi 3ö (talk) 13:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Veracity of Swiss tv program

In this modification the link to a Swiss television broadcast was removed with the motivation "no proof it is by a proper TV doco except a home-made tag stuck on the front". If the editor had done at least some basic research s/he would have found the original German version of the program here and a rebuttal of it at Tibet Online. If the Tibetans themselves bother making a rebuttal, that is surely a sign that the video is real. --Mlewan (talk) 09:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. The problem with the Swiss tv program »Bruderzwist« is that it was very one-sided. The documentary is Part 1 of a five part TV series at Swiss TV SF1. The series stirred a serious controversy in Switzerland because of its heavily biased character. TV Chief, Christoph Müller, had to excuse himself, defending that they are an "Infotainment-Magazine" and "we don't make academic research." see: http://info-buddhismus.de/Dorje_Shugden_SF1_Schweizer_Fernsehen.html For instance they didn’t interview the district police who had evidence that the brutal murdering of Gen Lobsang Gyatso and two of his students were done by Shugden people nor did they invite any independent academic expert on this complex subject matter. They also distorted information (e.g. Ex-Minister Mr. Kundeling being attacked by Dalai Lama followers) and mainly they just reported what was told to them by Shugden practitioners (as Al Jazeera did it too) believing all those things they said to be true – a bit excited to be able to shake the Dalai Lama’s public image. As a result of a public outcry by both Tibetans and the press in Switzerland, the TV station was forced to correct many of those claims made in this documentary in a later documentary. This SF1 self-correction you linked above was broadcast by Swiss TV SF 1 to correct and balance their former TV contributions. It gives explanations of the Indian police and it corrects some of the many misleading claims SF1 made in the first parts of their series which Shugden adherents spread all over the internet, YouTube and Misplaced Pages. Ex-Minister Mr. Kundeling says in this doc "I don't practice Shugden, hence I cant be stabbed for practising it, they claimed I would be stabbed by the Tibetan Government because I worship Shugden, this is not true, this is a lie." The self-correction by SF1 makes also clear that the document about ten persons related with the Shugden practice was made on behalf of the parliament and is stamped as being "internal", the announcements of their names and faces in the public was not spread by the government. The moderator acknowledges that, according to the Indian police, there are "fanaticalizations" and "fundamental tendencies" among Shugden worshippers. The SF1 documentation makes clear that every society has a right to decide what is authentic and what violates their rights and that of course, if Shugden worshippers are elected into the government, this will be accepted. Kt66 (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Dorje_Shugden_controversy#Claims_of_violence.2Fdiscrimination_against_Shugden_practitioners

As I was reading, I made a few changes, fixes and a little rewrite. I notably rewrote the small section concerning the incidents that took place in NY in 2008 as the use of "mob" to describe the Dalai Lama's followers is definitely not NPOV and neither is a ref from the Shugden's own website which hysterically claims 'thousands of DL supporters' attacked them (whereas Time and so on speak of a few hundred).

This section could do with an overhaul. The events need to be presented chronologically and reliably sourced. There are too many mentions of the so-called Wanted posters appearing but if you click the refs they refer to wildly differing periods and so on, I found this to be a fairly confusing, jumbled read (and not very objective or encyclopaedic). CaptainScreebo 14:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Article by Paul Mooney

An article by Paul Mooney "Beyond Belief: Manipulating Tibetan Buddhism" which may be relevant appeared in the South China Morning post on Sep 04, 2011.

http://www.pjmooney.com/en/Most_Recent_Articles/Entries/2011/9/9_Beyond_Belief.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.144.151.19 (talk) 09:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Denial of oracles?

The article states twice that the Dalai Lama has disavowed that oracles have anything to do with Buddhism. The implication is that he is referring to all oracles, yet it is clear from the second quotation given that he is referring only to folk oracles of minor tree spirits, not the major oracle deities associated with the Gelugpa school, which, to my knowledge, he has never denounced in this way (and it would be of revolutionary importance if he did!). I do not have immediate access to the sources cited, so I cannot check them, but I find these statements extremely dubious, and I have a strong suspicion that the cited sources have been taken totally out of context. This needs to be checked, and if necessary, corrected. Remember, this apparent misstatement is in reference to a living person, and has potentially damaging consequences for their reputation. Cheers, Fuzzypeg★ 06:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Misrepresented sources

I've found a number of misrepresentations of cited sources already in this article. Far too many. And from looking elsewhere in the article and seeing an overwhelming anti-Dalai Lama POV, I fear I may have only scratched the surface. This article seems very one-sided in its selection of information, in the way it represents some individuals' opinions as fact, and in the way sources have been misquoted or taken out of context. In every single case I've found, the result has been to reflect negatively on the character of the Dalai Lama. Remember, he is a living person, and as such, it is especially important that he be treated sensitively and accurately in Misplaced Pages. See Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons for more information. Fuzzypeg★ 04:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Fuzzy. I got a hardcopy of the book The Sound of Two Hands Clapping today. I've read carefully pages 301-303. I'm wondering what part gives you the impression that the "bitter dispute" between the Dalai Lama and Trijang Rinpoche "was only something people FEARED would happen, but it did not actually eventuate!" Each reference to the word dispute on these pages refers to something that was actually happening at the time between these two Lamas and their disciples. If you are referring to the line near the bottom of page 301 that says despite people's fears nothing happened, this refers to "We feared above all for our teacher's life. Yet nothing happened..." (i.e., they feared for Lobsang Gyatso's life for having insulted Trijang Rinpoche). Page 303 again makes it clear what Dreyfus was referring to: "In retrospect, I consider my response to have been lucky, as it allowed me to sidestep a bitter conflict between people I respected profoundly.... This dispute did not lead to immediate bloodshed, contrary to what I feared." Amplifying Life (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Fuzzypeg. Merigar (talk) 06:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Very insightful, Merigar. You're a student of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, right? I think I read that on your user page. I'd be grateful if you would provide a bit more 'substance' to your edit summaries, rather than just removing sourced material with the edit "unsupported." If you have any doubts about the references cited, I'd be happy to provide the verbatim quote here on the talk page. Amplifying Life (talk) 02:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Please provide them verbatim. Merigar (talk) 02:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that you removed them before checking them yourself? Amplifying Life (talk) 15:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I checked them. Now will you quote them verbatim as you twice said you would?Merigar (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, no problem! I have amplified the citations in the article with direct quotes from the sources, hopefully making it easier for you to verify them. Amplifying Life (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Fuzzypeg, I agree with you. Since New Kadampa Tradition editors took over the article in April 2008, sources have been misrepresented continuously, and unwelcomed 3rd party reliable sources have been removed, replacing them with statements from Shugden supporter self-published sources or Al Jazeera source who only report from a pro-Shugden follower pov, wrongly even claiming there would be 4 million (!) Shudgen practitioners and 100.000 of them in India. Academic experts have strongly denied such self-proclaimed figures. The manipulations have been noticed also at the adminboard but in 2008 there were almost no people who were able to stop the diligence and manipulations by those editors: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive140#POV_edits_from_a_group_of_users_on_Dorje_Shugden 213.182.68.42 (talk) 12:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Ursula Bernis

Ursula Bernis pdf paper has never been published by any publishing house. Bernis tried to publish this text "Condemned to Silence: A Tibetan Identity Crisis (1996-1999)" with its more than 420 pages at Peter Lang Verlag Bern but after the publisher gave the text to two established researchers, they recommended not to publish this text due to its bias and one-sided approach. Peter Lang Verlag Bern nor any other publisher has ever published this text. To use such a source for an encyclopaedic article is against WP:RS 213.182.68.42 (talk) 12:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Dreyfus

Someone tried to distort Dreyfus by misrepresenting what he said to 'counter' what Paul Williams said to The Guardian. Williams said that the Dalai Lama wants to modernize the society by overcoming the factions within the Tibetan people. Dreyfus, however, talks about MODERNISM in Buddhism, which has a completely different meaning and concept related to religion than what what Williams said what relates to political and social issues. For details see Dreyfus’ longer essay about Modernism and the pov of the Dalai Lama. I deleted the misrepresented and out of context quoted passage by Dreyfus from the article. The passage being improved is this one:

Paul Williams states that "The Dalai Lama is trying to modernize the Tibetans' political vision and trying to undermine the factionalism. He has the dilemma of the liberal: do you tolerate the intolerant?" Georges Dreyfus disagrees with such an interpretation:

n this dispute the Dalai Lama's position does not stem from his Buddhist modernism and from a desire to develop a modern nationalism, but from his commitment to another protector, Nechung, who is said to resent Shukden. Thus, this dispute is not between followers of a traditional popular cult and a modernist reformer who tries to discredit this cult by appealing to modern criteria of rationality. Rather, it is between two traditional or clan-based interpretations of the Geluk tradition, that of Shukden's followers who want to set the Geluk tradition apart from others, and the Dalai Lama's more eclectic vision. The fact that the former may be more exclusivistic and that the latter may be more open does not entail that they can be interpreted adequately through the traditional/modern opposition.

There is no disagreement of Dreyfus with Williams that the Dalai Lama is "trying to modernize the Tibetans' political vision and trying to undermine the factionalism". Dreyfus discusses about a complete complete different topic which is "Modernism vs Traditionalism" within the sphere of the religion Buddhism. Williams, as I said, argues at the social-political level. This is quite of a difference. As it has been said already by other editors and as the warning template indicates, the article includes a lot of misrepresentations of sources. 213.182.68.42 (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Getting this article working

Hi. I've been asked to comment on the current state of the article. I see this article still has numerous references that are disputed as not reliable sources. You're going to have to get past these reliability disputes in order to hammer the article into shape.

An article like Sara Chamberlain's piece in New Internationalist is reputable, and should be treated as such, even if some editors feel it is inaccurate. Instead of trying to have that view removed from the article, cite the information that you believe contradicts it, again referring to a reputable source. When using secondary sources, be wary of sources which seem non-neutral from the outset, such as "Buddha's Not Smiling", which the Publishers Weekly review described as "highly biased". Only use such sources when the same information is not available in a more reputable source, such as a reputable academic publisher, and if you must use such sources you should explain in the article text (not just in a footnote) who the source is and what their leanings are. E.g. "Erik Curren, an outspoken critic of the Dalai Lama, says blah-blah-blah."

It is quite reasonable to quote the Dorje Shugden Society regarding their own views, just as it is reasonable to quote the Dalai Lama regarding his own views. They are both central subjects of the article, and therefore can legitimately be used as primary sources regarding their own opinions, whether or not you agree with those opinions. Make sure such statements are clearly attributed as opinions of the named person or group.

Regarding actual events, such as protests taking place, these ought to be referenced to reputable secondary sources, or else rephrased to say "so-and-so states that such-and-such happened", if no such secondary source can be found.

Be very careful to avoid falsely putting words in someone's mouth, such as in the intro section where it states that "the Dalai Lama issued an 'explicit ban'". The use of quotes here implies you are quoting the Dalai Lama, which you are not -- in fact, he disputes that he issued an explicit ban.This is one of the key points of the controversy -- whether it is or isn't a "ban" -- and as such should really be made clear from the outset. Perhaps something like:

A controversy arose in the late 1970s when the Fourteenth Dalai Lama started to speak out against the propitiation of Dorje Shugden. This has intensified since 1996 when the Dalai Lama asked practitioners not to attend his initiations, and the Tibetan Government in Exile forbade the practice within its governmental and monastic institutions. The Dalai Lama has stated that individuals are free to continue the practice according to their conscience, but some commentators view these actions as an effective ban on all Shugden practice, rendering those who persist in the practice virtual outcasts from the Tibetan exile community.

This article contains a lot of good information and is very informative if read carefully; but it needs to get past the stage of fighting over what sources can and can't be included. Plenty of the sources flagged as unreliable look perfectly fine to me. If you don't like what they say, find other reliable sources that present a counterpoint. Fuzzypeg★ 13:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Clean Up of the last three main sections

I cleaned up the last three main sections of this article by removing all those self-published sources (WP:SPS) from anonymous blogs or anonymous web sites – everyone can create an anonymous website and can claim anything. I also inserted and represented the case of the murder of Lobsang Gyatso and of two of his students. Further I re-organized the section on claims of violence according to their chronological order. In addition I added the conspiracy to murder Tharchin, the assitant of Trijang Chogtrul Rinpoche, a plan that aimed to put the blame on the Tibetan government. I hope this is helpful. More I don’t like to engage in this twisted article. Best is to delete it and to start anew.

As an additional note the use of the word "ban" in this article is highly controversial and beyond WP:NPOV. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary defines the term "ban" as "to forbid something officially" and neither the Dalai Lama nor the CTA have totally forbidden that practice, they put restrictions to it. A "ban" would be also in contradiction with their status in the Indian society with their very limited ability to ban anything on Indian soil. The use of the word "ban" also hides the fact that in fact Tibetans and non-Tibetans can practice it in India and all over the world. It cannot be practiced in official Gelug monastic institutions but privately and Shugden worshippers have their own monasteries in India where they can and practice it. The term undermines all differentiation needed in this tricky issue. -- 213.182.68.42 (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I added that the TGIE said the never posted or asked others to post wanted posters or an "enemy list". But that an internal report for the parliament (which was requested by the same) was leaked by a parliament member. Kt66 (talk) 12:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Surely it's completely irrelevant that the TGIE didn't make the list public? It was a secret list of 'enemies' for elimination! When Edward Snowden and other security officers reveal secret Government information,the government doesn't want that making public either because it reveals what they are really up to. So it is the the case of this list of 'enemies' of the TGIE. It is for the protection of those innocent individuals that the list should have been made public Truthsayer62 (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Truthsayer62 What proofs do you have that "It was a secret list of 'enemies' for elimination!"? This is a mere claim by you, none of those persons died either. The only people who were killed were Gen Lobsang Gyatso and two of his students and then there was the trial by Shugden fanatics to kill Trijang Chogtrul’s assistant in order to put the blame on the Dalai Lama and CTA. For this proofs and documents exist. You distorted again the article by removing this information I added. If you continue like this I will report this as Vanadlism to the admin board mentioning how you in the past even deleted warning templates … Either you get more rational or it is better you leave it to contribute to WP. Kt66 (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages essay

Misplaced Pages:Criticism

• "Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies"
• "Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies".
• "Articles dedicated to controversies about a topic are generally discouraged"

Chris Fynn (talk) 14:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

the list of "10 most hated enemies of Tibet and H.H. the Dalai Lama"

I inserted a former passage that was taken out of the article that sheds some light how information has been distorted and how both sides work with information – including The New Internationalist, that didn’t verify their information from independent sources. The passage about the wanted posters or this list reads now – hopefully – more balanced:

The New Internationalist claims a list of "top ten enemies of the state", the Western Shugden Society a "Ten Most Hated Enemies of the Dalai Lama and Tibet", and the Delhi-based Dorje Shugden Devotee’s Charitable & Religious 
Society a "10 most hated enemies of Tibet and H.H. the Dalai Lama" but according to a Switzerland TV documentary this list was made after the killings of Gen Lobsang Gyatso and two of his students and the Home Minister of the TGIE, Tashi Wangdi, states that this list of ten people was a "research report", classified as an "internal document" with the remark "at the top: Only for internal use!". According to Wangdi, the parliament had ask the government to do this research in order to know "who these people are." Wangdi says that a parliament member from Bylakuppe passed on this information, "and maybe in that way they became public …".

Kt66 (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Dalai Lama did not ban Shugden

I propose the claim that the Dalai Lama banned Shugden be changed. Dr. Robert Thurman in a new article emphasizes Dalai Lama has *not* banned Shugden. Also the other schools long had animosity towards Shugden, much more than the Dalai Lama. So can we say that Dudjom Rinpoche banned Shugden? Heicth (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps instead the article can say "the Dalai Lama denounces the worship of DS" - at least that is how it is put in a recent article on Phayul.com.

BTW On the same site there is another recent article on the behaviour of Western Shugden followers by the well known Tibetan writer Jamyang Norbu - a frequent critic of the Dalai Lama. Chris Fynn (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

This is very true, the Dalai Lama never "banned" Shudgen. The Dalai Lama first issued restrictions which were, that people who practice Shugden cannot attend empowerment by him. Later the Gelug monasteries, based on the monks’ majority vote and the vote of the abbots, decided freely not to allow that practice at their places due to repeatedly experienced problems with Shugden practitioners. Then Gelug monasteries’ charter was changed (based on their and not the Dalai Lama’s decision) that Shugden practice is not allowed at their places and Shugden practitioners are not allowed at those monastic places. However, Shugden practitioners have their own monasteries where they can practice Shugden, and they are allowed to enter the exile community and to use the exile community’s facilities like schools etc. I added three sources to the article (Bob Thurman, the Dalai Lama himself, and a CTA statement) to make this clear. The Shugden people misdirected the public and the press by using the term "ban". The Dalai Lama uses a Tibetan word translatable as ‘disapprove’, or even stronger, ‘condemnation’, in the sense of to ‘consider it unworthy of doing’. -- Kt66 (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The Dalai Lama did ban Shugden and such a ban became government policy. There has been a enforced signature campaign to get people to stop the practice as well as video messages with the Dalai Lama saying there is a ban so it is futile to argue that there isn't one and an attempt to change documented history. There are also a number of reliable academic sources that say that the Dalai Lama banned the practice, so the existence of a ban is an accepted fact.

Partridge, C. H. (2004). New religions: A guide : New Religious Movements, Sects, and Alternative spiritualities. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 206: “...the Dalai Lama has consistently spoken out against such worship since 1978 and, in 1996, issued an explicit ban.”

Chhaya, Mayank (2007). Dalai Lama: Man, Monk, Mystic. New York: Doubleday. p. 189.: “There are clear reasons why I was compelled to take the extreme action of banning the worship of Dolgyal . (these are the Dalai Lama's own words)

Waterhouse, Helen (2001). Representing western Buddhism: a United Kingdom focus. quoted in Beckerlegge, G. (2001). From sacred text to internet. Religion today, v. 1. Aldershot, Hants, England: Ashgate. p. 137: “...a practice that the Dalai Lama has banned.”

Curren, Erik D. 2006. Buddha's Not Smiling: Uncovering Corruption at the Heart of Tibetan Buddhism Today. Staunton, VA: Alaya Press. p. 17: “Therefore, on March 7, 1996, the Dalai Lama's exile government in India decreed a ban on Shugden practice...

Truthsayer62 (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Article Introduction/Summary

Truthsayer62, you have clearly made edits against the wishes of the majority. kt66, Chris Fynn and I have been discussing and agreeing to the article's contents. Secondly, please don't use known fake translations of the Dalai Lama, made by NKT supporters. Lastly, according to Misplaced Pages policy at WP:IRS: "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." Thurman is an academic expert in the Gelug school. Heicth (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

How can there be a controversy if there is only one view, the view that Dorje Shugden is a spirit? What I have written is more balanced and accurate and based on Kay's widely accepted text. Please don't change the article to reflect only one view because then it makes no sense. Also, Robert Thurman's view goes against the majority view in academic circles, including those of the Dalai Lama's own words, that there is a ban and so his opinion makes no sense and is inadmissible. Truthsayer62 (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the 'fake translation' you will notice that the quote doesn't come from NKT but from a respected book and author. Please don't deny the manifest truth. Truthsayer62 (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The manifest truth is that you linked to fakely translated Dalai Lama videos on a Shugden propaganda website.Heicth (talk) 01:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Look, I'm appealing for balance here. There are two views of Dorje Shugden as explained by Kay. This dispute about the nature of Dorje Shugden is the reason why there is a controversy. It is senseless to produce an introduction/summary that doesn't explain what the controversy is. I have quoted one of the main authorities on this subject. Truthsayer62 (talk) 01:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Heicth how are we going to come to a resolution about this? My view is that the article introduction doesn't serve its purpose because it presents only one side of a controversy.Truthsayer62 (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

See the above discussion between kt66, Chris Fynn and myself. Heicth (talk) 02:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

With respect, this is not a discussion about the introduction of the article. It is also a discussion between three people on one side of a controversy. Do you agree that for the article to be useful that both sides of the controversy need to be included? Truthsayer62 (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

With respect, you do everything in your power to promote Shugden / NKT. This is not just my opinion. See the talk page for NKT, where you are mentioned. Heicth (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

it could be argued that someone who calls themselves tiredofshugden might have the opposite bias! I'm not interested in a dispute, I just want a balanced article. The introduction as it now stands doesn't make any sense as it only gives one side of the controversy. I wrote a balanced introduction giving both sides according to David Kay who is a recognised academic authority on this subject and quoted directly from his book. What is your objection to this content? Truthsayer62 (talk) 08:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The issues of ban, Thurman etc. were already discussed by KT66, Chris Fynn and myself above. You just don't like it. Heicth (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You're right, I don't like it because it's not fair, balanced or accurate but let's be reasonable about this. I will propose a change and we can discuss it and come to a consensus. I believe this will improve the article and include all points of view which is better for the end user of Misplaced Pages. These articles should be accurate. Truthsayer62 (talk) 08:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Kt66 said recently that this article is still unbalanced in your favor. Heicth (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change to article Introduction/Summary

The problem I see at the moment is that the article doesn't give a balanced view or overview of the controversy but is merely a one sided view and criticism of Dorje Shugden and the practice. There are two sides to every story and indeed, that's why there is a controversy. This is my proposition:

Dorje Shugden, also known as Dolgyal, is a controversial protector of the Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism. There are two views of Dorje Shugden. One view holds that Dorje Shugden is a ’jig rten las ’das pa’i srung ma (an enlightened being) and that, whilst not being bound by history, he assumed a series of human incarnations before manifesting himself as a Dharma-protector during the time of the Fifth Dalai Lama. Opposing this position is a view which holds that Dorje Shugden is actually a’jig rten pa’i srung ma (a worldly protector) whose relatively short lifespan of only a few centuries and inauspicious circumstances of origin make him a highly inappropriate object of such exalted veneration and refuge.

Dorje Shugden's enlightened nature has been debated since his appearance in the 17th century. With the current Dalai Lama's growing public opposition to the practice, this debate has escalated into what is known as the Dorje Shugden controversy.

I'd be grateful for any comments from the other editors. Truthsayer62 (talk) 08:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

There is already consensus on the edits. What you are doing is just a) creating new threads, b) moving my own comments around, and c) also minimizing the drastic nature of your edits.Heicth (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but the article is biased at the moment as I have said. The article is a dynamic thing and not fixed, and can be edited by anyone so please give me your comments on the proposed change. That's how things work around here. Truthsayer62 (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It's true that I have proposed a change that is less than I originally included because I'm trying to reach an acceptable comprise that we can all agree on. I'm trying to collaborate and as you will see it contains both sides of the story from a reliable source. If you don't find it acceptable, suggest some change or alternative. I'm not going away, we are going to improve this article. Truthsayer62 (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

And as Kt66 said yesterday, this article is biased in your favor. Heicth (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You just keep repeating the same thing. I will give you a little more time for constructive comments and then if none are forthcoming, I will make the change. The article needs to be WP:NPOV. If you revert the change having been given the opportunity to collaborate I will consider it an edit war and have to report you. It can't be taking this long to make constructive changes to the article. Please, let's collaborate. Truthsayer62 (talk) 09:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't even make any sense. You are only giving the option of having your way. Heicth (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Truthsayer62

The manipulation of Misplaced Pages by New Kadampa cult editors is explained on the Talk:New Kadampa Tradition page and the user page of Kt66. While 3 users (kt66, Chris Fynn and myself) were patiently discussing, editing and agreeing on the article in a careful manner, User:Truthsayer62 deleted pretty much all the best academic material in the article. Also note the shenanigans of other New Kadampa editors. Now on the Talk:Dorje Shugden Controversy talk page, he just creates new threads and minimizes the drastic nature of his edits. If this user has his own way (despite both talk page and edit consensus), we will see the deletion of academic references and the use of NKT blogs as references. Heicth (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Why are you making this personal? I'm just trying to improve the article. Truthsayer62 (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

No you keep going against the consensus. Heicth (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

"Improving" an article does not mean making it better fit ones own beliefs, opinions or views - and a consensus should mean the article fairly represents the consensus of opinion found in reliable secondary sources on the subject - and not just a consensus of what editors may believe or think about the subject of the article. Chris Fynn (talk) 11:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello. There are a number of mistakes in this article. Lets start with the introduction and work from there. What is the 'Dorje Shugden Controversy'? The introduction does not say what it is. So lets decide what it is and then it can be put in the introduction. Or maybe what different groups think it is and put in those views. There are some mistakes in this paragraph - 'the Gelug school headed by the Dalai Lamas' . The Dalai Lamas don't head the Gelug school, the Gaden Tripa does. 'Thurman notes the Chinese fueled cult of Shugden concerns exclusively the Gelug school, and not Tibetan Buddhism as a whole' - Dorje Shugden is also practised in the Sakya School. 'Dorje Shugden, also known as Dolgyal, was a "gyalpo" "angry and vengeful spirit" of South Tibet, which was subsequently adopted as a "minor protector" of the Gelug school headed by the Dalai Lamas.' The Gaden Tripa (head of the Gelug School) has in the past taught that Dorje Shugden is a Buddha and the principle Dharma Protector of the Gelug Tradition. Thanks (not too sure how to sign my posts, let me know if it hasn't signed)March22nd (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)§

Truthsayer62, March22nd, ...

Misplaced Pages articles are not supposed to contain original research - or to be summaries of "what different groups think", or to be a consensus of what the Misplaced Pages editors of the particular article happen to think or believe. A good article should summarize the views found in the majority of good reliable secondary sources on the subject say along with perhaps a brief summary of significant minority views from similar sources.

Whatever your own beliefs or opinions, Misplaced Pages is not the place for individual editors to agree with or contest what academics such as Robert Thurman, George Dreyfus, etc. have written. These people hold prestigious academic posts and are internationally acknowledged experts in Tibetan Buddhist Studies - so their books and articles on the subject count as good sources for Misplaced Pages articles. Your own or my opinions and beliefs don't. If you can come up with contrasting or complementary views on the subject in books or articles written by other similarly qualified academics then of course these should also be included in the article. However if five academic experts have written e.g. that the practice of DS as an enlightened protector arose in the 19 or 20 Century and that prior to that DS was largely considered to be a worldly protector but one academic contests this writing that DS has always been worshipped by the majority of Gelugpas as an enlightened protector then the Misplaced Pages article can present this in the article as a minority view - but you need to give each view appropriate weight and space. 5:1 does not mean that the views are equivalent or should have an equal amount of space devoted to them for "balance" or claiming to make the article present a "Neutral Point of View". (Another example: If you were writing an article about man made climate change and find 97% of noted climatologists say it is taking place and 3% say it isn't you can't claim there is a "major debate" about this, but you can say that a small minority of scientists have an opposing view.)

You may be able to find innumerable primary sources written by learned Rinpoches, Geshes, Lamas and Buddhist practitioners who have first hand knowledge of Dorje Shugden practice - but in the context of a Misplaced Pages article such sources need to be used with care and never to try and advocate a particular view.

If you are a Dorje Shugden devotee, or someone who is opposed to the practice, Misplaced Pages is not a place to advocate your own views, opinions or agenda or those of your religious teachers - no matter how sincere or right you may think these are or how wrong you think the "experts" are.

Chris Fynn (talk) 11:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Chris, you have erected a strawman. Of course Misplaced Pages articles have to contain WP:RS. I have made edits to the article that contain reliable sources (David Kay is quoted by kt66 as reliable source and he's academically published) but my changes were reverted by Heicth, so opinion is not the issue, rather an attempt to keep the article as it is because it reflects his point of view.

I want to get back to the issue of the introduction. Do you agree that at present the introduction states opinion as fact (Dorje Shugden, also known as Dolgyal, was a "gyalpo" "angry and vengeful spirit" of South Tibet), gives only one side of the controversy (Dorje Shugden is a spirit) and does not actually state what the controversy is? For all of these reasons the introduction is flawed, not neutral and need to be changed, so I propose that we work on such a change. Truthsayer62 (talk) 10:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry I didn't put any references for my statements. This is from the Misplaced Pages page of the Gaden Tripa - The Ganden Tripa or Gaden Tripa (tib. dGa’-ldan Khri-pa) ("Holder of the Ganden Throne") is the title of the spiritual leader of the Gelug (Dge-lugs) school of Tibetan Buddhism, the school which controlled central Tibet from the mid-17th century until 1950s. He is identical with the respective abbot of Ganden Monastery. The present head of the Gelugpa order is Thubten Nyima Lungtok Tenzin Norbu, the 102nd Ganden Tripa and not, as is often misunderstood, the Dalai Lama.' This webpage (http://www.loselingmonastery.org/news.php?id=13) is titled 'Gaden Tripa Supreme Spiritual Head of the Gelugpa Buddhist Tradition'. This is from Tricycle magazine - from http://www.tricycle.com/special-section/an-interview-with-geshe-kelsang-gyatso. It says in the book 'Heart Jewel' by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso (a Tibetan Dorje Shugden practioner)'There are many commentaries, rituals and sadhanas in relation to Dorje Shugden which were composed by high Sakya and Gelugpa Lamas.' (p99-100). When I wrote 'The Gaden Tripa (head of the Gelug School) has in the past taught that Dorje Shugden is a Buddha and the principle Dharma Protector of the Gelug Tradition.' I was referring to Trijang Rinpoche. I can't find to hand at the moment a reference that shows he was the Gaden Tripa but I think another editor might have one somewhere. He taught that Dorje Shugden is a Buddha - I think this is quite well know as well, it says this in the book 'Heart Jewel'. So can we agree that those statements in the introduction I was referring to are not actually correct? It's correct that they were written by those people but the actual statements are incorrect. Also, it says this - 'The NKT practises the prayer of the Protector Deity Dorje Shugden. This practice is nearly four hundred years old. The first prayer practice of Dorje Shugden, called ‘Lhundrup Döma’, was written by the Fifth Dalai Lama. Later many Lamas of the Sakya and Gelug traditions including Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche, the Spiritual Guide of the present Dalai Lama, wrote other praises and practice prayers for Dorje Shugden. All these prayers reveal that Dorje Shugden is an enlightened Buddha. Some people claim that the Fifth Dalai Lama and a Gelugpa Lama called Ngawang Chogden rejected the Shugden practice, but this is false.' in the booklet 'MODERN KADAMPA BUDDHISM' from the NKT (from here - http://kadampa.org/Modern_Kadampa_Buddhism.pdf) so the statement which is in the introduction which says 'Dreyfus says "Shuk-den was nothing but a minor Ge-luk protector before the 1930s when Pa-bong-ka started to promote him aggressively as the main Ge-luk protector." Pabongka transformed Dorje Shugden's "marginal practice into a central element of the Ge-luk tradition," thus "replacing the protectors appointed by Dzong-ka-ba himself" and "replacing the traditional supra-mundane protectors of the Ge-luk tradition.' may be incorrect and is not a view which is held by everyone. So do you agree that the introduction should be changed? My other point is that the introduction doesn't explain what the 'Dorje Shugden Controversy' actually is. Do you agree with that? Do you think someone new to this topic who read the intro would know what the 'D.S.C.' is? There's nothing on there about what has been happening from the 1990s onwards, such as the Dalai Lama's statements on the practice, the actions taken from the Tibetan Government in Exile, the effect this has had on Tibetans living in India, or the demonstrations against the Dalai Lama's actions in the 1990s, 2008, and 2014. These are I think valid reasons to change the introduction. Thanks.March22nd (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Please refer to Misplaced Pages policy on Self-published sources. I added the Ganden Tripa as the nominal head per the references we are already using. Heicth (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Tricycle magazine is not a self-published source and it states on the Tricycle page that the Gaden Tripa is the head of the Gelug Tradition. The Gelug School isn't headed by the Dalai Lama. Thanks.March22nd (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's my suggestion for the introduction. I think all the points can be sourced with suitable references but I don't have the time a the moment to add them.

"There are different views on Dorje Shugden. Some people in the Gelug and Sakya schools of Buddhism consider him to be an enlightened being, a Buddha. Others, including the current Dalai Lama, consider him a spirit which damages the life of the Dalai Lama and harms Tibet. They often refer to him as Doygal.

The Dalai Lama first criticised the Dorje Shugden practise in 1996. He said he was following the advice of the 5th and 13th Dalai Lama's. Following this, the Tibet Government in Exile based in India passed resolutions in regard to the Dorje Shugden practice and people who are Dorje Shugden practitioners. In the 1990s, 2008 and 2014 there were protests outside venues when the Dalai Lama was teaching from Dorje Shugden practitioners. They accused him of lying and of banning the practice. In response, he has said that he hasn't banned the practice and people have religious freedom. Others have accused the protesters of being funded by the Chinese Government and of the Chinese Government using the issue to damage the future of Tibet."

I think this would explain what the controversy is for someone who is new, it briefly explains both sides, and is based on factual statements. It could also be used as a template for the rest of the article. So the next section could be on statements from the DL in more detail, then there could be details on actions from the Tibetian Government in Exile, and so on. Thanks.March22nd (talk) 21:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I already added Ganden Tripa to the article. Please stop bringing that up. Also reread Chris Fynn's comment to you above. Heicth (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. At the moment the intro to this article says - the Gelug school headed by the Dalai Lamas. This is presented as a fact, not a quote. But as shown by my previous edit on this page, a reliable source(Professor Donald Lopez in Tricycle Magazine) says the Gaden Tripa is the head of the Gelug School. So it is therefore incorrect for this article to present this point as a fact when it isn't. Also, another reliable source - the book 'Heart Jewel' by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso- states that Dorje Shugden is a Buddha, was considered by many high Lamas to be the principle Dharma Proctor of the Gelug Tradition, and was practised by many Lamas in the Sakya Tradition. These statements from this reliable source are in contradiction with statements in the introduction. Therefore the introduction needs to be changed as it is incorrect and misleading. Also, it doesn't actually say what the 'Dorje Shugden Controversy' is. Would you like to suggest a new intro which is correct and explains what the DSC is? I have tried to do that in the previous edit - what do you think of my suggestion? Could my suggestion be improved? Thanks March22nd (talk) 10:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Dreyfus explains that the Ganden Tripa is just the nominal head, which I already added into the article. Please read Dreyfus. Your Lopez reference is just a blurb inserted into an interview with Kelsang Gyatso. Secondly, regarding the book "Heart Jewel", again reread Chris Fynn's comment. "Heart Jewel" is not a secondary academic source. You are not absorbing what others are explaining to you. Heicth (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Heicth. You wrote - 'You are not absorbing what others are explaining to you'. Please don't make personal comments about me on Misplaced Pages. If you do it again I will make a formal complaint about you.

I'm not doubting what Drefus wrote - it is a fact that he wrote the Dalai Lama is the head of the Gelug school. However, other sources say different things. It says on the Misplaced Pages page here - https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources on 'Identifying Reliable Sources' - Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications.

Tricycle Magazine is a high-quality mainstream publication and 'Heart Jewel' is from a high-quality mainstream publications. Also the book 'Heart Jewel' has been used as a reference on 5 other Misplaced Pages pages, including the page for Je Tsongkapa. If it can be used for those pages then it can be used for this one. So therefore those are reliable sources which disagree with what's in the introduction to this article. Thanks March22nd (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

You are not absorbing what other people are telling you. Chris Fynn clearly said such primary sources written by Geshes, lamas etc. are not proper. Heicth (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Where in Misplaced Pages does it say that 'primary sources written by Geshes, lamas etc. are not proper'? I mean where in the rules of Misplaced Pages. Thanks.March22nd (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Edits to this article

As this is quite a contentious subject and edits to this page have been reverted by editors, it is important, as Heicth has said to get consensus, therefore any changes to the article need to be agreed on the talk page first. Please don't change this article without consensus. Truthsayer62 (talk) 10:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Chinese government involvement

This section is very biased and is much less WP:NPOV than it used to be. It states as facts that 'Shugden activity' (whatever that is!) is financed by the Chinese government but neither the CTA, the Dalai Lama nor Robert Thurman have ever shown any evidence that this is the case. It's easy to make accusations but if these are not backed up with evidence, it's libel. Before the section used to say 'claims of Chinese government involvement' and this is more accurate, therefore I propose that the title be changed back to it's original and there will be other changes required as well which I will propose later. Do you agree that the title should change? Truthsayer62 (talk) 10:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

@Truthsayer62: Be careful about using the word "libel". Libel and slander are terms with legal ramifications, and accusing someone of such actions could be perceived as making a legal threat. It is routine for editors to be blocked for making legal threats until and unless such threats are unambiguously retracted. I personally don't believe that your intent was to make a legal threat, but others might draw different conclusions, so just try to use different terminology in the future. -- Atama頭 15:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I made a suggestion for the introduction. No-one has commented on it. What do people think of it? Is it better or worse than the current introduction? My suggestion was -

"There are different views on Dorje Shugden. Some people in the Gelug and Sakya schools of Buddhism consider him to be an enlightened being, a Buddha. Others, including the current Dalai Lama, consider him a spirit which damages the life of the Dalai Lama and harms Tibet. They often refer to him as Doygal.

The Dalai Lama first criticised the Dorje Shugden practise in 1996. He said he was following the advice of the 5th and 13th Dalai Lama's. Following this, the Tibet Government in Exile based in India passed resolutions in regard to the Dorje Shugden practice and people who are Dorje Shugden practitioners. In the 1990s, 2008 and 2014 there were protests outside venues when the Dalai Lama was teaching from Dorje Shugden practitioners. They accused him of lying and of banning the practice. In response, he has said that he hasn't banned the practice and people have religious freedom. Others have accused the protesters of being funded by the Chinese Government and of the Chinese Government using the issue to damage the future of Tibet."

Thanks March22nd (talk) 11:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you could move your suggestion back to the section on the Introduction? I really wanted to discuss the Chinese government involvement section here. I like your suggestion and it's a lot more balanced than it is at the moment but it lacks references - you would really need to cite some sources. If you look at my proposed change it says something very similar to what you said in the first paragraph and this view is backed up by David Kay who everyone accepts is a reliable source. Truthsayer62 (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

1. The Guardian, London, 6 July 1996, Shadow boxing on the path to Nirvana by Madeleine Bunting
2. Dreyfus, Georges B. J. (2003). The Sound of Two Hands Clapping: The Education of a Tibetan Buddhist Monk. Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press, p. 304.
3. Are We Prisoners of Shangrila? Orientalism, Nationalism, and the Study of Tibet by Georges Dreyfus, JIATS, no. 1 (October 2005), THL #T1218, 21, section 3: The Shukden Affair and Buddhist Modernism, retrieved 2009-10-04.
4. Cite error: The named reference newint.org was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. Claimed by the Western Shugden Society. Retrieved, 13. Oct. 2013, http://www.westernshugdensociety.org/our-cause/public-announcement
6. Claimed by the Dorje Shugden Devotee’s Charitable & Religious 
Society. Retrieved, 13. Oct. 2013, http://www.shugdensociety.info/historyEvents1997EN.html
7. Self-correction of Swiss TV SF1 after a series of controversial reports on Shugden, broadcasted from 5th to 9th January 1998 »10 vor 10«, under the title »Bruderzwist unter Tibetern«. Video source: http://www.tibetonline.tv/videos/57/shugden-issue-on-swiss-tv
8. ^ Kay, David (2004). Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain: Transplantation, Development and Adaptation. RoutledgeCurzon critical studies in Buddhism. London: RoutledgeCurzon. p. 46.
9. Terhune, Lea. Karmapa: The Politics of Reincarnation. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2004. p. 143
10. von Brück, Michael (2001). "Canonicity and Divine Interference" in Dalmia, V., Malinar, A., & Christof, M. (2001). Charisma and Canon: Essays on the Religious History of the Indian Subcontinent. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. p. 331
11. Wilson, Richard, & Mitchell, Jon (2003). Human Rights in Global Perspective: Anthropological Studies of Rights, Claims and Entitlements. London: Routledge. p. 10.

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• C-Class Tibet articles
• High-importance Tibet articles
• WikiProject Tibet articles
• C-Class Alternative views articles
• Low-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles