Talk:Dorje Shugden controversy/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

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) [1] --> [2] [3]

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:

1. [4]
2. [5]
3. [6]

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:

• [7] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 ^Parley! 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 Wikipedia. See Wikipedia: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/wiki/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:

[I]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)

References

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)