Talk:Dorje Shugden controversy/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

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)

Wikipedia essay

Wikipedia: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)

References

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 [Dorje Shugden]. (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)

Heicth. The 'article' written by Robert Thurman seems to be an opinion piece or blog. Although it may be given some weight - as Thurman is a well known expert on Tibetan Buddhism and on the Dalai Lama and holds a prestigious academic post in the field - we shouldn't really give it the same weight as something he has written in one of his academic books or published in a peer reviewed journal. Remember Thurman is also well known as a devotee of the Dalai Lama, maybe even an unabashed fan, and that may possibly colour his views when writing opinion pieces and blogs like this.

Chris Fynn (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

"Ban" - what's the big deal?

Really, "ban", "prohibition", "denounced", "condemned" or "strongly advised against the practice" — what's the big deal? (Though perhaps you can come to a term for this all of you can agree on). The DL is effectively the head of the majority Gelugpa tradition - and several Gaden Tripa's have prohibited the practice as well. If they believe DS is a "demon" or "angry spirit" then it is a bit like the Pope or cardinal banning demon worship, or the worship of Santa Muerte, in churches and amongst Roman Catholics. Would anyone be surprised at that, say that he isn't entitled to ban such a practice, or call it religious persecution? (OK - A few Santa Muerte believers might.) Chris Fynn (talk) 08:15, 30 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 (

Hi Heicth, I hope this is correct protocol as I am very new to this (thanks for your patience!). I think it is fair to say that the article opens with a very one-sided view. Would you be open in any way, to some kind of intro along the lines of what truthsayer62 is indicating? something that starts off by saying there are 2 views of Dorje Shugden? If I were to put something together with references, would you be open to a change? thank you in advance. Essence37 11.50, 8 May 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)

References

Truthsayer62

The manipulation of Wikipedia 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, ...

Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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^th or 20^th 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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,[1] 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 - [Since the death of Tsongkhapa in 1419, the Ganden Tripa or “throneholder of Ganden (monastery),” has been the official head of the Gelukgpasect. Traditionally, this was an elected position. The current Ganden Tripa was appointed by the Dalai Lama. - Lopez] 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."[2] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia page here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 Wikipedia 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)

I wouldn't call either Tricycle or Heart Jewel a "Mainstream publication" - a term which is generally applied to print publications, such as newspapers and magazines that contain the highest readership among the public. Tricycle may have a fairly wide readership amongst white western Buddhists - but that is still a fairly small group. Heart Jewel was originally published by Tharpa Publications a publishing house devoted to publishing works by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, one of the main protagonists in the Dorje Shugden controversy. Their own website says: "Tharpa Publications is part of New Kadampa Tradition - International Kadampa Buddhist Union" - Geshe Kelsang's own organization. These things make the output of Tharpa Publications effectively "self publishing" of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. Chris Fynn (talk) 11:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Chris Fynn.Heicth (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

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

WP:PS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Chris Fynn (talk) 11:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Chris Fynn.Heicth (talk) 22:24, 29 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 since these are not backed up with evidence we have to say 'claim'. 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)

Thanks for your input Atama頭 I am certainly not making any kind of legal threat.Truthsayer62 (talk) 19:39, 29 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)

Motivations for Editing the article

Editors, if you are a member of the NKT, Western Shugden Society, a devotee of DS — or, on the other hand, an ex-member of the NKT now strongly opposed to this movement, or a member of a group or disciple of a lama opposed to DS practice — please familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia guidelines about conflicts of interest and advocacy. While I'm sure you have good intentions in editing this article, any involvement in groups like this (on either side), and the strong beliefs and opinions on a particular subject often held by such editors only seem to result in attempts to edit the article to bring it more into line with, or to advocate their particular point of view- which they naturally believe is "correct". On Wikipedia, a person's strongly held beliefs often seem to lead to biased editing. Wikipedia is not the place to advance beliefs and opinions, or to carry on sectarian quarrels, ideological battles, or polemics like this - even if you believe you are doing this "for the benefit of beings" or out of guru devotion. Chris Fynn (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I've declared my position on my user page Chris, have you? I hope the other editors who side with the Dalai Lama's view of things will also declare their position honestly.Truthsayer62 (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, I have let you know about this on your user talk page and also added additional info to my user page. I have also always edited under my own name and not an alias. Chris Fynn (talk) 07:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the content of this article, my only concern is that it is WP:NPOV but it is far from it at the moment. The introduction doesn't even explain what the controversy is and requires considerable rework. Truthsayer62 (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes you declared your position, so please stop editing these topics. Heicth (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Raimondo Bultrini's 'The Dalai Lama and the King Demon'

I totally agree that we should be using only reliable sources so unfortunately Bultrini's book which is more like a novel and self-published by Tibet House is inadmissible as WP:RS.Truthsayer62 (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Obviously you don't understand what self-published means. And what do you mean its like a novel? The book is fully endorsed by academic Robert Thurman, who wrote the forward to the book. Heicth (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It's self-published (Tibet House), not an academic reference and was probably not peer reviewed so it is unsuitable as an academic reference. We can debate this on the reliable sources page if you like. Truthsayer62 (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

How does Tibet House mean self-published? Tibet House is a publisher just like any other publisher. Heicth (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Tibet House is not like any other publisher. it's not third party, it's like Tharpa Publications. As you know, Tibet House is the cultural centre of the Dalai Lama and so this book is just a one-sided propaganda exercise written in the form of a novel. Truthsayer62 (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Its not written in the form of a novel, as you can see from the quotes. And it is endorsed by academic Robert Thurman who wrote the forward. Lastly, Tibet House is just a regular publisher.Heicth (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's like Robert Thurman published it and we know what view he has of the controversy. The book is unsuitable to be used because it's not an academic peer reviewed reference and is not neutral in its approach which is what is required of an academic reference. Truthsayer62 (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

See the above comments of Chris Fynn regarding Robert Thurman.Heicth (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Heicth – I think is probably fair to distinguish between what Robert Thurman writes in academic journals and scholarly publications or lectures he gives at an academic conference, — and what he says in his role as a pro-Tibet activist and student of the Dalai Lama or when he expresses a personal opinion. The former would count as solid primary sources the latter maybe only as an expert on the subject expressing a personal opinion. If he is publishing in an academic journal or presenting a paper at an academic conference it will be Peer review - so that has more credibility. Chris Fynn (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Raimondo Bultrini is a respected Italian journalist who is the Asia correspondent for la Repubblica. He did 10 years of research on his book "Il demone e il Dalai lama" - which is a long piece of in-depth Investigative journalism by a professional, not a "novel". Bultrini interviewed people on both sides of the issue including several prominent pro-Shugden lamas, members of the Dorje Shugden Charitable Society and critics of the Dalai Lama. He also had several extended interviews with the Dalai Lama about DS and interviewed members of the Indian police who investigated the 1997 murder of Geshe Lobsang Gyatso and two other monks in Dharamsala. He cites his sources in the book. The English version of the book, translated by Maria Simmons, was originally to be published by Hay House - but, I'm told, they and other publishers backed out when they received threats of legal action from expensive lawyers representing pro-Shugden organisations - which is why the publication of the English version ended up with Tibet House. Anyway the book was originally published in Italian by another publisher. Chris Fynn (talk) 03:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The original publisher was Baldini & Castoldi--Auric talk 15:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

References

Truthsayer62's claim that the Bultrini book is not RS

As usual, Truthsayer62 is using constantly changing arguments to discount a secondary source which he disagrees with, just like he does with the great academic Robert Thurman, who by the way wrote the forward to the book.Heicth (talk) 22:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Kay

I'm attempting to make the introduction WP:NPOV and to actually state what the controversy is. At the moment, it's just a rant against Dorje Shugden and is really unsuitable to represent the controversy. I therefore changed the introduction but Heicth reverted it claiming that I had misrepresented Kay, even though I quoted directly from his book. Perhaps Heicth would like to say in what way this is misrepresented when it's a direct quote? Truthsayer62 (talk) 07:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Current views have nothing to do with historical truths. You are mixing up two different topics. You deleted the academic info from Dreyfus who says that Shugden was a gyalpo and an angry vengeful spirit. For example, the Padmasambhava article should also mention that Padmasambhava is 99.9% nonhistorical. Heicth (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm saying what Kay says - there is no misrepresentation. For 350 years Dorje Shugden has been regarded as an enlightened being and you can't change history in a few decades. You are stating one view of Shugden, which is just a view. There are two views of Dorje Shugden and for the article to be truthful and neutral, both must be included. Truthsayer62 (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

False. Kay clearly states several times this view started only with Phabongkha. For example Kay says "the elevation of Dorje Shugden’s importance and status under Phabongkha and Trijang Rinpoche". And Kay specifically says the two views are unequal: "Scholarly English language accounts of Dorje Shugden reliance seem to corroborate the latter of the two positions emerging from within the Tibetan tradition, suggesting that the status and importance of this protective deity has undergone a process of gradual elevation from around the time of Phabongkha Rinpoche."Heicth (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Truthsayer62's constant denial of Chinese involvement

A tiny sample from Bultrini's book with Thurman's foreward:

"In March 1998, shortly after we met, these two men were in Kathmandu, Nepal, with other Shugden followers and a member of the Communist Party of the Autonomous Region of Tibet, Gungthang Ngodup, who had come especially from Lhasa. A few days afterwards, wrote Director Ngodup, an adviser from the Chinese embassy in Nepal, one “Mr. Wang,” visited Ganchen’s house. As far as he could determine, the discussion revolved around the type of collaboration to be established between the Shugden followers and the Chinese authorities, including possible financial support. In December of the same year, as reported by the Indian Express and the Tribune, the under-secretary of the Chinese embassy in Delhi, Zhao Hongang, went to the Ganden Monastery in India, accompanied by a devotee from Bylakuppe, Thupten Kunsang, and a monk who had arrived from Sera Mey. In July 1999, also in Kathmandu, other meetings were held between pro-Shugden activists and Chinese representatives. This time, “Mr. Wang” met with Chimi Tsering and other directors of the Delhi “Shugden Society,” Lobsang Gyaltsen, Konchok Gyaltsen, Gelek Gyatso, and Soepa Tokhmey, the society’s treasurer. After the final meeting, a letter was drafted to be presented to the United Front Department of the Communist Party to ask for help in countering those discriminating against Shugden practitioners in India…. In January 2000, after the meeting in Kathmandu between representatives of the cult and the Chinese emissaries, the Nepal National Dorje Shugden Society was born, with an office and a full-time staff of three, paid—according to the Dharamsala Security Services—with Communist Party funds funneled through the Chinese embassy. Ganchen Tulku was on the Committee of Consultants. ….Despite the formal denials of the cult’s practitioners, the common strategy of the Chinese authorities by now was obvious. In 2001 the Chinese ambassador was guest of honor at “The Millennium Conference on Human Rights” organized by the Shugden Devotees Religious and Charitable Society of Delhi and held March 20–22 at the most prestigious venue in the Indian capital, the India International Centre. If the reports of the pro-Shugden convention financed by the embassy were only “rumor” spread by World Tibetan News, the ambassador’s presence at the Millennium Conference was hard to reconcile with his routine duties as a diplomat."

Heicth (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

This is hardly evidence, it's just what one person has written in a book. There are no pictures, no receipts, no documented evidence, just hearsay and there is no documented academic source that is making such allegations. We can include it but it must remain as a 'claim' not as a statement of fact. Truthsayer62 (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The continued legalistic nonsense of Truthsayer62

Explain why the facts documented by Ben Hillman (in academic journal of the University of Chicago) or Bultrini (see Chris Fynn's comment) are "hearsay". Explain why Wikipedia is a place for you to dispute and delete reliable sources despite numerous warnings from other users.Heicth (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It is necessary for this article to present a neutral and balanced account of the controversy which means if there is more than one view, is must be presented. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to spread propaganda about how Dorje Shugden is an evil spirit backed by the Chinese. Let's present a balanced view please and stop making things personal. Truthsayer62 (talk) 08:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Explain why the facts documented by Ben Hillman (in academic journal of the University of Chicago) or Bultrini (see Chris Fynn's comment) are "propaganda". Explain why Wikipedia is a place for you to dispute and delete reliable sources despite numerous warnings from other users.Heicth (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yet again, Truthsayer62 deleted RS and inserted non-RS Shugden websites despite consensus and wikipedia policies.

Moreover Kay says "Ling Rinpoche, who was from Drepung monastery, was not a devotee of Dorje Shugden."

And Man, Monk, Mystic actually quotes the Dalai Lama as saying: "However, everyone is completely free to say....We will not change our tradition of propitiating Dolgyal."

So Truthsayer62 is lying again. Heicth (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Someone wrote and asked me "Is it proper for [XXXX] to insert a large amount of Shugden websites at Dorje Shugden Controversy?"

Any article should rely mainly on neutral secondary sources - if really necessary, primary sources may be used (sparingly) as well. An encylopedia article should reflect the balance of current academic opinion on the subject- and not what "pro" or "anti" advocates of the subject (or you or I) happen to think or beleive is right. In this case it seems Shugden devotees are not happy with anything that doesn't reflect their own rose tinted view of Shugden as some Buddha and any history that does have a hagiographical tone or agree with the myth of Shugden as taught to them by their teachers - whose words they consider to be fact. Of course nobody can actually prove anything about Shugden as he isn't a physical entity and anything any lama says about him is belief not fact. However scholars can determine quite a lot about the history of the practice and development of beliefs about Shugden from carefully investigating textual sources and histories. It is not the place of Wikipedia editors to do their own research on the subject or inject material from what others might be consider dodgy or questionable sources.

Pro or anti "Shugden websites" are quite obviously not neutral sources - they were created just to put forward a particular POV - so I think quotes from any "Shugden website" (and similar sources) should only be be used sparingly and with caution - if at all. On a controversial subject like this, any illustrative quotes from sources on one side or other side of the issue also need to be flagged as such.

There is other hard evidence scholars may use too - archaeology, art, artifacts, etc. In this case it is significant that the Tibetan art historian Jeff Watt has noted Shugden does not appear in any known Gelugpa "refuge tree" thangkha paintings until the 20th century - a notable omission. If Shugden was considered one of the main protectors of the Gelugpa tradition before that date why was he not included? Of course some much older "refuge tree" paintings including Shugden may turn up one day - in which case scholars will have to change their views - but until then the current art historical evidence is that Shugden was not considered a main protector by Gelugpas until the date paintings which include him as a main protector. The advantage of this sort of evidence is that it cam be reliably dated. Some contemporary lama may write that another lama back in the 15th century wrote this or that about Shugden and devotees may accept this as fact. But unless we have a physical text actually printed in the 15th century or a manuscript written at the time there is no hard proof.

Anyway I think a good article could be written on Dorje Shugden relying only on peer reviewed academic sources. No need to quote from any pro or anti Shugden websites or books put out by publishers tied to organisations on one side of the debate about Shugden or the other. However for how long would Shugden devotees and anti Shugden campaigners leave such an article alone? I suspect such an article would soon be once again subject to endless edit wars.

Chris Fynn (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

"Neutral and Balanced"

Someone wrote above: "It is necessary for this article to present a neutral and balanced account of the controversy which means if there is more than one view, is must be presented.". The trouble is devotees of Shugden lamas on one hand and devotees of the Dalai Lama (and other anti-Shugden campaigners) on the other will never agree on what a "neutral and balanced account" of this issue is. The edit wars on this article almost since its inception are ample proof of this. An encyclopaedia article should not reflect what Wikipedia editors doing their own research happen to believe is "neutral and balanced". What a good encyclopaedia article should be is a neutral and balanced summary of what current academic sources say about the subject. Individual editors may think the academic sources are wrong or right - and of course academic opinion may change over time as new evidence comes to light and more research is done on the subject. As I've said above, a good article could be now be written on Dorje Shugden reflecting the consensus of current academic opinion on the subject and to avoid argument relying only on peer reviewed academic sources. Would current editors of this article agree to something like that - or are editors more interested trying to see that the article reflects their own beliefs about Shugden and their own partisan view of the Shugden controversy? Chris Fynn (talk) 07:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. The book 'Heart Jewel' by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso is mentioned under the reference section on the Wikiepdia article for Je Tsongkapa. It is also used a source for the Wikiepdia article on Panchen Sonam Dragpa. If it can be used on these articles, can it be used on this article?

The article on Tara uses sources by Snow Lion Publications and Shamabala Publications. If it is okay to used sources from these publications in this article can publications from Tharpa Publications be used in this article?

Various newspapers in the USA had information recently about the demonstrations outside talks given by the Dalai Lama. These included Reuters and the Washington Post. Can these be used as sources for this article?

As for a neutral and balanced article, I suggested an introduction a few weeks ago which I felt summed up both sides. I didn't add references as I wanted to wait until it was going on the main page before doing more work. What do editors think of that introduction I suggested? Good or bad?

Thanks March22nd (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on Je Tsongkhapa contains a single quote from Heart Jewel which is in fact just a quote from somewhere else ('jam-dpal rtsa-rgyud or Manjusri Root Tantra) Other translations of the sane quote can be found in other sources as well. All the other sources used in the Je Tsongkhapa article (except the link to http://www.nyackbuddhism.org/k - which isn't a proper reference) are to very good academic sources.

Shambhala Publications and Snow Lion Publications, although not strictly academic publishers, are independent publishers not associated with any particular religious group or sect. Snow Lion is now owned by Shambhala Publications. Shambhala / Snow Lion do publish books by many well known academics, as well as books by well known Buddhist teachers of all traditions, and other authors. They are distributed by Random House. On the other hand Tharpa Publications was set up to publish books "by Buddhist author and scholar Geshe Kelsang Gyatso" - one of the main players in the Dorje Shugden controversy. (They do not seem to publish any significant books by anyone else.) So in this matter it cannot be regarded as neutral. Tharpa Publications us also not an independent publisher - it was established by a devotee of Geshe Kelsang and any profits apparently go to NKT related organisations. (

Yes Reuters and the Washington Post are acceptable "mainstram press" sources (but they are press reports not academic sources which are preferable when they are available) - Any quotation should be representative of the whole source document and editors should be very careful to avoid misrepresentation of the argument in the source. Selective quotes used to buttress one side of an argument are not acceptable.

The introduction you suggested earlier was already commented on at the time you made it.

Chris Fynn (talk) 08:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Sources

Poor sources for an encyclopaedic article like this includes all material based on faith in lamas or gurus and what they have said or written — rather than in any critical study of scholarly Western-language materials on the subject; all material that uncritically accepts miracles attributed to Buddhist masters, deities, protectors, or supernatural beings; hagiographical accounts of a persons life rather than critical biographies or critical studies of traditional biographical materials; and material that uncritically accepts traditional genealogies, supposed re-incarnations, and super-mundane or super-natural visions, deeds etc.. Uncritical translations of Tibetan texts are also rather poor sources.

Although they may be given some credence, blogs or opinion articles written by scholars who are experts on the subject are nowhere near as good sources as are properly referenced and peer reviewed articles written by the same people and published in an academic journal or presented at an academic conference.

Articles published in mainstream newspapers or media may be good sources for accounts of contemporary events they are reporting but when as 'background' these articles stray into trying to explain areas of Tibetan religion the journalist probably has no real expertise on, they may be poor sources. Often the journalist is just repeating or paraphrasing whatever their particular informants tell them or claim about these things.

Chris Fynn (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Another problem is that the media have often poorly investigated the claims and reported what they believed or was told to them without sober background knowledge and in almost ALL cases, they missed to contact or asked academic experts. Although Time magazine at least asked Robert Barnett, Barnett complained of having been misrepresented. Now all these distortions of events, backgrounds and facts are in the article. A total mess. I would recommend to clean up the article by strictly abiding with academic sources and than at the end to add a section of media coverage. Then at least there would be a reliable basis at the beginning. Kt66 (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with both of you on these problematic media accounts.Heicth (talk) 16:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

strange claims in the article

I removed this strange claim:

On July 17, 2008, a large mob of Dalai Lama supporters, who had been attending one of the Dalai Lama's teachings at the Radio City Music Hall in New York, clashed with Shugden protestors after the event, spitting, screaming, and throwing money at them, indicating that they believed that the Shugden protestors were paid by the Chinese government. The New York riot police led the protestors away to safety.

because 1) it leaves out the fact that at that time the Tibetans gathered to listen to the Dalai Lama in a benefice event and that the Western Shugden Society was provoking them with their abusive slogans. 2) Also this type of one-sided phrasing as given here is not in those articles quoted and it leaves also out the fact that there were also Tibetans that cooled down some upset Tibetans. The passage is unbalanced and one-sided. Thats why I deleted it for the time being until it is either made neutral or quoted correctly. Kt66 (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

This article has two "Further Reading" sections

This article has two "Further Reading" sections. Please correct.Heicth (talk) 06:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

pure religious issue

I balanced Chandler’s view that the Shugden issue is purely religious by quoting Dodin who holds a opposite view. Kt66 (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

misrepresentation and spin of sources

The article has still material that if from the former highly manipulated Shugden article that included a lot of misrepresentation of sources. I marked that in the article. The misrepresentations try to make the reader thinking that claims were facts or they quote out of context to give a wrong impression. I think the whole section from the template I inserted onwards needs to be checked by consulting the sources. I lack time to do that. Kt66 (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Introduction

Hi! The introduction does not actually explain what the controversy is about! Does anyone have any ideas how to improve this? Kjangdom (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The DS controversy relates to the controversy between Tibetan Buddhists (whichever groups, I dunno) who practice the veneration/worship of DS, and the Dalai Lama and his particular order. In (year), the DL said (whatever), which indicated that he did not find worship/veneration of DS acceptable in his particular TB tradition. Since that time, a dispute has arisen between the DL and his supporters and those who have historically worshipped or venerated DS regarding the acceptability of DS verneration and the denominational status of those TBs who continue to venerate DS.

Acknowledging the abbreviations, and the fact that I don't know right off all the details involved, something along the lines of the above, without the abbreviations and blanks of course, might be an acceptable first paragraph. John Carter (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC).

Hi. I suggested this as an introduction a few months ago but I didn't get a lot of feedback. I'm confident that sources can be used to support these statements, I'm not at the moment going to put time into looking for them if this won't be added to the article, but if we decide to use this text or something similar then we can look for the sources.

"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." — Preceding unsigned comment added by March22nd (talk • contribs) 19:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC) March22nd (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks good, as the starting point of discussion. I agree that the first paragraph should relate to Dorje Shugden and his/its status within Tibetan Buddhism as per the recent statements of the Dalai Lama. A second paragraph could deal with the various statements by the Dalai Lama and his Government in Exile regarding the status of Dorye Shugden worshippers. A third might cover how Dorye Shugden venerators/worshippers reacted in the short term to those statements, and a fourth might cover the matters of protests, protest groups, and the like. Four paragraphs for now if the greatest recommended length of a lead section, and I think it would make sense to take advantage of the opportunity of using all four paragraphs to allow for summary of all the basic points involved. John Carter (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

March22nd... Yet again reread the comments of Chris Fynn, since you continuously propose the same thing over and over again.Heicth (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

As per WP:TPG, please comment on the proposal itself, rather than making apparent personal aspersions on other editors, and, if possible, maybe directly address the nature of the changes proposed. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I've tried to rework the intro so that it describes the actual controversy in hand (i.e. the ban, and resulting ostracization) and to bring the article article up to date by mentioning the recent demonstrations (which also form part of the controversy. I've also included a number of valuable sources that used to be in the article describing the ban. Does anyone have a reference we can use where the Dalai Lama says "there is no ban". That would be useful. I think that the introduction is still too long and that some of the later paragraphs should be removed but we can come back to that. Kjangdom (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)